KOFI AND AMA, NOT KOFI AND AHMED: a counter perspective on Rights and Homosexuality Anytime any liberal activist or proponent screams out 'rights', my mind scurries back to Francis Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There are numerous basic principles contained in this statement which binds us as humans and as a nation. The beliefs in 1) a Creator, 2) Creation, 3) God-given moral absolutes; 4) Governments are ordained of God; 5) the Providence of God, and 6) a final day of judgment. Other principles, like 7) the freedom of speech, 8) the right to political dissent, 9) the right to bear arms, 10) a government based on the consent of the governed, and 11) freedom against tyranny are also implied in The Declaration of Independence. However, the most fundamental principles are the first three: Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes. These are the foundation of our country, our constitutions, our courts, and our beliefs. And the erosion of these principles portends the condemnation of our country, as the prospects of restoring them offers hope for our preservation. It was Justice Douglas who wrote: “The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, and which governments must respect.” It then refers to the familiar words of The Declaration of Independence as a basis of this affirmation, saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal....” Justice Douglas adds, “And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrines those principles.” Contrary to recent media shyness about recognizing God, the founding document of human rights and our founders had no reluctance to acknowledge the Creator. This is obvious in numerous ways. First, The Declaration itself refers to the “Creator” and “Nature’s God.” Also, The Articles of Confederation speak of “the great Governor of the World.” What is more, Parliamentary sessions have been opened by prayer to God from the very beginning. And presidential oaths have been taken in the name of God, adding “so help me God.” This is to say nothing of the various references to God in our national anthem and other emblems of state. Further, early presidents with the consent of our legislative arm invoked “God” in their thanksgiving proclamations. There is no scarcity to official references to God by our leaders and in our national archives. Further, in addition to acknowledging “the Creator and Ruler of the world,” we still believe that “all men are created equal.” We do not believe, as the Scopes evolutionary textbook did in 1925, that the “Caucasians” are the “highest type” of human beings. Nor do we believe as Charles Darwin did (in The Descent of Man) that vaccinations and laws to help the poor should be eliminated because it preserves the weaker breed that natural selection would have eliminated. Darwin wrote: “We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick: we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small pox”. Nor does a conservative belief, as Hitler did in Mein Kampf, that “If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile”. In short, there are moral implications to Darwinian evolution, namely, if natural selection explains common ancestry, then there is nothing wrong with eliminating the weak and undesirable among us. In short, if there is not a Creator and Moral Law-Giver, then man is just an animal without any God-given rights, and those in power are under no moral obligation to preserve these rights. God-given Moral Laws Nietzsche was right: If God is dead, then there are no God-given moral laws. As the French atheists Jean Paul Sartre put it: As a person without God, “I was like a man who’s lost his shadow. And there was nothing left in heaven, no right or wrong, nor anyone to give me orders.... I am doomed to have no other law but mine”. The simple truth is that if there is no absolute Moral Law Giver, then there are no absolute moral laws. Or, in Jeffersonian terms, “Nature’s Laws” come from “Nature’s God.” Both logic and history inform us that we cannot separate the Moral Law from the Moral Law-Giver and that we cannot have good government or society without an absolute standard for good. No God-Given Moral Absolutes.–“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values” That is to say, there are no God-given moral absolutes. So here we have a self-proclaimed religion of Humanism that is opposed to three fundamental principles of The Declaration of Independence. But since The Declaration is the backbone of human rights, morals must be taught, and they cannot properly be taught without religious sentiments like respect for the Creator since both logically and practically there will not be respect for an absolute moral law without respect for an absolute Moral Law Giver. Given Moral Absolutes Yes, we believe in legislating morality. In fact, really everyone does, even those who deny it. Since virtually all good laws prescribe some behavior as good and others as bad, there are really no such laws that do not legislate morality. No civil society is without legislation on moral issues, forbidding theft, abuse, rape, and murder. Indeed, even liberals favor these laws, as well as others condemning racism, hate crimes, and genocide. The truth is that everyone favors legislating morality. The only question is whose’s morality will be legislated. The conservative answer has always been “God’s”! From the very beginning our founding document spoke of “Nature’s Laws” that come from “Nature’s God” or “the unalienable rights” of the “Creator.” Among these are the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Indeed, most all of the Ten Commandments have been put into law at one time or another. Laws Protecting Life First and foremost on the list is the right to life. For the right to life is the right to all other rights. Those who are not allowed to live are not allowed to have any other rights. And this right to life extends to both ends of life, thus opposing both abortion and euthanasia. On Civil Rights 1. We believe in civil rights for all persons, but we do not believe in uncivil actions against any person. 