By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“This bill is not about allowing discrimination. This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”
-Arizona State Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R), on SB 1062.
Assaults on the civil rights of homosexuals and the acceptance of gay marriage have been the focus of a number of state legislatures. The most recent lunacy is a bill in Arizona that now awaits action by Gov. Brewer. The bill amends sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes by incorporating provisions that effectively insulate many forms of grossly discriminatory conduct from legal consequence if done under the cloak of religion. This is accomplished in three steps. First, the bill defines “exercise of religion” to include “the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.” Second, the bill expands the definition of “person” to include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.” I refer to this as the “Hobby Lobby” amendment. Finally, the bill prohibits, with a strict scrutiny exception, any “state action” that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion even if that state action is a law of general application.
I anticipate that the governor will veto this atrocity, not as a matter of constitutional principle, but out of concern that enactment of the law would further harm Arizona’s reputation and economic interests. But it is nonetheless disturbing that legislators would willingly employ a fundamental freedom as a weapon against a disfavored group of citizens.The legislation has been pushed by the usual suspects. Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, has written a piece entitled “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage,” in which he claims, inter alia, that recognition of marital rights for gays threatens the religious liberty of “individual believers trying to live their lives in accordance with their faith not only at church, but at home, in their neighborhoods, and in the workplace.” That, of course, is merely another way of saying that Mr. Sprigg’s religious beliefs must prevail over yours in the event of a conflict, even to the point of requiring that you live somewhere other than where you may wish to live and work somewhere other than where you may wish to work. Mr. Sprigg, who was formerly the pastor of the Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, New York, believes that tolerance is a synonym for endorsement.
Or consider the words of the Rev. H.M. Goodwin, who lamented the damage to “the unity of the family as a social organism,” striking “at the root of that which should be the first and foremost end of government to protect, the sacred unity of the Family.” Or perhaps don’t consider the words of Rev. Goodwin, because he wrote them in 1884 and the object of his outrage was actually the growing movement in support of women’s suffrage. In that same article, Rev. Goodwin complained of increasing secularism, an example of which was the removal of the Bible from public school classrooms at the instance of “Catholics and infidels.”
The history of this country is littered with appeals to God in defense of oppression. In 1822, Richard Furman, a church pastor in Charleston, South Carolina, wrote a letter to Gov. John Lyde Wilson claiming that slavery “is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is, therefore, consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct.” That argument became discredited through time and the Civil War, of course, but its legacy was a system of laws that persisted for decades until intervention by the courts, an intervention that the late religious leader W.A. Criswell decried as “a denial of all that we believe in” fomented by proponents of racial integration which he labeled “a bunch of infidels, dying from the neck up.”
The point is that every advance in the rights of man has had to overcome preachers of hatred and theologians of exclusion. Every attempt to admit to the fullness of civic, political and social life a group previously rejected out of ignorance and fear has been resisted by those asserting sole possession of divine truth. And years later, after the battles have been won and the opponents are long since dead, their words are finally recognized for what they are, the intolerant rants of false prophets.
In April of 1965, Lester Maddox stood at the entrance to his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, axe handle in hand, to block three black Georgia Tech students from entering. Mr. Maddox closed his restaurant later that summer rather than comply with court-ordered desegregation, but carried his views all the way to the Georgia governor’s mansion several years later.
In retrospect, Mr. Maddox made a tactical error. Instead of the same old tired arguments about property rights and federalism, he should have cited the Free Exercise Clause. He should have argued that his sincerely held religious beliefs prohibited his serving a ham sandwich to the children of Ham. Or perhaps he should have moved his restaurant to Arizona, where politicians have determined that religious balkanization is a healthy trend and that religious extremism in the defense of bigotry is no vice.
Sources: Goodwin, H.M., “Women’s Suffrage,” The New Englander,” No. CLXXIX (March, 1884); Freeman, Curtis, ” ‘ Never Had I Been So Blind’: W.A. Criswell’s ‘Change’ on Racial Segregation,” Journal of Southern Religion, Vol. X (2007); Sprigg, Peter, “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage,” Family Research Council (2011).
Bron,
“I am still not sure exactly why people in those days tolerated that type of assault on individual rights. I think there were a handful of hardcore racist a$$holes in every community who used social ostracism as a weapon to perpetuate the status quo.”
*****
And should people in these days tolerate legislation that would disciminate against gays and lesbians? I think we are witnessing how a group of hardcore homophobic a$$holes is working to limit the individual rights of homosexuals.
Nick, Happy African-American History Month.
I’ve never bought the 10-12% figure bandied about. I think it’s maybe half that.
Bron,
The subtle point I was making was this. Of course there would not be two water fountains saying “Queer” and “Straight.” Instead what we have in many places is a single water fountain that just says “Straight.”
