This is not about the ten commandments monument in Alabama.
It’s a response to Eugene Volokh’s post about religious freedom and homosexuals. The main thrust of his argument is this:
… [T]oday, the general view, again, seemingly shared by a broad range of people, including many devout, conservative Christians, is that toleration is the more just approach. And, in particular, this means that
- People’s failure to obey religious laws — even three of the Ten Commandments — is not by itself reason enough to punish them, or deny them equal access to government benefits.
- The risk that others will follow this bad example is also not reason enough to punish the violators of religious laws (here, the Hindus), even if we sincerely believe that following the example will lead to eternal damnation.
- Some religious laws, including some of the Ten Commandments, are matters to be enforced not by man but by God.
So my question, as many of you might well have guessed, is: Why shouldn’t devout conservative Christians apply the same principles to homosexuals that many of them would to Hindus?
The three commandments Prof. Volokh refers to as being broken by Hindus are worshiping other gods, creating images of their gods, and not observing the Sabbath.
There are two types of commandments in the ten commandments. The first four deal with man’s relationship to God, and the last six deal with man’s relationship to other people. (Beyond the ten commandments, other Biblical commandments can be generally assigned to one category or the other.)
All three of the commandments chosen by Prof. Volokh for his hypothetical involve the first type of commandment, those dealing with a person’s relationship with God.
The general idea of religious freedom is that a person’s relationship to God is a matter between him and God. Thus, the violation of those three commandments by Hindus is in an area that most Americans feel is part of the zone of religious freedom.
However, if Hindus did not believe in the commandments against stealing or murder, we would not consider that a matter of religious freedom that cannot be interfered with by the state.
Homosexual conduct is not a matter between a person and God, so it does not fall into the category of things we would generally consider to be religious freedom. It might be sexual freedom or personal freedom or whatever other type of freedom you might want to call it, but it is not religious freedom.
Therefore, as Christian conservative who believes in religious freedom (as I do), I see no inconsistency between supporting a Hindu’s right to worship his gods, and opposing the creation of a right to same-sex marriage.
UPDATE: Prof. Volokh responds via e-mail:
Hmm — that seems to me to beg the question: Why do you say that the prohibition on homosexual sex is a matter between man and man, and not between man and God? If the two men consent, why should other men enforce this prohibition, as opposed to leaving it to God to judge?
Aside from the obvious fact that, pretty much by definition, homosexual sex is a matter between man and man?
Perhaps I need to clearly demonstrate the distinction I made between the two types of commandments. (And if there isn’t really an easy distinction, it certainly is odd that Prof. Volokh chose three out of four of one type and zero out of six of the other type for his hypothetical Hindus to break.)
Type I Commandents
1. No other gods.
2. No graven images.
3. No taking the Lord’s name in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Type II Commandments
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. No killing.
7. No stealing.
8. No lying.
9. No adultery.
10. No coveting.
Every Type I commandment involves one person and God. Every Type II commandment involves more than one person. As I see it, there’s a pretty clear line between the types, and since homosexual activity involves more than one person it would be Type II.
The point I am making is that a person’s beliefs about God and the proper way to worship God are what we tend to think of as protected by religious freedom. Other aspects of social interaction may be protected by other freedoms and rights, but they are not generally considered part of religious freedom. Therefore, it is not inconsistent for a supporter of religious freedom to oppose something which is not a religious freedom.
(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)