The great alcohol debate

On November 6, the masses will swarm to their local voting districts
to exercise their constitutional rights to vote. While that is a
completely different post in and of itself, there is a controversial
issue in our neck of the woods.  Believe it or not, there are still dry
counties through out the United States.  That is to say, you can’t go
down to the local convenient store and pick up a 6-pack on a whim. The
only alcohol in our town is found at specially licensed establishments
such as Chili’s.  Coming November 6, our town will vote yes/no to
become “wet”. 

There has been some buzz as you can imagine. One
particular email was from the University president. He cited some
statistics on the adverse affects of alcohol in youth and encouraged
the rest of us to vote “no”.  Frankly, it pissed me off. I don’t care
which way he votes, but he should not have used the University e-mail
system as a platform for his political views.  Especially, when the IT
department has sent out multiple copies of the University policy
regarding e-mail. However, he’s the President, so no one mentions the
policy. To be honest, the President is a Godly man whom I admire. It
just really peeved me when I came across the e-mail.

That of
course, spurred me to write this post.  From a theological stand point,
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with drinking. There is no scripture
that forbids us from drinking.  Rather than blaming people for their
drinking problems, we blame the alcohol. As a result, legalistic
tendencies start to replace theological truths to the point that
drinking becomes a sinful behavior. 

A friend of mine brought up
a good point. She mentioned that if we treat alcohol as taboo then it
becomes a problem. However, if you look at countries where alcohol is a
normal beverage, they don’t have near as many problems with it. (Thanks
for pointing that one out LeAnn).


7 thoughts on “The great alcohol debate

  1. I don’t drink, but I agree with your assessment. I also won’t vote this time, which is unusual, because I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference on the “drunks” side. Right now, we get the drunks, and Silverton gets the beer cans. Now we’ll have those same drunks and beer cans as well. It doesn’t strike me as all that much of a change on the negative side ;).

  2. The point of the conservatives in the town is the youths, who will have easier access to alcohol; the high-schoolers will be the ones who abuse the availability much more than the adults.”If we treat alcohol as taboo, then it becomes a problem.” Doesn’t that go back to your earlier point, that the issue is not the alcohol, but the use of it? I would think in this issue the problem is not the alcohol but the desire to break the law. You could outlaw the sale of bumper stickers and all of a sudden people would have this urge to stockpile bumper stickers. Also, if the statement is true, why isn’t premarital sex on the decline in America, since it’s legally permissible? If we had no laws, there would be in the eyes of American government no action detrimental (or beneficial) to society — there would be no law-breaking, no rebellion, because there is no law to obey or rebel against. In fact, a government would have no identity, no clear direction for its action; conversely, a government which shapes a law code exactly to the shape of its goals and philosophy, it has a clearly expressed identity. Since republicanism derives its authority (and thus its identity) from officials elected by the people, who generally listen to their electing constituents, in order to be completely honest to the collective desires of all Americans we’d have a very small legal code (if it were a list of “you will not” statements) — or a very large one (if a list of “you may” statements) — because we’d have to include people who desire legal protection of the right to homosexual marriage, theft, gang violence and murder, alcohol (and all abusable drugs) to people of all ages, rape, child abuse, and all imaginable things many people who don’t have or don’t agree to those desires would have otherwise considered immoral or criminal. Since this is an extreme defense of diversity and what the citizens making the population feels are right, I call this “ultra-liberal” — protecting the authority of the people to do what they feel is good for themselves and the rest of society, and removing from them any outside influence or authority that would interfere with the carrying out of their particular moralities.If the elected officials decide to appeal to some moral system other than the diverse philosophies they see in (all of, not only some) their constituents, then by necessity they are legislating a morality according to that system, which will contradict anyone who does not form their own morality according to the same system. If the elected officials considers only the voice of this moral code, it completely ignores the voice of the people — I’d call this “ultra-conservative.”Now ideally in a government the desires of the nation are unified and match a perfectly good standard (God’s standard). Unfortunately, people have rejected that perfectly good standard by both their philosophy and their desires for carrying it out.The identity of America is becoming a lie, since it rejects a little more each day its natural desires as human beings to do what God calls just and loving. Its liberalism and conservativism are both corrupted, and so the solution to the problem doesn’t lie in if we vote “wet” or if we vote “dry” for the Plainview gov’t’s decision on the selling of alcohol. People will strive for what they want whether the government protects their right to do so or demands adherence to an outside code of morals. The solution has to be in people accepting their freedom in, and demanded adherence to, God’s law, and his created identity in man. I think Dann is right in saying that Christianity should stay detached from American government, beyond giving it the dues we owe it as citizens. The government has an unnatural identity, liberally and conservatively, because the people making it up have ignored their conscience and desires when God spoke through them or to them. In order to affect the government, we should not try to dominate the rest of America and try to force them to obey our morality. We should walk out of the voting stands (after voting because it is our duty to Caesar to do so) and and preach that America should itself repent of its desires and corrupted morality (from which comes its — theoretically — honestly expressed, but corrupted law), for the government and will of God is at hand.I know all the above is flawed, and my definitions probably suck overall, but it’s awfully early in the morning and I have philosophy class to go to tomorrow. Cheerio.

  3. I understand that having A drink is not wrong or sinful or w/e but that’s the thing…how many people do you know that actually drink alcohol just have A drink? I don’t think people in general are strong enough. We’re gluttons and that’s disgusting. If you want to have a drink of anything, why choose something that’s going to alter the way you feel? I like wine, my husband would like to have a beer every now and then but we don’t….don’t drink while we’re out, don’t keep it in the house, notta. It’s not worth the trouble it causes. We have some good friends (christian and not) who drink the same…they want to relax or w/e, they use the excuse that alcohol’s ok and that they’re of age blah blah blah…and I find it completely disgusting. You’re taking something into you’re body that has the ability to change you, to make you sick, to addict you….I completely don’t understand it, but that’s just me :). As far as voting for laws concerning things like that…I think most of America votes based on convenience not on what is actually right (duh). I dunno…we’ve never had the choice on something like that. Alcohol’s always been very readily available over here and it’s also a HUGE problem…so…I don’t know?

  4. I don’t exactly have the self control that Jesus did…and I wasn’t disagreeing w/ you. Iknow there is no scripture forbidding us to drink but the bible does say to not be drunk w/ wine and that’s the point I was making. I just don’t have an answer for someone who doesn’t know Christ and compares my having a glass of wine to his drinking a 30 pack everyday. And like I said it’s not the alcohol, it’s the excess…drinking 30 of anything is disgusting. Sooo for us, we choose to not drink or have it in our house…it’s not worth the argument w/ our friends who we’re trying to minister to, ya know?

  5. Kevin, your point may be driven further. He commanded people to take wine in the Eucharist by His example the Apostles and their followers were to imitate. When He transformed water into wine, He gave it to fallible people, no doubt some of whom were quite drunk by that point. They had drank all their wine by that point after all.

  6. I agree that alcohol itself is not wrong, and that it’s people’s choices to drink too much that is a problem. The thing that’s making me consider voting (I am registered to vote here) “no” is the argument I’ve heard that it would make it easier for parents to practice alcoholism–thus being dry is protecting children from the grief and danger of parents’ poor choices.
    Other than that I don’t really care one way or the other on the issue at this point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s