The Manhattan Declaration

According to The Manhattan Declaration I am, as a Christian, called upon to defend and reaffirm the following fundamental truths:

  1. the sanctity of human life
  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them.

So, let’s take this point by point.

Human life is sacred.  I believe that that is why we as the church, who believe this, should be coming alongside any woman who is going to have an abortion because she can’t afford a pregnancy.  We should offer to pay all of her bills and give her whatever she needs and then we should adopt her child.  Since the mother’s life is also sacred we should also take that into account when we are thinking of telling her that she shouldn’t have an abortion if she believes her life is at risk.  Finally we should work towards abolishing the death penalty.  The fact that America still practices this is a crime.

Marriage as defined by the Bible current Christian culture and most first world Western cultures as being between two unrelated consenting adults, one male and one female, should be dignified.  It should be entered into with eyes open and if we as Christians want to see this sort of marriage as we define it succeed, then we need to come alongside brothers and sisters who are struggling.  We should not make them feel guilty if their marriage is rocky and should offer all of the prayer and emotional support we can.  When a Christian marriage fails we should love both parties and that does not include inflicting guilt, pain, or shame on them.

Any other sort of marriage which runs contrary to the Western Christian definition should be treated as any other activity by non-believers.  We should respectfully understand that people of other beliefs will not act the way we want them to no matter how difficult we make it on them.  Also those people who marry despite our desires should receive all of the benefits our government sees fit to bestow upon them.  If we don’t like these benefits we are free to disagree, but we should have a better reason to prevent them from receiving these benefits than “the Bible says you shouldn’t” because it doesn’t say that at all.

We as Christians have the right to follow our conscience and to practice our religion.  We don’t have the right to practice it everywhere the precise way we’d like to, even if these ways aren’t really in the Bible, such as on the public’s dime or on land owned by the government.  Even in those places though we are free to pray, read the Bible, or talk to our peers in a respectful and loving fashion (which includes not talking about it if they express discomfort or a desire to change the subject).  We also have to realize that in following our conscience we may lose our jobs, our friends, relationship with family members, or any number of other social benefits and that such a result is actually in line with some of what the Bible says will happen if we do so.  We are not guaranteed freedom from those consequences by the Bible or by the Constitution.  Others are guaranteed to practice their religions or to practice no religion at all and to follow their conscience in the same fashion as we are with possible similar results and protections.

Many of these freedoms as I have laid them out (freedom to not be a Christian or to not have Christian ideals/expectations placed upon you, freedom to not be executed, freedom to make choices about your family/person) are “under attack” by my well meaning brothers and sisters.  Others (the right to not have an abortion, to practice your religion in your church/home/work, the right to a heterosexual marriage) are not under attack by anyone so far as I can tell.  If they ever are under attack though I will use the liberty I am granted to speak out on those matters as well.

So for now, since I think these points weren’t really thought through, were overly simplified, or perhaps were just poorly expressed by the Manhattan Declaration, I’m gonna have to pass on it.  I think it’s great that all of these diverse thinkers are agreeing on this even though some have expressed that they think other signers are WAY off base when it comes to the basics if their theology but until we can really open up these three seemingly simple points to some serious discussion and dig at what motives (other than the purely humanitarian)  are behind them, I’ll hold off.  Until that happens (not really holding my breath for that one) maybe you guys can tell me what you think about my own expression of what these points mean?

  • Not sure if you saw Brian McLaren's reaction to the declaration. You can find it here: http://blog.sojo.net/2009/11/24/affirming-the-f...

    I think you will like it.
  • spiritualtramp
    That was good and I agree with him.
  • RobAC
    "1.the sanctity of human life
    2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
    3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty."

    Some thoughts,

    I believe in the sanctity of human life. I, personally, am against abortion, I am also against capital punishment, euthanasia, and killing by military forces of any and all nations, tribes, ethnic groups, etc. Killing is wrong. Period. I could be wrong, but at least I am consistent.

    Marriage in a democratic, pluralistic society is a legal contract. It has nothing to do with religion/faith. Christians whether Catholic or not may maintain whatever standards they choose for their community and, as a Christian, I believe that God intended marriage within the Judeo-Christian community to be between a man and a woman. But for the rest of society, they may define marriage however they see fit and it is really of no concern to me.

    Also, in a democratic, pluralistic society one would hope that the rights of conscience and religious liberty would be respected. But, again, it really doesn't matter. The only way that I can be prevented from practicing my faith is by my death. Even if I were to be thrown in prison for being a believer, which will probably never happen in this country, I can still worship God as I see fit.
  • spiritualtramp
    Thanks Rob! Good thoughts.
  • sidfaiwu
    Awesome post, Scott. You reaction to point 1 is spot on! It's tough to take the religious right seriously on abortion when they are unwilling to put their money and time where their beliefs are. I can respect the anti-abortion opinions of one who adopts. That person has put time, money, and love towards something that could become a viable alternative to abortion for some women. I'm also in agreement with the death penalty. At least people should be consistent in their sanctity of life ethic.

    I would be careful in claiming "Marriage as defined by... most first world Western cultures as being between two unrelated consenting adults, one male and one female..." I depends on exactly what you mean, but it seems that much of Europe recognize same-sex marriages/partnerships. Otherwise, I agree with your general sentiment.

    I pretty much agree on point 3 as well. It is interesting how many Christians ignore the negative consequences predicted for them by their own holy book. Do they not believe that part? Are they just not aware of it? Some of them take the opposite position and expect special privileges by virtue of being the majority religion (I'm looking at you, "this country was founded on Christianity" crowd). How... unBiblical.
  • John Malvo talked and gave up the Virginia sniper because he was afraid of dying from the death penalty. The sniper died, Malvo didn't. I've changed my views on this a few times over the years, but I think this case is a perfect example of why the death penalty is a necessary thing that prevents more harm than it does.

    The same cannot be said for abortion. The question "What is the unborn?" comes to mind. If it is not a human being, then no justification for killing it is necessary. If it is a human being, as the law of biogenesis states, then there is no justification that is adequate. It shouldn't be killed for reasons of convenience because it is a valuable human being.

    There’s one quality all of us have equally that demands equal treatment: we all have a human nature. Therefore rights can only be determined on the basis of all of us having a human nature. That is why the unborn is as valuable as your or I. Because it is human and therefore has a human nature.

    I am all for women having a choice. They should be allowed to do everything a man can do. But some things should not be chosen. Nor should they remain legal.

    That I must be willing to adopt every child in the world, a child, or multiple children, that I must be consistent in my beliefs is no refutation of the pro-life argument itself. It's only an argument of the inconsistency some humans have toward being pro-life.
  • spiritualtramp
    You see the death penalty as "a necessary thing that prevents more harm than it does". I disagree. I don't think that you have the statistics to back that up. If you do I'd like to see them. Of course the notion of what constitutes "harm" is tricky.

    I think a mother could easily see abortion as a necessary thing that prevents more harm than it does. You disagree. I might too. The question is, what makes us right in a legal sense.

    If the unborn has a right to live then the born certainly do, including that sniper. We must protect the rights of all, not just those whose practices we find abhorrent.
  • spiritualtramp
    Thanks. I should have said "historically speaking" that's how most Western 1st workd cultures define it. I think the recognition in Europe of same sex marriages is recent?
  • sidfaiwu
    As far as I know, yeah.

    Also, just read my post and one sentence could easily be misinterpreted. "I'm also in agreement with the death penalty" should read "I'm also in agreement with your thoughts on the death penalty." Yeah, that's a little different.
  • I think I should point out that there is no definition of marriage in all of history which includes homosexual relationships for the purpose of love or companionship. It's a completely new idea.

    It seems to me that you would be right about most of this if not for the fact that there are consequences to these ideas beyond the personal realm. When the Christian must accept negative consequences towards living his worldview in a society that doesn't share it, there is more to it than that it just affects that Christian.

    When the courts imposed same sex marriage on Massachusetts, the Catholic Church chose to close down all of its orphanages instead of violating one of their deepest moral teachings by being compelled to place children in same sex households. The consequences don't just affect the Catholics, but the children they cared for.

    Now one may chastise the Catholic church for doing that to poor, innocent children, but was it really the Church that did that to the children? Would one rather be complicit in doing harm to children or would they rather stand away from it? People criticize the Church and its members for not living according to their moral code, but some of these same people criticize them even when they do.

    When Christians stand up against same sex marriage, they are standing up against something that has consequences beyond their personal lives and has negative consequences on the culture at large and the individuals that live within it. These two reasons are why it seems to me that Christians are waging a mostly defensive battle here.
  • sidfaiwu
    "I think I should point out that there is no definition of marriage in all of history which includes homosexual relationships for the purpose of love or companionship."

    Even if true, "It's not been done before" is not a sufficient rational reason to ban something.

    "When the Christian must accept negative consequences towards living his worldview in a society that doesn't share it, there is more to it than that it just affects that Christian."

    A: Demonstrate that it actually does create negative consequences
    B: Make sure that it doesn't have offsetting benefits
    C: Make sure that the net negative consequences are serious enough to consider restricting individual freedom. We can use other behaviors that have negative social consequences as a guide, such as legalized drinking, smoking, or over-eating

    Do that and you'd have a point. So far, no one has gotten past A. Thus you have no point.

    RE: Catholic orphanage: That has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but same-sex adoption. An argument worth having but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
  • Actually the topic at hand was regarding the Manhattan Declaration, and the Catholic Church's actions in Massachussets were brought up within the text of that declaration, and furthermore same sex adoption is a societal effect of same sex marriage, which is itself an effect of the belief (mistaken, I think) that there are no real differences between men and women. So I think it's broadly on topic.

    You're right though, that the "it's been done before" isn't a sufficient rationale to ban something, but I wasn't offering that as a reason to ban something. It is sufficient reason to ask for justification for redefining something; namely marriage, which is what I was doing. No banning has been done. Same sex marriage advocates are actually wanting to add something and have no historical basis on which to justify their views; or at least have made no such claim as yet. That is why they have the burden of proof to justify their reasons for wanting to change the status quo.

    Civil rights need a principled basis on which to stand, yes? Or anything can be turned into a civil right by someone asserting that it is so. Blacks have civil rights because they are human beings, not because they are a skin color or part of a black culture. Gays have civil rights because they are human beings, not because they identify themselves based on a type of behavior.

    Marriage ought only be redefined if it can be shown that the current marriage laws deny them equality under the law. But gay people are already equal in that they can marry a consenting adult of their opposite gender, just as anyone else can. Nobody is infringing on same sex couples to have commitment ceremonies, to live together, or to love together. Neither is marriage the only way for same sex couples to gain the necessary rights they might need to manage each other's estates and affairs. Marriage itself has no test on whether the people marrying are homosexual or heterosexual, only that the parties involved fit its definition; that one is male and one is female.

    Whether they prefer to or not is not an adequate basis for jurisprudence. Instead, the activist must show why the current definition of marriage denies gays equal rights, but to do that they must presume two things.

    1) the very thing they are trying to prove, that government-endorsed marriage is based upon loving another person or persons and is not any particular principled idea. Circular argument and begs the question.

    2) that one's behavior (and yes, I agree it's not a choice) can also grant a person access to a new kind of civil right, in this case government-endorsed same sex marriage, in which case they must show that behavior-identified groups are just as deserving of government-endorsed marriage on the basis of their behavio as other groups (including LGBT) are deserving of civil rights on the basis of their humanity. Either would seem to have profound implications on civil law in this country and so this is where you will start hearing objections concerning polygany and pedophilia also become legal based upon the same sorts of arguments that same sex marriage proponents are using.

    I don't want to underrate or misrepresent the arguments for same sex marriage, so please correct me where I'm wrong. The point is this: there must be a better foundation of philosophy and jurisprudence upon which to redefine marriage.


    ale.
  • sidfaiwu
    Hello Christopher Walker,

    Sorry about the delayed response.

    "You're right though, that the "it's been done before" isn't a sufficient rationale to ban something, but I wasn't offering that as a reason to ban something."

    I suppose I should have phrased it "keeping something banned," which is exactly what you are proposing. As you go on to point out latter, same-sex couples are permitted to engage in all the behaviors associated with mixed-sex marriage, but receive none of the rights and responsibilities the government grants to couples who choose to enter into that behavior.

    So, since same-sex couples currently engage in married behavior and it doesn't negatively impact others, what, again, is the justification for continuing to deny them the rights and responsibilities of mixed-sex couples when doing so? It hasn't been done before still doesn't justify keeping rights restricted. At one point, the selling of a personal computer had never been done before. Justification was not demanded for permitting the sale of these new devices just because such an act was new.

    "Civil rights need a principled basis on which to stand, yes? Or anything can be turned into a civil right by someone asserting that it is so."

    Correct, and that principle is freedom. Since you're okay with same-sex couples engaging in the behaviors of marriage (from a legal standpoint, at least), it's not really an issue of freedom, but, as you go on to discuss, a matter of equal protection under the law.

    "Marriage ought only be redefined if it can be shown that the current marriage laws deny them equality under the law."

    Before we discuss redefinitions of marriage, we should make sure we are clear about the current definition of marriage. Based on the context of the above statement, I will presume we are using a legal definition and not a religious one. The two are far too often conflated in these arguments. Under no circumstances should any private institution, religious or otherwise be forced to marry a couple they do not wish to. Nor should they be forced to recognize the union as a marriage as they define it as long as they aren't denying the legal rights granted by the government.

    Okay, with that caveat out of the way, the definition of marriage, from the governments point of view is a legal contract entered into voluntarily by two people that imposes a set of responsibilities and grants a set rights. Now if two people are already meeting the responsibilities and desire to enter into such a contract the sex of the two should not matter to the government. That's a firmly established principle in law. Discrimination in other governmental contracts on the basis of sex is illegal. Why should the 'marriage' legal contract be any different? It should not be as such behavior is denying equal protection.

    "But gay people are already equal in that they can marry a consenting adult of their opposite gender, just as anyone else can."

    I would draw an analogy ([sarcasm]and I know this will shock you[/sarcasm]) with former laws that used to prevent mixed-race couples from marrying. According to your reasoning, those laws applied to equally to whites and blacks and would be permissible. In fact, the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia that made such bans illegal was based on the Fourteenth Amendment - you know the one that guarantees equal protection. Note that jurisprudence is already established.

    Neither presumption 1 or 2 are needed to defend the legalization of same-sex marriage. Mixed-sex couples can enter into legal marriage whether or not they love one another. It's not their behavior that entitles them to civil rights, but the fact that denying them marriage is a violation of equal protection that makes it a civil rights issue.

    "...you will start hearing objections concerning polygany and pedophilia also become legal based upon the same sorts of arguments that same sex marriage proponents are using."

    Start hearing? I believe we've heard both of these even before the LGBT movement. The Mormon Church (and others) have demanded that they be permitted to practice polygamy and NAMBLA already want pedophilia to be permitted. Both of these have absolutely nothing to do with LGBT rights. They are red herrings proffered only to scare people into opposing legalizing same-sex marriage - especially pedophilia. Saying that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to legalizing pedophilia is like claiming that granting the right to vote to women will lead to the right to vote for toddlers. It's a non-sequitur.

    So, I've established both a moral and legal justifications for extending the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. What was your justifications again for denying those benefits? Oh, right, we haven't got past "it hasn't been done before", unsubstantiated claims of harm caused, and bogus slippery-slope scare tactics.

    Oh, and by the way, it has been done before - perhaps even by Christians (depending on who's translations are more correct).

    Finally, I'm curious. How would your opinions change if you didn't believe God disapproved of same-sex marriage? Suppose God sanctioned it. Would you support it then?
  • spiritualtramp
    "I think I should point out that there is no definition of marriage in all of history which includes homosexual relationships for the purpose of love or companionship. It's a completely new idea."

    That's a pretty broad statement, but let's assume you're right. So what? My point wasn't that there's a broad deep history of homosexual marriage. My point was that the history of marriage that we do have involves all manner of things that you or I would likely find abhorrent or at least hard to swallow in religious circles. The Bible is full of incest and relationships that border on pedophilia at least by today's standards are a staple in the Middle East and even European history. Heck one need not look much farther than the early part of this century in America to find adults marrying 13 yo girls.

    My point being that we need to be careful when we ask people to defend either a) the Biblical definition of marriage (which is loose at best) or b)or culture's definition which only recently allowed interracial marriages (and in some cases still doesn't).

    I actually do shame the Catholic Church fo pulling out of Massachusetts. Personally I think it's better that the orphans are raised by homosexual parents than by no parents at all. I know of know reputable research that indicates that being raised by homosexuals is harmful. Here's a good quesiton, was the Church only allowing "good Christian parents" to adopt? Did they limit it to just Catholics? I hope so, since the official Catholic doctrine see Protestants as red headed step children at best. And did you read that link to Albert Mohler's reason for signing? He basically thinks Catholics aren't Christians. This is the sort of company I don't want to be in.

    I'd like for you to expand on what the negative consequences are to our culture at large if homosexuals are allowed to marry and receive benefits.
  • Your response to my broad statement is pretty broad itself. Is the Bible justifying those incest and abhorrent relationships as normal according to its definition by reporting on them? Is it justifying them in a way that says these sorts of relationships are normalized for all time? How is the Bible's definition of marriage broad? What does the Bible say about marriage as it should be for all time?

    Regarding, so what? The So What part is that same sex marriage advocates need to provide justification for their position beyond an emotional appeal to equality. If it's a totally new idea with nothing to fall back on, then they need to provide a solid basis on which they are justifying their view, something of which I have yet to see from anyone. They have a case to prove because they are making positive claims about the nature of a human institution. They have the burden of proof.

    Catholic doctrine ever since Vatican II actually states that Protestants are their brothers, and not only that but that nearly everyone is saved by Jesus even if they don't realize it. This does great harm to the urgency of Jesus's commendation to go into the world and preach his message, which is why many Protestants do not think many Catholics are saved; when Catholics say they are saved, they usually don't mean the same thing as Protestants. Protestants do not mean that they are not saved because they are Cathlics; rather that one is not saved because one has not placed his trust in Jesus as his savior in the way that Jesus himself describes. It's not a matter of which religious club one belongs to. This is an internal issue, but I thought it best to at least clarify the Church's position.
  • spiritualtramp
    Are those sorts of relationships normalized? No. But they are there. My point is not so much about what the Bible actually teaches about marriage (which isn't always clear but what it amounts to in my reading is that marriage is a symbol of something much larger, our relationship with God) but about what we as Christians have lain a hold of and taught as Biblical. What we often do is pick a few things and say "THIS is clearly what the Bible teaches as being most important" rather than looking at what the overall scripture teaches. Many would say that unless you are married in a church by a pastor that you aren't really married. We define marriage not by what the Bible says about it so much as by what we as a culture believe the Bible says about it.

    Now, having said that, do I think God intends for two men or women to marry? No. I don't think that God would recognize that union as holy. Then again I need to be careful about deciding what is holy and what isn't and codifying that into law.

    I'm curious as to what you think homosexuals need to prove regarding this "human institution". All they want (so far as I know) is for the gov't to recognize their union as a legal entity so that they can enjoy things like survivor benefits. What's to prove their? Is their receiving those benefits damaging somehow?

    I'm not so sure that what you're saying about the RCC is true. We Protestants are seen as separated brethren and I'm not aware of any official teaching from them that says nearly everyone is saved. I recognize certainly there is a difference in language that you have to deal with in terms of their use of words like Baptism and it's importance/practice. In any case in pointing to the man who was talking about the Catholics, he in particular doesn't view them as being in the family.
blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»