No Subject

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

Melynda writes: I remember a public debate some years ago, during the
fight over Proposition One, in which Greg Dickison, an attorney and
frequent contributor to *Credenda Agenda,* the magazine edited by Doug
Jones, advocated stoning as an appropriate (and biblically sanctioned)
punishment for gays and lesbians. Is execution the ultimate goal for
those of us who don't accept Doug's exhortation to "abandon
fruitlessness?" 

As it happens I was one of the panelists that night, and I remember that
debate well. At the conclusion of the debate a gentleman to my left in
the audience, hoicked up a sign that said "No hate here." With
his free hand he was flipping me off. He was apparently unburdened by any
sense of irony.

And what Greg actually did was refuse to apologize for any portion of the
Bible when he was presented with a loaded question. Presented with the
same loaded question, I am not about to shuffle my feet with
embarrassment. I am a Christian who believes the Bible, and it says what
it does about homosexual and heterosexual sins alike. But the agitprop
out-of-state crowd that night (signs on virtually every lap) was in no
mood for any careful exegetical answers. I actually had a note prepared
for the moderator asking him to call the cops in case it became
necessary. One of the homosexual participants on the panel that night
later wrote me a note of apology for the behavior of the crowd. So I
wouldn't bring up that night as a shining example of what you all mean by
tolerance and diversity. If anyone felt threatened that night, it wasn't
the gays.

As for the question whether execution of homosexuals is our ultimate
goal, the answer is that the Christian faith is not established by the
sword, but rather through preaching the gospel and living the gospel
persuasively in our lives. But at the same time, note that if (centuries
down the road) a Christian legal order does develop, it will reflect a
Christian ethic--just as the Enlightenment legal order currently reflects
an Enlightenment ethic. We happen to believe a Christian community would
be far more tolerant than the one we live in now. So the question is not
whether certain behaviors will be outlawed, but which and how many
behaviors will be outlawed and on what basis. By what standard? as
I am fond of asking.

Melynda writes: "Moscow, Latah County, and the state of Idaho offer
little protection for those citizens who are gay or lesbian: there are no
laws or policies protecting our employment, our housing, or our families.
We can be fired or evicted without any other cause than our sexual
orientation . . ."

As a case in point: Notice that she is actually calling for laws that
would force the elderly Lutheran widow Schwartz to rent out her
apartment to a homosexual couple. I understand why you would do this
(imposing morality is inescapable). All law is imposed morality. The only
question is which morality shall be imposed. You are currently imposing
your morality on us.  What I don't understand is why you all can't
see that this is what you are doing.

So things may change sometime centuries down the road. But when this
happens, you need to know that both believers and non-believers would
have a great deal more freedom in their lives than they currently do.