[Vision2020] Seeking some definitions -- just what do you mean?

[Christopher Witmer]

Scott Dredge wrote:

"Doug has written numerous times about his disdain for homosexuals and how he
should be allowed to throw homosexuals out of his hypothetical restaurant and that
landlords should be able to refuse renting to homosexuals, etc.  Preaching
that type of discrimination against a minority group such as homosexuals is bigotry."

Scott, let's get two things clear. First, Doug Wilson is no more bigoted than the Bible, and he is no more bigoted than the framers of the Constitution. Acceptance of homosexual behavior in American society is an extremely recent phenomenon, and it is only accomplished with a rejection of the Bible and the beliefs of the framers of the Constitution. There is simply no getting around that reality. If you wish to excoriate Doug's beliefs as bigotry, you cannot avoid excoriating the religious beliefs that have been held on the basis of the Bible for the past 4,000 years. If you wish to pillory Doug for his opposition to homosexual behavior, you must likewise pillory the framers of the Constitution for their opposition to homosexual behavior, because those men oversaw the formulation of the legislation against homosexual acts that have been on the law books until very recently. Essentially, to be consistent you have to say that the entire basis of American civilization is bigotry. But if you are consistent and say that, it puts you in the position of seeking, as it were, the overthrow of American civilization. I am of the position that just such a moral revolution has taken place in American society since the 1960s. Essentially, you and the people who began this ethical rebellion back in the 1960s are allied in an attempt to overthrow the very basis of American civilization, which is biblical morality.

Second, you need to see that your position is extremely hypocritical. This is what I have been emphasizing ever since I started posting on V2020 again the other day. I can't speak for Doug, but I actually believe that you, Joan, Keely, Rose, and anyone else who wants to call for a boycott of Christian businesses ought to have the legal right to do so. That is entirely consistent with my belief that if Doug really does think he ought to be allowed to throw homosexuals out of his hypothetical restaurant and that landlords should be able to refuse renting to homosexuals, Doug and those landlords should also have the legal right to exercise stewardship of their own property according to the dictates of their consciences. This is where you and I part ways. On the one hand, you DON'T think landlords should have the right refuse homosexuals, but on the other hand you DO think it is fine for people to call for a boycott of Christian businesses. You are being inconsistent and hypocritical in a way that I am not.

By the way, I believe you are quite mistaken when you say that Doug believes women should not have the right to vote. But even if he did believe that, he certainly believes in the rule of law, and the law is what it is.

Again, I am not able to speak with authority but I am quite sure that the "slavery" Doug considers valid is not chattel slavery as practiced in the antebellum South, but rather in what could be more accurately called VOLUNTARY indentured servitude (as for the payment of debts), which would have a term limit of six years. (The Bible always allowed that a fellow believer who was a slave could not be held against his will; he could leave if he was abused by his master.) The primary exception to the preceding -- the voluntary nature of the relationship and the term limits -- would be in the case of criminals who were paying off their debts to their victims. Criminals would remain enslaved until the indemnification of the damages incurred by the victim was complete, at which time their sentence would also be complete. By the way, this latter form of slavery is still allowed under the Constitution. Note the wording of the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." So what you claim is extremely "radical" is actually a good deal less radical than you might have believed. Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong here, but I strongly doubt that Doug's beliefs and teachings in this area are far from what I have just outlined above.

-- Chris
_________________________________________________________________
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger 
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline