Redefining Freedom to Include a Deity

While listening to an atheist commentary on a Christian video, I came across a comment concerning freedom. The topic of the discussion was sexuality and the three Christian gentlemen worried aloud in ponderous tones about the sexual mores of the current age. They really wanted to find arguments that would convince people to adopt their Christian approach to sexuality.

The comment that bothered me occurs at the 6:44 mark, where the Christian in question specifically wants to undermine the current narrative in which we attempt to maximize freedom as long as no one is harmed. I don't dispute some of his points, but what worries me is that he did not seem to be proposing a true discussion about how to resolve differences. He merely wants to impose a Christian view.

To summarize, he says freedom depends on us understanding our nature and finding the correct restrictions on said nature. In addition, he said we need to have a discussion about what harming is, with the implication that your sexual behavior may be harming someone not in that relationship.

To illustrate his message about finding our nature, he offers the story of a fish who needs water to survive. If said fish feels free to live outside of water, it will die. Now, I'm not sure how he would define the different natures of people, but I have often heard Christians talk about how there are two genders and each has a distinct nature. So, although he didn't elaborate, my concern is that we would not be free to define our own natures. Under Christianity, they are defined for us and circumscribed by laws set forth in an ancient text and interpreted by people in positions of power. Christians often speak of their deity creating man and woman, with each having a pre-determined role. There is no room for trans people in terms of gender, and sexual orientations other than hetero are sins. Women play a subservient role as help-meet. For Christians who espouse any to all of these ideas, consciously or unconsciously, these natures are determined for us by a supposed all-knowing, all-loving and all-power creator.

From my point of view, in order to insure maximum freedom, there must be restrictions on what we can do. Not every and all behavior should be allowed, but not because of some "nature" that has been decided for us. Instead, limitations on freedom should stem from insuring that others can have their freedoms. The saying your freedom stops at the end of your fist applies here, with the harm extending beyond physical damage to such behaviors as limiting how other people can define themselves and make choices about their personal lives.

It bothers me that this person wants to limit our freedom based on some nature that he perceives.

It also bothers me that he wants to move the conversation to undermine what is a perfectly rational way of starting morality, which is limiting harm to others. It would be one thing if he said that this is a good starting point (minimizing harm), that we just need to define what constitutes harm. It may be he realizes how this sounds, that he is demanding that others behave as he thinks his deity demands regardless of impact. It is one thing to say, yes, let's discuss harm and come to a consensus, but he seems to want to impose a notion of harm.

Having a discussion about what harms is excellent. As a secular humanist, I am for ways of limiting the way we harm each other needlessly. However, I have the impression this man wants to redefine harm to include his deity. He does not specify what harm is being done. I have seen Christians try to claim harms that may result from societal status, bullying, guilt brought on by religion, etc., like there is a higher risk of drug or alcohol abuse or suicide rate among LGBTQ people. Is it their orientation or identity alone that causes these negatives or is it the way society has stigmatized them?

We can as a society talk about what harms occur when we engage in some behavior. Easy ones have to do with assault and murder, where there has been physical and emotional damage. Vandalism or robbery also show apparent harm in the form of time and money spent repairing the damage, loss of property, potentially loss of personal meaningful objects that will never be regained and emotional damage if the person begins being fearful.

I could continue listing real harms that cause physical and emotional damage, trauma, loss of time and resources. I'm not saying we always repair damage well, that we punish people often enough or that there isn't more to do. But these are discussions we have had, laws we have passed and attempts to remedy these harms in our legal structure. And we should continue to have these discussions to fine tune our systems.

However, with regard to sexual mores. I am at a loss about how what two consenting adults do causes harm to others. The only harm I've seen is people's ideas about how the world is supposed to work, or the worry that some deity is angered or upset.

We need to be concerned about religious people who are not interested in a true discussion of what constitutes right and wrong for society. They can have their own personal morality of sexuality, but what gives them the right to impose their ideas on me if I am not harming others? I would argue that they have none.