As you realize, of course, the water fountain is a metaphor for many services and products that some people would make unavailable for at least 10-12% of the population.
Bron, are you pro-Bill of Rights or are you “government should not outlaw killing” pro-BOR?
LOL! Samantha, you are a gem.
DavidM, Those inconvenient facts of Dems and Rep are not taught in high school history. Kids thought I was lying when I taught them who were the most evil in the South vis a vis Jim Crow. “The truth shall make you free.” My colleagues didn’t like it. F@ck ’em!
The notion that there is a war against the religious is ludicrous. I see this is a meme that is being pushed by the Relgious Right. Jan Brewer said very clearly and bravely thatt she didn see one instance of any person’s religious freedoms being violated. I think we will see a further split in the conservative movement, the socons will be voted down time after time, because thankfully there are more sane, rational people in the Republican Party than the religionists so far, that could change. I think that this episode may have opened the eyes of Republicans to the totalitarian nature of the Religious Right.
samantha:
are you pro-life or are you government should make abortion illegal pro-life?
Dr. Stanley:
“What do you think about side by side drinking fountains that say “Queer” and “Straight?””
It wouldnt last 5 minutes in this day and age. So I doubt I would ever see one unless it was by government force to have the 2.
No, I didnt grow up in the Jim Crow days. I think it was criminal for a government to do that. It was an assault on individual liberty and rights. In my opinion the governors and legislatures of those states should have been arrested.
I am still not sure exactly why people in those days tolerated that type of assault on individual rights. I think there were a handful of hardcore racist a$$holes in every community who used social ostracism as a weapon to perpetuate the status quo.
It is hard to stand alone for what is right and most people dont have the mental toughness to do so. Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a good example.
They’re already are “left” and “right” water fountains today, never mind that the First Amendment already outlaws them. But this distinction is lost on liberals today, no differently then segregation was lost on whites before the Civil Rights Act. Of course, one can just as easily argue that there are believer and non believer water fountains as well. Where is the liberal outrage? Institutionalized PC against believers and conservatives today, in my experince, is on the order of racism against blacks I read of in history books. If I were to proclaim that I am pro-life, at a liberal, feminist convention, it would mean as much as a death sentence.
MLK was the change through laws guy. Malcolm X understood this is a capitalistic society and power comes through wealth. Both are needed but Malcolm had the message for TRUE equality, it died w/ him.
Bron,
I am not sure of your age, but I know I am a lot older. I remember the Jim Crow days quite well and just how entrenched they were. You are correct regarding the segregation laws of those days, and their immorality. If it had not been for the Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there would still be “colored” and “white” water fountains. Blacks would not be allowed to stay at the local hotel or motel, or eat at all white restaurants. A little arm twisting by the Feds brought most private businesses around to seeing the light. . However, there was–and still is–support for those old laws, and now fifty years later we continue to uncover virulent racists in our midst. All I have to do is point to the preacher I wrote about last weekend. It did not surprise me that we got the comment reaction we got, with all that Tu Quoque illogical frothing at the mouth.
As for religious tolerance, I am all for it. That is, until religion gets into the secular business of serving the general public. Then it is just another business. What do you think about side by side drinking fountains that say “Queer” and “Straight?”
Charlton Stanley wrote: “As for religious tolerance, I am all for it. That is, until religion gets into the secular business of serving the general public.”
This statement reveals the crux of the problem. It is like saying, “I am all for free speech until speech becomes contrary to the way I think.”
Who is it that has decided that business is solely in the secular realm? Why do secularists have a monopoly on business? A truly free society recognizes that religious people are allowed to conduct business. A religious person does not have to shed his religious values in order to serve the public. This is exactly why bills like SB 1062 are needed. Arizona failed. Perhaps another State will be more brave and save our Constitutional liberties. One thing this Arizona debacle has made clear is that the homosexuals have waged war on religious freedom. Only the brave will fight them.
Dr. Stanley:
“Remember Rosa Parks on the bus, and the four young men who sat at that Woolworth lunch counter fifty years ago? They weren’t being dicks, they just wanted service at a facility open to the public.”
My point exactly, government caused the discrimination, Rosa Parks was on the back of the bus because there was a government enforced law saying she had to be there. That wasnt a private bus to my knowledge.
I think if people were allowed to pick and choose who they associated with, there would be much less discrimination going on. Look at professional sports, as a team owner you discriminated at your financial peril.
If businesses want to discriminate based on biblical principles let them, they wouldnt have any customers because most people have done something against biblical teachings at some point in their lives, they would be out of business in the first week.