2. We believe that homosexuals have civil rights but that homosexual activity is a civil wrong against themselves and their society. We do not believe there are any rights to do a wrong. Likewise, polygamist, pedophiles, and rapist have civil rights, but their activities as such are not civil rights; they are uncivil wrong. And we believe it is wrong to give rights to do a wrong. 3. We believe the evident truth that “all men are created equal” opposes slavery, racism, and ethnic discrimination. On The Family 1. We believe that a family consisting of one male and one female, and whatever children with which God blesses us. And we pledge ourselves to preserve the family as the basic unit of society, the teacher of social skills, moral values, and the duty of good citizenship. 2. We believe that since the roots of most social problems begin in the family that we should be doing everything we can to strengthen the family, not to weaken it. To be pro-family is to be pro-society, and to degrade the family by approving of distorted unions is destructive of our society. Some arguments purported in favor of homosexuality and Dr. Norman Geisler’s response. 1. Homosexuals have civil rights too. Simply because the majority of the population chooses to be heterosexual does not justify their passing laws against a homosexual minority. Why should the minority be deprived of their constitutional rights simply because of their sexual preferences? This is discrimination, and discrimination is morally and socially wrong. Homosexuals have rights as citizens but not as homosexuals. This is evident for several reasons. Homosexual acts are morally wrong, and there is no right to do a wrong. That is moral nonsense. Neither are there any civil rights to do a moral wrong. Civil law should be based on moral law. Third, it is as meaningless to speak of homosexual rights as it is to speak of rapist's rights, child abuser's rights, kleptomaniac's rights or murderer's rights. Rapists have no civil (or moral) rights to be rapists, and child molesters have no civil rights to perform homosexual acts. Homosexuality is a moral and civil wrong, and there is no civil right to do a civil wrong. Yes, homosexuals have rights as citizens but certainly not as homosexuals. 2. There should be no sexual constraints among consenting adults. Many homosexuals and 'sympathizers' contend that it is a violation of their freedom to prohibit any free sexual expressions. What two persons do sexually and freely is their own moral business. Only coercion of freedom is wrong. Beyond that, a person has the right to do with his body what he desires to do. It is fantastic for one to assume that whatever adults consent to do is morally justified, since they can obviously consent to do what is evil. Are we giving thumbs up to adults who consent to rob a bank, rape a child or kill the president? Or do we support consenting adults as they help each other commit suicide or mutilate each other's body? Obviously not! It naturally follows that mutual consent does not automatically justify an act. This argument wrongly assumes that the individual is the ultimate standard of right & wrong and there are no limitations on human freedom except self-imposed ones. But as elaborated above, we are reminded that we are creatures and not our own creator and as such we have a moral obligation to our Creator who has commanded us not to sexually abuse our bodies. 3. There is also the faulty argument that the right to privacy protects homosexuality. They argue that privacy is a constitutional right and therefore the heterosexual majority have no right to impose their morality on the homosexual minority. That sounds like a good point until we realize that the right of privacy is not the right to immorality. Our right to privacy does not extend to unethical activity. For example, we have no right to privately rape, kill or torture. Consistency demands that an immoral activity does not become moral by moving its location. If, for instance, it is wrong to publicly mutilate a child, then it is also wrong to privately commit the same act. Changing the location of an immoral act does not change its violation of a moral law. Of course, the reverse is not true. 4. They also bombard us with the argument that sexual tendencies are inherited and as such if they cannot change the color of their eyes, skin color or sickling status, why are they condemned for being homosexual by nature? It is worth stating that homosexual tendencies are not inherited. To start with, there is no undisputed scientific evidence to support the contention that homosexual tendencies are genetic. It shows every evidence of a learned behavior. People are recruited into the movement and taught to perform homosexual acts. Some people seem to inherit a proclivity towards violence and alcohol abuse but even this justifies none of them. The Bible declares that homosexuality is 'unnatural' and come about only when someone 'abandons' his or her natural inclinations (Rom. 1:26-27). The Bible teaches that we all inherit a tendency to sin but we are still responsible for sinning. 