I wanted to vent my frustrations with the logical incongruities that I keep hearing.
The basic argument goes, "Your business cannot deny service to another based on your personal convictions." The underlying concept is that the business is the purview of the public sphere and the personal convictions are just that -- personal. There are a few problems with this type of thinking. Chief among them is thinking that personal convictions can (and should?) be separated from public life. Ironically, it is a personal conviction that there should be a separation between personal and public life, so from whence does the moral high-ground come? It is a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction, a law of logic that states "two opposing arguments cannot both be true." Its a fun one to remember for sure.
Secondly, the idea that those who oppose the law generally (and this is a broad stroke here) adhere to is that all points of view are equally valid. This of course is clearly under-cut because the point of view of the supporters of the law is not deemed as valid. Again, the Law of Non-Contradiction rears it's ugly head. Basically, we can sum it all up in saying those who preach tolerance have no tolerance for the intolerant. Everyone is right except for the person that says someone is wrong. Politically speaking, the easiest solution is that everyone has the right to say "no" to anyone they wish in any regard, especially when it comes to their conscience.
The response of some of my fellow Christians has been equally irksome. I have read a few posts and articles lambasting the florists and bakers for being conscientious objectors as being essentially "un-christian." The most common argument is that Jesus hung out with sinners, hookers, and tax-collectors, he drank and partied, and all those fuddy-duddies just don't understand the "real" Jesus. Never mind the fact that this come from a sub-culture of christianity that has a strong contrarian streak, this is a wrong-headed approach. The more conservative majority of christians might have a problem with tattoos and cite biblical laws that would rebuke the choice to adorn one's body with ink. But, as with all things, the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and righteousness, so how can they say, "No tattoos" and you say "Bake the cakes"? What if this is a deeply held conviction or vow that this person has made before God? What if this stand has as much meaning as that piercing or tattoo that you have? You can probably see where I am going with this -- that silly Law of Non-Contradiction again. If I may be a bit reductionist (and sarcastic), the argument seems to go like this:
"Thats not how Jesus engaged His culture! You must open your arms wide and lovingly serve!"
"Jesus didn't have tattoos. That's not how He engaged his culture either."
"Don't tell me how to live!"
But really, the bigger issue here is that sometimes we try to play the role of the Holy Spirit. It is He that convicts of sin and righteousness. You maybe correct in your assessment of the Indiana Law's motivation or in questioning the application of some segments of the church's faith to their daily lives and habits, but that only means God has shown you something that, maybe, just maybe, they have not realized yet. We so often forget that the journey of faith is progressive and messy and none of us really have it down just yet. I love the story of Apollos. The dude was strong-willed and initially had wrong convictions, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him speaking, they lovingly and quietly met with him and taught him. They spared his dignity and protected his honor. If you must correct a fellow member of the Bride, at least have the decency to do it that way.
Scroggins
P.S. Since I am minimally self-aware, by my count, my logical fallacies were Generalization, Straw-man, and Appeal to Authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment