Editors, the Gauntlet,
Re: "Homophobic dogma enraptures Christians," Feb. 8, 2001
Brad Cooke's article suggested that religion should have no place in decisions regarding civil liberty. However, without religion what is the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour?
Anthropologists say that morals are relative to each society--essentially, there is no right and wrong. So the majority decides what is permissible. However, we need more than just the majority to provide a moral compass in today's society.
Cooke's article misrepresented the Bible and Christianity. Yes, the Bible sentences homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) and witches (Lev. 20:27) to death, but it does not condemn non-Christians to death. The cited passages (Deut. 13:6-10 and 17:2-7) call for the deaths of Hebrews who break their promises to God and worship other gods. But what about the New Testament? Jesus was more liberal and tolerant than the teachings of the Old Testament. For example, when an adulteress was brought before him, he saved her from death and condemned her not (although he did not forgive her) (John 8:1-11). His followers taught a specific way of life, forgiving the repentant and leaving the judgment to God for the non-repentant.
Yes, Christians believe a certain way of life is better than another. But hopefully, the beliefs are not based on the whims and phases of society. For the majority does not equal truth nor does politically correct equal morality. Denying religion (and not just Christianity) a voice in decisions would surely be a loss to society.