Lawmaking. What is the point? Why do we have state and
federal offices dedicated strictly to receive proposed bills, revise them, and
then vote to either approve or decline that bill in the process to become law?
A few generally accepted answers come from these questions such as to maintain
civil order, to protect the public, even define economic processes.
These are just a few reasons, but everyone can agree that
these are good and noble purposes. Where the people tend to butt heads is how
do we maintain civil order, how do we protect to the public, how to define
economic processes. Today the state is so diverse in its makeup of culture,
ideologies, religions, ancestries, careers, agendas, and so many things that it
is no surprise there are conflicts when it comes to public law and order. There
is an apparent conflict that exists between the modern citizen (especially
young college aged people like us) and the “system.”
Education is all about diversity, freedom, self-expression,
making your impact on the world, but when it comes to law and order this is not
the case. We are expected to live within boundaries. Don’t speed in your
vehicle, don’t sleep with your neighbor’s spouse, do your homework. We are
given a list of things we must do, or not do, and if we break those codes a
punishment is given. It seems to be the anti-thesis of freedom,
self-expression, to make your impact on the world!
It is quite the amusing paradox, and not amusing at the same
time, that in college we are taught to be ourselves and let no one stand in our
way, but in the public square there are certain groups of self-expression that
are under suspicious scrutiny.
Recently, a respected professor came to our school and
shared a lecture on how religious, in particular Christianity, influence on
Louisiana public policy is bad. The Christian Church is constantly accused and
berated for imposing its morality upon the people, especially when it comes
issues of the family and sexuality.
When it comes to issues of family and sexuality the Church
is looked upon as archaic, discriminatory, repressive. The public outcry is a
ubiquitous raised fist of “who are YOU to tell me what to do? What do a bunch
of old celibate men know about sex?”
Here is the problem. Everyone has the same evidence, how that
evidence is interpreted is the issue. Dependent upon the risks in life you
participate, we are exposed to certain instances of loss or suffering. Yet
regardless of the decisions we make in life we are CONSTANTLY DISCRIMINATED
against choices. We allow a red light to determine whether or not we can drive,
we allow markets to determine what we pay for items, we allow teachers to
determine if we pass a test subject.
I’ve never seen a person raise their fist shouting “what are
you red light? To tell me I can’t drive? Who are you security guard, to not let
me steal? Who are you professor to determine whether or not I pass this
course?” Why not? They are discriminating against your freedom! You don’t see
someone doing these things because they understand the consequences of breaking
those rules. You don’t have to ask the “why” behind the “what.”
In matters of family and sexuality we see the “what” but no
one ever asks “why.” Those conversations
are personal, and often times painful. Regardless of whether or not the
conversation is related to religion, we need to seek integrity of ethics and
laws as they related to the protection and dignity of the human person. Regardless
of idealogies, we need to have the conversation of what is the BEST decision
for family life and sexuality. We sacrifice freedom for the sake of other
drivers, for the sake of education . . . why not sacrifice a little freedom for
the sake of family and sexuality?
