jump to navigation

Why I’m Biased Toward Christianity November 12, 2010

Posted by Daniel Benjamin Smith (dsmith77) in Apologetics, Morality.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Are there thoughts that are so distasteful and upsetting that they should be banned?

[This post developed out of a comment I posted on First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Writers – The Kill Zone by John Gilstrap. It is my reponse to John’s pertinent question quoted above.]

In November 2010, Phillip R. Greaves II was legally able to write his book, The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct, and publish it. The resulting uproar was a reaction over his permission to do so and Amazon removed the book. Thus, this is not a question of censorship. Certainly, the removal was a business decision on Amazon’s part albeit one that aligned with the dominant morality of the moment.

When discussing any situation it is necessarily through the lens of one’s worldview. The western worldview has most strongly been influenced by the ideals of Christianity which are still felt today in the laws and ideals of America. But humans need boundaries to know what is right versus what is wrong. Religion provides part of that and government another.

In vocabulary terms, it’s the difference between the definitions of “can” and “may“. “Can” has to do with ability. “May” has to do with permission and implies a request by the asker to make a decision. In general terms, “Can” is the realm of government while “May” is the realm of religion, philosophy, culture, and worldview. The above situation encompasses aspects of both making it complicated and interesting.

Because of the above, it is impossible to ban anything based on a moral objection to it while remaining perfectly objective and neutral to all parties. Drawing that line *requires* a position be chosen on the moral issue first. Justice truly is and must remain blind.

Since one cannot remain neutral, I will defer to my own Christian heritage and worldview to answer John’s question with a resounding “yes.” Some may call this conclusion biased, and they’d be right, but there is no possibility of an impartial conclusion so at least I know why and can explain how I came to this decision.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: