Here I am again without anything to really say. I have tons of ideas and opinions in my head; even things that I believe are eternal truths that I could write about. But I don’t want to have people read this post for nothing so here is my best shot at something thought provoking.
How does one person tell another person that what they believe is wrong? How is this expression of right verses wrong seen as permissive? My perception: if you hold to Judeo-Christian beliefs then you are not allowed to tell people they are wrong. If you hold to a secular humanist or “all roads lead to heaven” viewpoint then you are permitted to state your beliefs. Is my thinking in error on this? I wonder what atheist, progressives, liberals, etc… think about being able to express themselves freely without fear of persecution or condemnation in some way?
I bet it is the same across the spectrum of beliefs. No matter what value system you have it depends on what environment you express yourself in. Take for instance the recent Miss USA pageant where the lady from California voiced her views on homosexuality. When you watch and listen to the video you notice a few things. First, once the famous blogger guy finishes the question a few people in the audience cheer for the fact that Vermont recently legalized same-sex marriages. They obviously felt comfortable enough or brave enough to express this opinion in public regardless of who was sitting beside them in the audience.
Second, Miss California proceeds to try and come across politically correct on the front end of her response by saying that she thinks it is great that Americans are free to express themselves in such a manner. However, in her country, based on her family values she believes marriage is between a man and a woman only. She then apologizes for possibly offending anyone because of her belief. That is interesting. She felt compelled to have to apologize for her belief.
Third, a larger portion of the crowd cheers for her response than those who cheered for the legalized homosexual marriage viewpoint. Did they cheer louder because they were angry with the earlier response? Did they cheer louder to support Miss California? Did they cheer louder because there were more people in the audience who supported her opinion or was it that the rest of those who support same-sex marriage were afraid to be more vocal? I don’t know if we can ever know at this junction but it is still intriguing.
Lastly, the famous blogger who posed the question is seen briefly shaking his head before the camera stops showing him. He was obviously disappointed with this view. I just read on one website that he is a homosexual so I can understand why he was disappointed. Still, he is famous and he is a homosexual in a country where most people believe that what he desires in his heart and mind are wrong. He was brave enough to pose the question and he is brave enough to be vocal about his belief even under opposition from the masses.
Wow, who has the most to be afraid of? I don’t know that anyone should be afraid of anybody with regards to stating your individual beliefs. What I don’t know is at what point one man’s viewpoint is considered superior to the others in the eyes of the law. Regarding homosexuality, it would not even be an issue if there were no tax breaks, incentives, or otherwise government benefits involved with marriage to begin with. Meaning, if the government treated people as individuals and equally then the institution of marriage would be left to private sector (even if that means polygamist out in Utah are allowed to do their thing). The definition of marriage is never going to be agreed upon and the government should get out of the marriage business.
Time to go fishing.