Yet to pass laws changing the existing status of either abortion or homosexuality , without protracted public debate, would be nothing short of governmental myopia and indifference re the sentiments of a vast section of the population. Such a state of affairs calls forth the genius of politicians and legislators.
In one sense, laws affect only the dejure (legal 'ought') status of certain sexual acts but everyone should know that the de facto (practical 'is') situation is often quite different. If abortion is legitimatized on the limited scale as planned now few would benefit from the law since one could hardly rig the psychological states that would qualify one for such abortion.
If abortion on demand be legalized then that would only make public what has been done clandestinely for ages in Jamaica, and effectively slash the fees of the medical practitioners who were already presaging the law. Those who voluntarily restrict their limited freedom in life with a concern for the ethical would not easily make use of the law and those who have no regard for
the ethical do not need the law to 'free them up'.
Decriminalize homosexuality today and what it would probably do in a few months time, is provide startling revelations of the extent to which the practice was engaged in. Homosexuality is not the type of act concerning which a law would necessarily create practitioners, though it may stimulate latent traits in some individuals. The law basically makes the de facto become also de jure Let us not kid ourselves on these issues. Abortion and homosexuality are practices that touch even the hallowed precincts of the Church What this nation needs to deal with is the questions of what informs societal ethics. My analysis of moral trends in Jamaica reveals that officialdom operates on the principles of moral relativism which forces us to live under the dictates of consensus morality the decision of the powerful and/or the plenty.
In such a situation the call to moral absolutes would be seemingly, only a means of appeasing one s conscience in being a 'voice m the wilderness' Vet without absolutes morality loses us moorings and lacks sufficient grounding ethically This is the delight and dilemma of moral freedom Thus, step by step Jamaica teems to be adopting the ethics of the Marquis de Sade to wit 'what is is right So following this philosophy whenever our moral thermometer registers high (low?) enough in favour of an illegal and immoral act then just change the stupid law, and with it the moral status of the act. In a society without moral absolutes the voice of the people is the voice of God.
So premarital sex is only a problem because of the population crisis — that is consistent with moral relativism. Adultery stalks the land with impunity - it is welcomed in a milieu of moral relativism. But if we accept this basis for our ethics what valid argument can we bring against the individuals who wish to exercise freedom and abort?
What right have we to interfere with two consenting individuals engaging in homosexual activity. Notice I did not say consenting adults because, if we smile at children cohabiting heterosexually (as long as there are no off springs) then what ethical argument would we advance against children sharing 'notes' homosexually since no off springs are possible here, at least not yet.
Arguing as I have been doing here is designed neither to condemn nor condone any of the acts mentioned but chiefly to raise the issue of the dilemma that we face as a nation in the throes of moral pluralism. And indeed the notion of democracy demands this pluralism and permissiveness, given the shifting views of the 'demos'.
Rulership of the people by the people means that the moving force of the nation is 'the people'. Thus when the people desire what is to its pleasure, one needs to be sympathetic though not necessarily supportive.
Christians in particular need to recognize the difference between a democracy and a theocracy.
In a theocracy, the operative force is 'theos' (God) thus following the definition of democracy given earlier, theocracy can be seen as 'rulership of the people by God for the glory of God and the highest good of the people'. Jamaica is not a theocratic nation, yet it contains a theocratic community — the Church of Jesus Christ.
This theocratic community must live on the theocratic ethics of the Bible, thereby offering a 'model with a difference' to the world. Christians therefore, can and should call the nation to hear of and observe purity thus, at once they magnetize and evangelize. Realism must remind us though that each man has the right to refuse our option and love for such a man must guard us against being judgmental of him as a person, though we may not countenance his behaviour.
The tensions involved in living theocratically within a democracy are great but a sense of mission to and responsibility for the democracy eases the tensions, somewhat. What creates unbearable tensions and diminishes the magnetic and evangelistic force of the theocratic community is when its members are practitioners of the ethic that informs the democracy.