5. Morals have changed since ancient times and even if homosexual practices were frowned upon in ancient times, there is no reason why it should be condemned today. Pre-marital sex was also condemned in time past but is looked upon with favour today. Enlightenment has given us good reasons to shirk some taboos of the past. Moral principles do not change; what changes is our understanding of them and our performance of them. We shouldn't be quick to confuse unchanging moral values with changing moral practices. When we do that, we confuse an absolute moral command with our relative comprehension of it. Claiming that morals can change confuses facts and values. To the degree that moral principles reflect the very nature of God, they cannot change, for God cannot change his basic moral character (Mal. 3:6; Heb 6:18) 6. Criticizing homosexuality produces an unnatural and unwarranted fear and generates a kind of hysteria against homosexuals, and that is an overreaction based on emotions. There is a difference between an appeal to emotions and one based on emotions. For example, a strong warning to leave a burning building is an appeal to the emotions, but if the building is ablaze, no one should object, since it is an appeal based on facts. The arguments against the homosexual's deviant behavior no more deserve to be called productive of homophobia than arguments against stealing should be called productive of kleptophobia. The real question is whether the behavior is morally and socially acceptable, not whether it produces legitimate fear of a socially damaging or dangerous practice. 7. It discriminates against homosexuals. The first flaw with this concern is that it fails to distinguish between the act and the practice. Laws against drunk driving do not discriminate against drinkers. One can be opposed to alcoholism without being opposed to alcoholics. It is only homosexual behavior that abhors, not homosexuals as persons. Secondly, not all discrimination is wrong. All rational people discriminate. We put a skull & crossbones on poison, warning labels on cigarette packs and red triangles behind packed trucks for a reason. We also discriminate against socially disruptive behavior by punishments and imprisonment. It is in this sense that it is legitimate to discriminate against homosexual behavior. Not to discriminate against socially undesirable behavior is as unreasonable as claiming that child abusers or rapists should not be imprisoned since this would be discriminating against them. Basic societal concerns 1. Homosexuality is unnatural. Nature itself reveals that homosexuality is wrong. It is simply contrary to the natural use of one's sexuality. This is obvious for several reasons. No one was born of a homosexual union, and no one was born a homosexual. They became homosexuals somewhere along the line. Homosexual behavior is not a normal behavior. Only a small fraction of most populations have this abnormal behavior. Also, ex-homosexuals testify that they were recruited to this lifestyle and have since left it for normal heterosexual relations and families. For these reasons it is clear that homosexuality is not a natural condition. 2. Homosexuality is socially undesirable. It is associated with a plethora of socially undesirable characteristics. Psychological studies show that there is a disproportionately high degree of egocentricity, superciliousness, narcissism, masochism and hostility associated with homosexuality. For example, Adolf Hitler's storm troopers had an extremely high number of homosexuals. Child molestation cases involve three times as many homosexuals as the general population. These undesirable characteristics are cause for social concern. 3. No society is sustained by homosexual practices. Society depends for its very existence on healthy an sustained heterosexual relations. Apart from healthy heterosexual relations, there would be no homosexuals. To put it another way, no one was ever born of a homosexual relationship. Heterosexuality is absolutely essential to the continuance of the race. Without it the whole race runs the risk of extinction in one generation, and in this sense homosexuality is very threatening if it is an acceptable behavior for all, and all could practice it. 4. Through AIDS, homosexuality poses a very potent threat to life. Statistics show the active role homosexuality plays in the spread of this condition & predictions are that eventually millions of people will die as a direct or indirect result of homosexual practices that pass on this fatal virus. Whenever the physical well-being of society is so threatened, it is necessary for society to protect itself against such life-threatening practices. No rational society would fail to defend itself against other activities that so endangered the lives of its citizens. Conclusion In summation, we believe in life, liberty, and happiness based on God’s law and achieved in a context of freedom of religion and speech. In short, we believe in a godly, not a God-less government. Put another way, we believe The Declaration of Independence. Standing in front of the magnificent statue of Thomas Jefferson and looking over the water toward the White House one can read these words engraved in large marble letters: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” God, the source, author and sustainer of our rights ordained that sex should be used within the context of a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Homosexual practices are contrary to God's ordained pattern for human beings and for that matter, nature. Truly, homosexuality does not contribute to the overall moral fiber of society and eventually the practice would not be tolerated in the kingdom of God. Homosexual practices are called unnatural, impure, shameful, indecent, perverse, and an abomination. Indeed, no society, past or present, has ever accorded equal status to homosexuals. It is not only psychologically and socially dangerous, but it has become an epidemic threat to the physical lives of millions of people. In view of this, it is necessary for rational societies to protect their citizens against the contaminating influences of such sexually deviant behavior. Nonetheless, as Christians we love the sinner, even though we hate his sin. Thus we should reach out in love to win them to Christ who loves them and died for them. In the end, it will still be ADAM and EVE, NOT ADAM and STEVE! HEAVENRULES! Author: Kwame Antwi-Boasiako Email: righteouseyes@yahoo.com