"Stand Your Ground" Conservatives

One thing that puzzles me about Florida’s “stand your ground” law is that it was championed by “conservatives.”

For hundreds of years English common law (i.e., the organic body of law developed slowly, case by case, by English judges beginning around the eleventh century – and the law that formed the basis of our legal system), held that a person facing a threat inside his home could use deadly force to repel the attacker, but a person threatened outside of his home could not resort to deadly force without first attempting to retreat from the danger.

The rule, known as “castle law,” presumed that a person confronted inside his home (or castle) had no place to retreat to, and so had no duty to retreat. However, a person threatened in a public place might be able to retreat and, thus, to reduce violence and its associated harms, the law imposed a duty to retreat whenever possible.

Example: I’m in a bar and a guy comes up to me and says “I don’t like the cut of your jib. I’m going to beat your head in.” Castle law required those of us with bad jibs to exit the bar, if possible, until the authorities arrived. We could only resort to force if it became impossible to leave.
But Florida conservatives decided that castle law was wimpy and enacted a “stand your ground” law that allows people who “reasonably” feel threatened by another person in public to defend themselves without attempting to retreat. A person who defends himself under these circumstances in Florida is immunized from criminal or civil liability.

Why do I mention this? Because one of the central tenets of conservative thought has been that organic systems, developed over long periods of time, embody wisdom that progressive “reformers” easily overlook. Conservatives have long urged caution in making changes to social institutions and practices that have evolved organically. Look at the tenacity with which some conservatives have fought against changes to marriage law, and before that to racial roles, and before that to male/female roles.

What puzzles me is that “Florida conservatives” voted to ignore a common law rule that had been created and refined over hundreds of years of actual case experience, to give Floridians new “stand your ground” rights. Did it ever occur to them that there might be a reason for the castle law rule? Did they read any of the past cases? Did they consult the judges’reasons?

Did they forget they were conservatives?

Beats me. But I’m glad we still have a duty to retreat in Hawaii. I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve got a bad jib and need to leave the bar.

Joe Huster

Coming Out

I haven't posted much in the last month, after staring a series on "rights."  I will get back to that topic and try to post more consistently.

However, I do wan't to post this note that I distributed to certain members of my church, so that everyone can know where I'm coming from on a couple of key issues facing us.  I hope you find it worthwhile

*****

Let me share a couple of thoughts

There are two distinct ways of approaching the scriptures as a resource for moral insight.   The first and most common method is to treat the scriptures as a “criterion” for moral truth.  A person who approaches the scriptures as a “criterion” for moral truth asks the following question when confronted with a moral issue - what do the scriptures teach about the subject?  For this person, the entire difficulty - if there is any - is in figuring out what the scriptures teach.  Once this person believes that she knows what the scripture teaches, she has no further need for moral reasoning; no need to ask “do the scriptures get it right?

The second method is to approach the scriptures as a “source” for moral insight, but not as a criterion for moral insight.  A person who approaches the scripture in this manner acknowledges that the scriptures contain moral insight, even profound insight, but does not assume scriptural inerrancy.  For this person, “thus says the lord” is not a convincing argument, particularly when what the “lord” seems to be saying is obviously wrong.

I confess that I am FIRMLY in the latter camp.  All of us are on some issues.  All of us know that the scripture’s endorsement of slavery, or God’s alleged command to Saul to kill every man, woman, child and animal in an act of war, do not provide sound moral guidance.  We instinctively acknowledge that additional explanation is needed to mitigate the message of these passages.  That is because, taken at face value, the wrongfulness of their moral advice is impossible to deny.

However, on most moral issues, the vast majority of our fellow believers stick with the first approach.  It is simpler, works fairly well on a wide range of conduct, and wards off a lot of unnecessary doubt.

Why don’t I take that approach?  The short answer is, “I can’t.”   I’ve developed an unshakable conviction that the level of justification one has for believing a proposition is directly proportional to one's willingness to subject that proposition to genuine scrutiny - and that goes for scriptural propositions as well.  The only way to know if the moral guidance provided by the scriptures is sound is to test that guidance against our most defensible moral convictions.

But to do this, I have to be willing to entertain the possibility that the scripture’s guidance, or at least our current understanding of it, is wrong.  If I am unwilling to entertain the possibility that a particular scriptural claim is false, no matter how false it looks (either on its face or after critical scrutiny), then I am unwilling to subject that claim to genuine scrutiny and, thus, have no reason for believing it to be true. I am simply assuming it to be true and sticking to my guns, evidence or arguments be damned.

But hey, I can do that with any proposition - Barak Obama is a Kenyan socialist and closet Muslim!  Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Now, I whole-heartedly believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired and provide tremendously important insight into the human condition - including human morality.  But I don’t believe that because someone told me it was true, or because I am supposed to believe it as part of a creed.  I believe it because I have studied and reflected on the scriptures, and listened to other people’s reflections, and have encountered many of those insights myself.  In this respect I am a very traditional Christian.

However, my inability - or unwillingness as many would describe it - to accept scriptural teaching that appears to be wrong, makes me a pretty scary dude to many of my fellow believers.  I understand that and accept the consequences.  But I do believe that my approach is best and intend to stick with it.  I really have no other choice.

Which brings me to the issue of homosexuality.  The Apostle Paul specifically denounced homosexual activity several times - I think it is foolish to deny that.  Moreover, I grew up in about as homophobic an environment as one can imagine.  As a young Christian at the age of twenty, I was categorically convinced that homosexuality was sinful and felt as “icky” about it as I could.

However, in my mid-twenties, I began to study philosophy - moral philosophy in particular.  Anyone trained in moral philosophy learns, by deeply ingrained habit, to do one very sensible thing - to demand that their beliefs be justified by reasons.  By the mid 1990’s, I was in graduate school and Christians were becoming very concerned about homosexuality.  So it was inevitable that I would eventually ask myself, “What reasons do I have for thinking that homosexuality is immoral?”

I thought about this question for several years - read many articles discussing the subject from a moral perspective, talked to many people - and I eventually reached the following conclusion: I had no good reason to think homosexuality was immoral.  I had originally accepted that view because the bible endorsed it and I felt “icky” about gayness.  But I realized that this was an inadequate foundation for my belief and I eventually abandoned it.

By the way, the “ick” feeling eventually ebbed as I got to know gay people.  So much for it being a natural warning implanted in me by the almighty.

My best moral analysis is that “being gay” is morally neutral - it is a harmless variation on a dominant natural theme (heterosexual attraction) akin in significance to being left-handed.  I don’t know what causes this variation, or for how many it is the result of a fixable problem.  I do know that approximately 11 million people in our country (a population equal to the State of Ohio ) find themselves sexually and romantically attracted to members of the same sex and that, for them, their orientation is inalterable.

As a Christian, I am very concerned about the well-being of these 11 million people.  I don’t see how denying gays the opportunity to participate in our most important social institution (marriage) helps non-gays or the institution of marriage itself.  In fact, their exclusion threatens the perceived legitimacy of marriage as a practice for an increasingly large number of people.   Moreover, I certainly see the numerous ways in which the exclusion harms, marginalizes, and stigmatizes gay people.  I see this and wonder, “How can we continue to treat Gays in this manner and claim to love them.”  What good reason do we have for imposing so much harm and disability on gays, simply because they are sexually attracted to members of their own sex?

None whatsoever, as far as I can see.

Joe H.