A Response to the Far Right Concerning Gay Marriage
Mr. Far Right has claimed that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mentions the right of homosexual couples to marry. I think that it would be safe to say that a homosexual couple who wishes to marry is seeking their own definition of happiness. Did Mr. Far Right conveniently skip over the part about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that is the very spirit of both these documents?
"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest"
--On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
Next, Mr. Far Right states that homosexuality is an "abomination" to
…show more content…
In this tale, the people who leave decide that no utopia, no fair city, is worth the sacrifice of even a single child. They decide that not one tear of his suffering is worth all the splendor that comes as a result.
It is exactly this kind of sacrifice that is the very basis of Christianity. Christ was sacrificed so that we humans may enter the kingdom of heaven. We also, like the citizens of Omelas, must acknowledge the Savior in order to reach utopia, or heaven.
So let me ask this moral question: Is it morally right to knowingly take the benefits of another's suffering? Is any possible future worth such a price?
If one doesn't like using Christ as an example, let me use another.
The following argument is a summation of Ivan's argument from "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoevky.
It is a fact that children suffer in this world. I don't believe that anyone would contest the fact that the suffering of children is evil, either. (If the hideous tortured deaths of millions of Jewish children isn't evil, then I don't know what is.) Since everything that exists is a part of God's plan, then God intends children to suffer. Therefore the plan of God is evil, q.e.d.
Many Christians argue that this evil is a necessary part of a greater good, of a greater plan for the human race and spirit.
Again, I ask, is it morally right to take the benefits of the suffering of children? Is any
In the book of Genesis in the Bible, God created the heavens and the Earth and all was good. God told Adam and Eve that they can eat from all the trees in the Garden of Eden except for one, The Tree of Knowledge and Good and Evil. God was and is compassionate enough to give the beings he created freedom of choice. Nobody wants someone who is forced into love. God also does not want us to be made to love Him but wants us to do so out of our own free will. That free will that God gives us is the source of evil. Just as Adam and Eve used the free will God gave them to be disobedient and sin, human beings evil because of their freedom to do so. In addition to free will God allows evil to exist because without it, the beings he created could not develop ethically. The Problem of Evil states that God cannot be all loving, all good, all powerful and everywhere because evil exists. Philosopher, John Hicks states that evil is necessary for soul and moral development. How would humans know that is good without it counterpart for comparison? In situations like the Charleston church shooting, where loved ones lives are violently taken by evil, the families of the victims are made to develop morally. When confronted with evil, violence, and grief, they either exhibit patience, love, courage, forgiveness, acceptance, and/or faith. Otherwise they conform or give into evil and become timid, weak, angry, or even become violent themselves. Without evil our world would be blissful.
One of the main arguments used by non-believers against the existence of God is the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The term ‘evil’ is often used to describe something that is morally wrong. Philosophers make a distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from human actions that are morally reproachable, and Natural evil results from the malfunctioning of the natural world, which produces entities such as disease and famine.
The Stonewall Riots in 1969 leading to the first Gay Pride Parade in 1970 started a public discourse on LGBT rights (The Stonewall Riots). In the years to follow, two opposing mass movements manifested: the LGBT movement and the Religious Right movement. The LGBT movement aimed to get equal rights for homosexuals. The Religious Right focused on stopping the perceived moral decay of America and protecting children from lesbians and gays. While these movements had polar opposite goals, they used surprisingly similar methods to get their messages across.
