Friday, May 11, 2012

President Obama's selective application of the Golden Rule

In appealing to the Bible as his rationale for abandoning the Biblical view of marriage, President Obama invoked the Golden Rule. It will not be the first time that political expediency has been used as a method of Biblical interpretation.

Not so fast, says Christian philosopher Francis Beckwith, who lists some of the things to which Obama does not apply the Golden Rule:
Although the president is mistaken about the Golden Rule, it would be interesting to see to what extent he is willing to apply his version of it more generously, to really “treat others the way you would want to be treated.” 
Will he extend it to the unborn or even the survivors of abortion?  
Or church-affiliated and private businesses that cannot in good conscience provide contraception and abortifacient coverage under his HHS mandate?  
Or private citizens, businesses, and charitable organizations whose moral theology forbids them from blessing or supporting same-sex unions?  
Or the Christian youngsters who were publicly bullied by White House supported activist, Dan Savage?
The implied answer is, "Not on your life." Read the rest here.

7 comments:

KyCobb said...

So does the Golden Rule apply to racist landlords whose conscience prohibits them from leasing a home to a mixed race couple?

One Brow said...

Will he extend it to the unborn or even the survivors of abortion?

How about the women who don't want to be pregnant? Shoulldn't we treat them as they want to be treated?

Or church-affiliated and private businesses that cannot in good conscience provide contraception and abortifacient coverage under his HHS mandate?

They are off the hook already. It will be provided at no cost tot he churches and private businesses.

Or private citizens, businesses, and charitable organizations whose moral theology forbids them from blessing or supporting same-sex unions?

The First Amendment already provides them protection from blessing anything.

Or the Christian youngsters who were publicly bullied by White House supported activist, Dan Savage?

Savage already apologized.

See? Done and done.

Anonymous said...

Ky and One Brow, in Beckwith's series of questions he is talking about Obama's application of the Golden Run, not Jesus'.

So, both your examples prove Beckwith's point, a preference satisfaction quid pro quo version of the Golden Rule is contentless drivel.

The real Golden Rule is about willing the other's good, which is often not the same as the other's desires.

KyCobb said...

Anonymous,

And who are you to decide that the best thing for gay couples is that they be denied the benefits of marriage laws? Racists said miscegenation was against God's law and banned it to "protect" white women.

One Brow said...

Anonymous,

You failed to demonstrate a single example from those listed where the good of the other is different from the preference selection.

Further, are you saying that people should assume they know what is good for other adults, more so than those adults themselves, and act accordingly? Do you support governments doing this?

Anonymous said...

Ky writes: "And who are you to decide that the best thing for gay couples is that they be denied the benefits of marriage laws? Racists said miscegenation was against God's law and banned it to "protect" white women."

So, you are comparing SSM advocates to racists? That's a first.

Actually miscegenation laws had nothing to do with the nature of marriage, since those that supported the laws did not deny that men and women of whatever color can marry. They just didn't want the marriages to take place in order to ensure racial purity.

On the other hand, the gay marriage question hinges on the nature of marriage. So, what is marriage? You should first tell us what it is so that we can know that we are excluding people from it unjustly. So, until you do that, then the charge of "inequality" is premature.

Moreover, for the defender of marriage, sexual orientation is irrelevant. Marriage is about men and women and the only institution that could have arisen naturally to accommodate their differences, powers, and ends.

Gay couples can no more be married than can Andrew Sullivan be a lesbian. That doesn't mean that gay couples can not love each other or that Sullivan can not hang out with the Indigo Girls and feel right at home. What it does mean is that marriage is a real thing, just as maleness and femaleness are real things. Against, this is not to diminish other types of friendships; it just means that marriage is one thing, and these other friendships are another.

If marriage has no contours, no form as they say, then there is literally no marriage. And thus to put in our culture an understanding of marriage--like gay marriage--that implies that these contours are pure fiction is in fact to undermine marriage. Just as flooding the currency with counterfeits lessens the value of real money, flooding the culture with faux marriages teaches society a mistaken view of reality. Since learning the truth for its own sake needs no other justification, that is good enough to not permit gay marriage.

KyCobb said...

Anonymous,

So you have no problem with laws that give gay couples all the right and responsibilities of marriage as long as its called a "civil union", since your only concern is linguistic purity, correct? Since every word in the English language means exactly the same thing as it did when Beowolf was written.