We all came from Africa, we all bleed red. The sooner people understand that the better off we will all be. So be a dic and discriminate and pay the price for your actions. Government should have no part in telling a private business with whom they must do business. It is a reduction in our liberty.
There are enough people willing to take other people’s money with no ideology attached so there will always be a baker willing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding.
Bron wrote: “My point exactly, government caused the discrimination, Rosa Parks was on the back of the bus because there was a government enforced law saying she had to be there.”
You are absolutely right, Bron, but your point is likely lost on many here. It is quite ironic how people reverse history. The Democrats created the Jim Crow laws that forced people to discriminate against the black race. Then Republican Congressmen drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and with the help of Democrat Presidents were able to overturn these bad laws. Now the Democrats take up the banner of discrimination again, this time against the religious. Through that process they pretend that they are the champions of anti-discrimination laws against race, gender, and sexual orientation. While discriminating against the religious, they claim they are leading the new civil rights cause to free the oppressed homosexuals. They are blind to the concept of less laws and less government would result in less discrimination, more love, and a better society.
You folks that claim religiosity as your foundation…. Have issues accepting folks that are perceived by you as different…. I bet today youd reject the Christ you claim so well …..
Bron, The more successful I got the more selective I became. Working w/ attorneys, they have a high % of pricks. I would tell them to go shit in their hat. And, I learned something by doing so. The good attorneys knew the pricks also and appreciated my forthrightness in not working for them. Almost invariably, the pricks had sleaze attached.
davidm:
1. The source you cited for the bill’s analysis was the right-wing group that drafted the bill.
2. I believe that social stigma is a reaction to any behavior deemed non-normative and a substantially contributing factor to mental and emotional health issues among those subjected to that stigma. Nathaniel Hawthorne understood this quite well.
I think that we will simply have to agree to disagree on the merits of the Arizona bill. However, I know we’ll have further opportunities to exchange views on the topic because I know the legislative battles will continue.
Elaine, the article about the influence of conservative Evangelicals in Africa, kind touches home to me. After the 2nd WW was over there were hundreds of thousands of refugees from many different countries scattered in Displaced Persons camps throughout Germany and Austria. The ethnic German refugees were traditionally Lutheran way back from the time of Martin Luther. Austria was a Catholic country and these refugees were adrift emotionally and spiritually. American evangelical fundamentalist groups were there during that time and were busily converting these people. I never understood this phenomenon until I had a lengthy discussion with a Lutheran minister from Canada. I couldn’t understand why so many Lutherans converted to this nutty fundamentalist religion i was brought up in. He explained that they, the Fundamentalist Evangelicals, took advantage of vulnerable people in a vacuum of their traditional religion.
My extended family on my father’s side were converted. It caused a huge rift between my relatives who stayed Lutheran. Being raised in a Pentecostal church has made me the liberal I am today, despite or because of my ultra conservative upbringing. My experience in this religion has shown me just how toxic they really are. Fast forward to today, these evangelical fundamentalists, like the Sr. Cruz, are basically attempting to replace our secular government with a Christian one. It’s Dominionism plain and not so simple. When they can’t do what they want here in the US, they will continue to go to vulnerable countries and do their God given nation building, by taking advantage of vulnerable people. They took advantage of refugees in 1945 in Europe, they’re doing the very same thing in other countries today.
davidm2575
You said “Despite this acknowledgement, theism is not my primary source of knowledge about natural law. I rely upon empirical sources of knowledge and frame my arguments accordingly. I do not argue against homosexuality based upon some sacred text or some religious persuasion. I argue against it based upon basic biology. The male and female body parts are different and obviously have a purpose and natural use which correlates with the male and female having sexual relations and not with male and male having sexual relations or female and female having sexual relations.”
That is far from absolute or even axiomatic in science.
The most abundant carbon-based life forms are asexual microbes.
Vast billions of years prior to their eventual evolution, asexual abiotic evolution was the only game in town.
Male / female sexual procreation is a late bloomer, and it is even absent in some vertebrates today:
(The Virgin MOMCOM – 2, quoting National Geographic).
davidm2575
You wrote: “Despite this acknowledgement, theism is not my primary source of knowledge about natural law.”
“Natural law” is a theistic (not a scientific) concept:
(quoting Dr. Lee Smolin).
Bron,
Just being a dick is not a protected class. If someone is an in-your-face jerk, it doesn’t matter if who or what they are. If you 86 somebody for violating the DBAD rule of the house, you are on safe ground, no matter who they are.
On the other hand, if you refuse service to somebody soley because of the color of their skin or who they choose to love or marry, that is an entirely different thing. Remember Rosa Parks on the bus, and the four young men who sat at that Woolworth lunch counter fifty years ago? They weren’t being dicks, they just wanted service at a facility open to the public.