Evil is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes a daily reality. To present the problem of evil you must first know that evil exists. Since God reveals himself as the all-powerful, all knowing and all good, how can the same God allow evil to exist and for bad things to happen to good people? Our suffering, as well as the suffering of others, vividly marks the presence of evil in our world. The majority of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to our family, friends, nation and ourselves. In recent news we also hear about particularly disturbing instances—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. In this paper, I will review the literature from authors Robert M. Adams,
She argues that “framing gay marriage as a religious right suggests that the parties who are harmed by marriage laws discriminating against same-sex couples include not only the individual men and women in these relationships but also the churches who support gay marriage and their members, regardless of their sexual orientation”. Even though DeLaet wrote this before the Supreme Court ruling, her argument can still be applied to the rights that gays and lesbians face in society today. The LGTB community is still striving to find acceptance among business owners who discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. These business owners cite the First Amendment and their right to express their religion freely and use it as a scapegoat to refuse service to homosexuals. However, with DeLaet’s argument, gays are also protected under the First Amendment because there are many religions that sanctify their union. The concept of freedom of religion cannot be used to grant right to one group of people while discriminating against
Evil can take different forms in different context. How evil is responded to depend on which form it takes. God responds to evil by overcoming it, and turning it into something virtuous. Why or when he chooses to overcome it, is something that is unknown. Humans can be agents or victims of evil. They can be the reason evil takes place, or they can affected by someone else’s evil. Evil done by humans is not malicious, but it has a negative effect on humanity. The world is a victim because it’s inability to choose between right and wrong, good and evil. The world is a victim of humankind’s evil actions. Evil is responded to in different ways, because evil has not one definite shape, but an infinite amount.
As a fact of life, there are harms in the world that one is exposed to just by being alive. Once a child is brought into the world, they are
The problem of evil is honestly one of the greatest obstacles to believe of the existence of God. Their are times I sit and think of all the suffering in the world, and wonder if whether it is caused by mans inhumanity to one another or natural disasters. Though I can honestly say I find it hard to believe in a God at times. Then again, I think there comes a time when some people feel the same way.
While, after reading the above two quotations, it may appear that Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill take seemingly opposing views on the proper
Evil is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes a daily reality. To present the problem of evil you must first know that evil exists. Since God reveals himself as the all-powerful, all knowing and all good, how can the same God allow evil to exist and for bad things to happen to good people? Our suffering, as well as the suffering of others, vividly marks the presence of evil in our world. The majority of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to our family, friends, nation and ourselves. In recent news we also hear about particularly disturbing instances—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. In this paper, I will review the literature from authors Robert M. Adams (2006), James Cain (2004) and Richard Hauser (1994) on the topic of theodicy and how they align with my viewpoint. I will discuss the virtual certainty in loving any human would not have existed in a world that does not contain evil, how God bestowed upon us the freewill to allow the existence of evil in our lives and how God’s plan for humans involves temporary evil for the greater good
One can debate whether a government agency has the right to intervene on behalf of individuals due to suffering in the case of child abuse. If a child is in a home that inflicts suffering to the child by way of starvation or physical abuse it is the responsibility of the governing agency to intercede for the sake of the child. Governing agencies have laws set in place
When we are discussing the problem of evil, we are specifically discussing a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. A God that is perfectly good would not allow suffering to exist, and any minute amount of suffering that exists disproves God’s existence. Unless, the suffering is justified with an adequate reason. However, even then there seems to be large amounts of evil in the world that seems unnecessary for any good reason. By evil and suffering I mean death, pain, and disease. I will be using these terms interchangeably. In the problem of evil, many arguments are placed in order to find a justification for the evil that exists. However,
Everyday it is possible to read a newspaper, or turn on TV or radio news and learn about evil going on in our world. Banks are robbed, cars are stolen, violent murders and rapes are committed. Somewhere in the world the aftershock of an earthquake is being felt. Cancer is killing millions of people each year, while other debilitating conditions continue to affect many with no cure to end their suffering. President Bush said that our country is fighting a war against evil. We all agree that evil is real and cannot be ignored; the problem comes when we try and rationalize the concept of God and evil coexisting.
Let it not be forgotten then at the outset of our discussion on God and evil, that the rampant lawlessness and many faces of evil that we see around us is not just the mere issue of man’s doings. It is according to Saint Paul, none other than Satan’s operation (v. 9a) in all power and signs and wonders of a lie, and in all deceit of unrighteousness (vv. 9b, 10). The modern mind with its scientific enlightenment, and anti-supernatural outlook, easily askew the personification of evil. But the clear testimony of scripture is that evil is not just a “thing”, a mere act of wrongdoing or transgression.
To understand physical and moral evil, people must first look at the existence of evil itself. Many people ask why there is evil in the world. They wonder how an all-merciful God and evil can coexist. The dictionary definition of evil is: “profoundly immoral and malevolent”, but according to the catholic faith, evil is anything that is antithetical to the will of God.