Thursday, November 8, 2012

Another Example of Secularist Blindness

I recently had a conversation with someone about same-sex marriage.  It was one example of numerous similar conversations I have had which illustrate well the naivete that is associated with the secular viewpoint that claims itself to be neutral.

We were discussing the court case that overturned Proposition 8 in California.  The judge, in that case, overturned Prop 8 because he could find no rational reason to treat same-sex relationships differently from opposite-sex relationships.  I pointed out that from the perspective of my Christian worldview, there are a ton of great reasons why the state should treat same-sex relationships differently from opposite-sex relationships--the former are an abominable sin, God requires the state not to tolerate homosexuality, he promises judgment on individuals and nations that rebels against his law, God is dishonored publicly by the endorsement of rebellion against his law, etc.  My friend, who is Agnostic, responded by saying, "But you can't prove any of that."  I said, "Yes, I can," and referred her to my arguments for Christianity.  She said, "Well, I don't think your arguments prove your case."  I responded, "I know you don't.  In other words, you are Agnostic.  That is a difference between us."

Then I added, "The judge in that case agreed with your worldview and not mine.  He, and you, want Agnostic beliefs and values to be enshrined in law and my Reformed Christian beliefs to be rejected."  She said, "No, I don't.  I want everyone to be treated equally."  I said, "Think about it.  You want the law to reflect your Agnostic way of looking at things rather than my way of looking at things, don't you?"  She responded, "No, I just want equality for all."

The naivete and blindness is evident.  She could not see or acknowledge that her viewpoint is not neutral.  She was determined to think of me as advocating that my views be adopted by law while she wants nothing but neutrality, fairness, and equality.  She simply could not face the obvious fact that she wants the law to reflect her beliefs and values and not mine, and so she deflected that obvious acknowledgment by resorting to begging the question and just assuming her Agnostic point of view without argument, as if everyone agrees with it, so she could paint her position as the neutral position.

This sort of conversation is quite typical of my conversations with Atheists and Agnostics, most of whom (with some few exceptions) simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the obvious reality that their positions are not neutral.

UPDATE 11/13/12: Here is a link to a conversation going on on an Atheist/Agnostic Facebook page.  It provides another great illustration of the kind of thing I am talking about (although yesterday it took a turn for the better with a couple of people actually acknowledging that secularism isn't neutral.  It does happen every now and again!).  I wanted to paste it here but, as you can see in the conversation, I did not get permission; so I decided just to link to it instead.

No comments: