An important question that every Christian should ask themselves is, "How do I reconcile my religious beliefs with the values that America was founded on?"  Sometimes, the moral laws laid down by the Bible conflict with the tolerance and freedom of expression that is a part of our society today.  I discussed some of these issues in a email to an atheist author, in which I asked his opinion on my thoughts.  Here is an excerpt from that email:

"First of all, a little more background on me.  I really want you to understand where I'm coming from here before I start to talk about my evolving views.  Unfortunately, (from your point of view of least) I am a Christian, and would like to consider myself a devout one, though I think God might disagree.  I am the youth worship leader at my church, which i have attended 2 or 3 times a week since I was born 17 years ago.  Furthermore, I lead a bible-study that I started myself, and I hold myself to a lot of conservative habits; no cursing, no drinking/smoking, no premarital sex, no masturbation/porn, etc...  In other words, I am what most people would consider a ignorant, high-minded, conservative, elitist Christian.  However, I've started to develop some theories that go completely against the grain of canonical Christianity.

One of the most difficult parts of Christianity for me has been reconciling my Christian faith with American values (and here I am not referring to our current cultural values, but the concepts America was founded on).  Jesus was absolutely uncompromising about what is right and what is wrong, and made no excuses or apologies for what he preached.  However, America values freedom and tolerance (or at least says it does) above all else.  How do I as a Christian reconcile my beliefs with those of my country?  Once again, I turned back to Jesus' example in the New Testament for the answer. After some thought, I arrive at a solution.  Jesus socialized with people who were the scum of society; prostitutes, homeless people, tax collectors, and other persons of ill repute.  Never once did he condemn them or criticize them.  Instead, he lovingly showed them what was wrong with the way they were living.  On the flip side, Jesus held his followers to an incredibly high standard.  Jesus told his followers that they must give up everything in order to follow him.

That biblical analogy can be directly applied to Christian living.  If someone professes to be a follower of Christ, they should be held to the high standards set by the Bible.  Jesus said "If you love me, you will obey my commands."  Therefore, someone who lives a homosexual lifestyle cannot be called a true Christian.  However, that is not a discrimination specifically against homosexuals.  I would say the same thing about someone who does drugs, or has sex with a person they are not married to.  Now true enough, everyone commits sins, and the Bible says that no sin is better or worse than another one.  However, committing a sin in a moment of weakness is entirely different from living a lifestyle that blatantly flouts the laws laid down by God.

Although Christians should live a Godly lifestyle, non-Christians cannot be expected to do so.  A common saying I've heard is "You can't legislate Christianity."  Consequently, if the only reason for a law to exist is a religious reason, then the law should not be in place.  I believe that a law banning gay marriage would be exactly that kind of law.  Although you can make a legitimate case for the argument that homosexual families are unstable and unhealthy, you can make the same argument for teenage marriages, marriages with large age gaps, etc... If you follow that train of thought all the way out to its logical conclusion, you end up with the Supreme Court dictating who can and can't be married with very subjective and controversial methods.  The only objection I have against homosexuality is that I consider it a perversion and it is contrary to the mandates of my religion.  Therefore, I don't think the Christian community has a right to oppose laws allowing homosexuality.

If I were a politician, this issue presents a certain dilemma.  Although there is no legitimate reason to oppose homosexual marriage, a Christian shouldn't be a party to anything that is ungodly.  Ultimately, I think the best course of action would be to neither obstruct the passage of the law or condone the act that the law is making legal; in other words, I would abstain from voting, while making my reasons for doing do very clear.

Do you agree with my logic so far?  I think that up to this point, I have made a reasonable and logical conclusion.  However, upon further reflection, I found an exception to this rule.  There are cases when a Christian should object to what a non-Christian deems their lawful right. This conclusion has a legal basis as well; in the 1878 Supreme Court Case
Reynolds vs. U.S., the court ruled against the Mormon practice of polygamy, stating that the custom was in violation of social duties and subversive of good order.  This landmark case made the separation of church and state an official part of U.S. policy.  However, it also set a precedent; by ruling against polygamy because it was in violation of social duties and subversive of good order, the court essentially made the statement that any practice that falls in the aforementioned category is unlawful.  Consequently, a harmful practice that many Americans might see as their right, like abortion, should be opposed by all Christians on the grounds that anyone who allows the murder of innocent children is a violation of their social duties.

I don't understand how someone can make a case for abortion.  I don't care if you believe that there is a soul in the developing child or not; either way, you are directly interfering with the process of nature to end the life of an innocent.  Any attempt to pass the baby off as anything other than a human being is merely an equivocation.  If you'll take a look into the past, you can see how well things have turned out when humans try to dehumanize another.  Slave owners claimed that their human possessions were somehow less than a person.  Nazi Germany attempted the same thing with Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped.  In each case, brutality, cruelty, and a lack of value place on the victim's life resulted.  Some people claim that a newborn is somehow more of a human than it was a few months before in the womb.  Supporters of abortion cite a babies' dependency on their mother, or their lack of size.  Why don't you take a closer look at a newborn.  A brand new baby is far from the size it will be as an adult, and is extremly dependent on it's parents for food, shelter, protection, and development.  There are very few things a newborn can do that an unborn baby cannot; one of those activities is independent breathing, but I don't think that people with artificial lungs become sub-human simply because they cannot breathe on their own.

In the end, the only case that a Pro-Choice person is left with is that it is okay to terminate a potential person who hasn't reached consciousness because this developing human will harm the mother.  However, I don't think that holds up to argument either.  In my opinion, killing an innocent is wrong under any circumstances.  However, under the law, I think there are two cases in which abortion is justifiable.  These two cases are when the victim has been raped and conceived, or when a woman will die if the baby is born.  However, that still leaves the majority of abortions without a legitimate reason, other than the fact that the child will inconvenience its parents.  Since when has it been ok for you to kill someone because it will cost you time, effort, and money?  If can't afford to have a baby, you shouldn't have been having sex in a manner that would allow a pregnancy.  If it's your poor decision or mistake that results in a baby, it's your problem to deal.  Adoption is always a viable option."

What do you guys think?  Do I have things right? If I've got something wrong, what have I missed?

Just a little end note here:  I am a 17 year old high school student, not someone with a degree in theology or any kind of experience whatsoever.  My opinions are based on my small amount of experience and what I've read online.  I putting this here to hopefully avoid any attacks to the tune of "I've had years of experience, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, you don't even understand the basic concepts of Christianity, etc etc..."

Furthermore, this is not a debate about whether homosexuality or abortion is wrong according to the Bible.  I've read the threads on both of those, and I've seen the arguments for both sides.  I remain convinced that the Bible does not support homosexuality or abortion. (Not to say that people who commit these acts won't go to heaven; merely, that these acts are a sin and should be treated accordingly.)  This topic is about how Christians should take these beliefs and apply them to the political process.

I'm looking forward to your responses!

I think you've got some very valid points as well.  Concerning your idea of changing the way a marriage license is termed to make it completely void of religion, I think that is right on.  I don't really like the idea of it, just because I get qualms whenever someone deliberately tries to remove Christian traditions.  However, I don't really have a logical reason for opposing it, and I think you are right when you say that it will resolve some of the issues. 

First of all, how do you quote somebody?  I wanted to do that here, but I didn't see where the option is at.  I'm probably being an idiot, but it wouldn't be the first time...

Anyways, @ Acumen:

You said,

"A few things here.  First, as a Christian, I don't know if it can be said categorically that homosexuals who life the gay lifestyle cannot be Christians.  I suppose that depends upon what one means about "living the lifestyle."  If by living the lifestyle, we are talking about momentary lapses, then it becomes a difficult judgment to make for the simple reason that we're all sinners who fail to meet the mark of perfection.  However, if a homosexual actively participates in the gay lifestyle with no spiritual recourse, then I think your conclusion is reasonable.

Second, I don't recall the scriptures saying that no sin is more serious than another.  For certain, we know that blasphemy of the HS is a serious sin that disqualifies one from forgiveness.  And the scriptures also speak of "sinning unto death," which carries the theological subtitles that some sins are certainly worse than others."

To your assertion that all people who are homosexual can't be Christians, I agree.  I actually thought I had put something to that effect in the original post, but I don't see it.  However, I meant to say that homosexuality is just like any other sin, and it doesn't necessarily mean you will go to hell.  Having homosexual temptations or having an occasional sexual lapse doesn't mean you are condemned.  However, I think that the Bible is reasonably clear that homosexuality is wrong, and if you are a Christian, I think you would do everything in your power to suppress urges and to live a Godly lifestyle.  You might say that that is not a fair demand, because I don't suffer from homosexual urges.  Well I can tell you, I suffer heterosexual temptation, the same as every other teenage boy, and I've had to exercise lots of restraint.

You also said that all sins are not equal.  I should have been more specific; let me clarify.  From a worldly perspective, yes, there are degrees of sin;  I would consider a murderer worse than a belligerent, and a rapist worse than adulterer.  However, even the tiniest lie or smallest sin condemns you to hell.  In God's eyes, any amount of sin makes you unworthy of being in his presence. (And to anyone who takes issue with that statement, allow me to add more to that:  God does not choose to reject sinners.  As a perfectly good being, he can't have anything to do with something less than perfect, anymore than a positive magnet can be attracted to a negative magnet.  They are of different natures;  only through Jesus' sacrifice can we come to know God.)  Therefore, I think we are both right; we were just looking from different perspectives.

Also, I believe that you are right in saying that a democracy should reflect the will of the majority, and that a large majority of the people in America hold religious, if not necessarily Christian, views.  However, I think that in America, there is a difference between us and a true democracy.  I think that the American Democracy follows the principle that government should reflect the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority.  Right now, Christians have a large amount of influence in American society.  However, there is a very good chance that this will change, and I would hope that if Christians become a minority in America, they will at least have their beliefs treated with respect.  Homosexuals are a minority looking for equal rights.  Homosexuals harm no one by getting married; it is merely our qualms that are getting in the way.

Also, I didn't really understand your comments about polygamy.  I used the Supreme Court case as evidence to show that laws are evaluated based on whether or not they serve good social order.  Polygamy does not, so it is illegal.  On that same premise, abortion should be illegal because it is in violation of social duties.

Very good points Squirley.  It's nice to meet an atheist who uses logic and reason, rather than personal attacks and provocative language.  I don't really think I can disagree with any of the points you've made.

Likewise I enjoy discussing any number of things with religious or political people with all sorts of positions, especially when personal attacks and nasty caricature are avoided.

In other words, you're not an atheist but an agnostic.  You don't disbelieve in the existence of any God period; you just haven't found one that satisfies you yet. Well, I encourage you to take a deep look at the God of Christianity.  He is a loving and personal god, not a primordial being or mystic consciousness.  I might be reading you completely wrong, but from what I've gathered, you are a former Christian who rejected your faith because you felt it was repressing you. I think you should take another look at the situation.  Do some serious soul searching, and think hard about whether the things you are doing are fundamentally right.  Then look at the results; I think you will find that at the center of everything, there is a Divine Being that cares deeply about you.  Then again, you may not.  I don't presume to know you or to know everything.  I just know that I have found a deeply fulfilling and rewarding life as a Christian and a follower of a God who loves me despite my numerous faults.

Fair enough.    Doesn't get anymore straightforward than that.

Between you and I, I think Squirly is a closet Christian.   

The only role of the church in American politics should be the shaping of an individuals values.  Clergy and other Church officials should be like government workers. Partisan politics must be separated from their role in the Church or Government.
The States should stop issuing marriage licenses and instead issue Civil Union, for the purposed of tax and family law, agreements. Instead of divorce dissolution of a civil union would be instated. Marriage would be then returned to the Churches, it is one of 7  of the Roman rites Church.   Homosexuality is considered a sin against Gods (Biblical) law by many Christians how ever it occurs naturally in 10-12% of the Human population in all societies. Most homosexual and lesbian persons are able to carry on otherwise normal lives in all other aspects of society and many do so unrecognized as  homosexual.