Here's the latest back-and-forth between myself and Cedric Hohnstadt (who, by the way, has a website full of fine drawings here). I don't believe I've ever met Cedric but over the years, he's sent me some of the most thoughtful and civil disagreements with things I've posted here. One of my natural prejudices against someone like Kim Davis who believes —
Hold on. I just got a call from a woman who said she's calling from the "Windows Technical Department with regard to my computer." I said to her, "No, you're not from the Windows Technical Department. You're a scam artist who wants my passwords and credit card numbers" and she hung up. Anyway, where was I?
Oh, right: As I was saying, Ms. Davis seems to believe she has God whispering in her ear so she could not possibly be wrong about any of this. There's no point even talking with people like that. I like talking with people who don't try to end discussions that way and I appreciate folks like Cedric. Here's his latest and my replies…
Thanks very much for taking time to respond to my email on your blog. I really appreciate your civility and you always make me think. Please take my comments in the friendliest and most respectful way possible.
First, you wrote, "You're not supposed to 'compromise' when people receive equal rights." This actually brings up an important question: Just where exactly do our rights come from? Are they bestowed upon us by human governments? If so, those same governments can take them away. Also, any such rights would be fluid and temporary, not transcendent and absolute. Or are our rights "endowed by our Creator" as the Declaration of Independence states? If so, then our rights have a clear religious aspect to them. How you answer that question will affect how you view the gay marriage issue.
I don't think our rights are bestowed on us by anyone. I think they come automatically from being human beings with brains and you become one of those whether you believe in a divine creator or not.
I once had a big argument with a fiercely-proselytizing evangelical-type who argued that if you don't believe in the Ten Commandments, you don't believe killing is wrong. My position is that you don't have to believe in any religion to know killing is wrong. Atheists know it just as much as those who swarm to church on Sundays.
It's kind of hard-wired into rational thinking at birth. We have common sense about lots of things that aren't taught to us by any authoritative power, be it government or religion. Did anyone have to teach you to fall in love at the right (or even the wrong) moments?
Second, you made an analogy to segregation in the civil rights era. I find it interesting that many of the same people who praised Martin Luther King Jr. for his civil disobedience (and rightly so), and who praised mayors and governors for issuing gay marriage licenses before they were legal, are now the same people who say to Kim Davis, "The law is the law." Personally I believe people should be slow to engage in civil disobedience, and be prepared to accept the consequences if they do (which Davis has done). I'm not 100% sure I agree with her stance, but I also think that many of her critics have forfeited the right to condemn her for not having a strict regard for the law.
I think there's quite a gap between Martin Luther King Jr. and Kim Davis. Dr. King was not a government employee demanding to remain in his job and collect a paycheck while not doing what his job required him to do. Ms. Davis is like someone who seeks conscientious objector status in the Army but still wants to be in the Army and be paid for being in the Army but to be allowed to pick and choose which orders she will and will not follow.
If you don't want to follow orders, you shouldn't be in the army. And if you don't want to enforce the rules of issuing marriage licenses, you shouldn't be in the job where you're supposed to issue marriage licenses.
If Ms. Davis wanted to lead marches and engage in the kind of civil disobedience Dr. King employed…well, I'd think she was advancing a bigoted, wrongheaded and futile cause but I wouldn't think she didn't have the right to do that. What she can't do is do it from her position of responsibility within the government and use that position to deny licenses to people she thinks should not have them.
It's interesting to note the number of prominent opponents of Gay Marriage who are not on her side over this — folks like Rod Dreher or Charles C.W. Cooke. I don't agree with those guys on very much — and not even about all aspects of this matter — but they and many other conservatives think it's wrong for a government official to do what she says God told her to do.
Back to Cedric once again…
Finally, you made a side comment about the Bible teaching that people should be executed for working on the Sabbath or not staying virgins until marriage. This is based on a common misconception. There are actually three types of laws in the Old Testament: Civil laws (i.e., capital punishment), religious laws, and moral laws. The civil and religious laws were intended only for the nation of Israel and only for a set period of time. It is only the moral laws that are applicable to all people everywhere. Bible critics mix these up all the time and it's a straw man.
Bible advocates mix them up all the time, too. That's my point. Way too many people in this world reach into that book, yank out a passage they can claim supports their position and then say, "See? That's the final word on the subject direct from God. It's settled!" Believe me. I've spent way too much of my life being lectured by people who believed that a position, however stupid, becomes inarguable once it's buttressed by some Bible quote that may or may not mean what they say it does. If your position makes sense, you ought to be able to explain why without that.
Opponents of abortion often cite Deuteronomy 30:19 as guidance as to when life begins. Others say that ain't what that passage is talking about. I don't even pretend to have an opinion on that. I just note that there is not total agreement on it; that most issues which are controversial when you don't involve the Bible are still controversial when you do. That's one reason why we don't base our laws in this country on this kind of thing. Another, of course, is that we have no national religion, a decision of our Founding Fathers that I believe is part of the genius of America.
Sorry for the long email. I'm not saying I 100% agree with how Davis has handled this (maybe she should have resigned?), but throwing people in jail for defending what has traditionally been the normal view of marriage feels like, well, like bullying. This liberal atheist says it better than I could. Even though we disagree, I really appreciate your friendly and respectful attitude. I've tried to reply in kind.
And I hope I have, as well. The atheist on that video has a point that there is some incivility directed at people who have not yet come to grips with or who still oppose Gay Marriage. Personally, I don't like any incivility but I don't think the scale has come close to balancing, given all the incivility that has been directed at gays being called evil and pedophiles and subhuman and so on. That's without even getting into actual harm done to them (murders, gay bashing, denial of civil rights, job discrimination, etc.) over the years — and it's not like all that has suddenly stopped or that past damages have been undone.
I have a great confidence that we are moving in the right direction in all this, however painful some of the steps may be. I believe we will see the day when people who once predicted equal rights for gays would doom mankind and end civilization as we know it will be saying, "What do you mean? I was never against gays getting married." But there will always be incivility associated with this, just as we still have incivility stemming from past incivility about racial issues that some might regard as settled. We can't always stop it among others. We can just try to cool things down and to not to contribute to the hostility. Thanks, Cedric.