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).
RTC:
“Bron: Who do you discriminate against?”
Every company I dont buy from on a particular day, or when I was single all the young women I didnt want to date and so to for the young women who didnt want to date me. The list is endless on the amount of discrimination we all engage in on a daily basis.
David, there are a lot of things I would call you, but a Jew, a Muslim, or Hindu would not be any of them.
I would definitely call you a Christian, although, ironically, you, like most others of your kind, are the least “Christian” of people.
As for taking the Bible as the infallible word of god, it was you, when asked to name one person who became wealthy without exploiting anyone, who named two; Abraham and Job. I remember that because I still have coffee stains splattered about my desk area after I did a legitimate Danny Thomas spit-take. And you said as if you had bank statements.
And you became petty defensive when several others pointed out that you had chosen two mythological figures based on two men who may or may not have ever existed. You claimed we were offending the direct ancestor of Jesus.
Whereupon I pointed you to a book, “The Historical Jesus”, written by the late Dominic Crossan, an actual scholar, who was better studied, having handled the original documents that you fetish. Nowhere does he claim, suggest, or hint to Abraham as part of Jesus’ lineage.
So unless you have the record of birth certificates linking the two sitting in your garage, your insisting on something more truly specious than whether the fossil record is contained in the stratified layers of geological sediment. By the way, have you ever heard of erosion.
As to your response to Annie:
1. Roe v. Wade was about the right to privacy, not murder. Abortion is not murder.
2. Recognizing the rights of disparate parties is easy. Balancing them is the hard part.
3. Make abortion subject to a legal proceeding, and the process will be drawn out until the kid’s ready for third grade.
Most women agonize over the decision to have an abortion. You would introduce legal hearings – a trial essentially – that would magnify the trauma.
Women untroubled at the prospect of aborting a fetus would likely make a terrible parent. Society would be much better off without having to deal with the product of such households.
As Annie pointed out, where are abortion foes when the child needs food, clothing , and shelter?
So well studied, so little sense.
You have a very strange way of recalling recent history in this forum. It is no wonder you are so confused about ancient history.
RTC wrote: “You claimed we were offending the direct ancestor of Jesus.”
This is a ridiculous comment. How can you possibly offend someone who is dead? Such a thought would never enter my mind. I never made any such claim.
A case might be made for Job being mythological, but certainly not for Abraham. Several cultures report his existence. Both Jews and Arabs claim him as an ancestor. Claiming Abraham never existed is the same kind of foolishness as presented by the hypercritical scholars who attempt to argue that Jesus never existed.
The reason I mentioned Abraham and Job is because for millions of Jews and Christians, they believe what is reported about them regarding their righteousness and wealth. It makes for a simple proof to millions who accept that evidence. Because I knew several involved in that discussion declared themselves Christian or Jewish, I mentioned that example rather than a modern person that we would then start debating about how good or evil that person was. Big deal.
As for Dominic Crossan, I find it very difficult to believe that Crossan was ignorant of the genealogies reported in Matthew and Luke. If he didn’t discuss it at all, it is probably because he accepted it. The fact that he ignored that evidence is not proof that he rejected it.
RTC wrote: “1. Roe v. Wade was about the right to privacy, not murder. Abortion is not murder.”
Abortion is the termination of a life. From the perspective of millions of Americans, abortion is murder.
Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and has caused untold damage to our society. It basically trumped the rights of the mother above her husband or boyfriend as well as her unborn baby. It used a strange reasoning of privacy rights and due process to read into the Constitution an understanding of abortion that does not exist.
Making a legal proceeding necessary for abortion does make getting an abortion more difficult, but procedures could be put into place such that it could be done in a timely fashion if there was nobody contesting it. In some cases, at the very least, it could provide for some accountability after the abortion.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States has strong armed the entire nation on this issue and so we can’t see any States attempt to put such procedures in place. One thing nice about our country is that experiments of this nature could be done if the States had the sovereignty that they were originally suppose to have. For example, one State might put such procedures in place while a neighboring State does not. If someone wanted to, they could just go get their abortion in the State without them. Then we could see which societies had the best abortion laws and States would adopt those that seemed to work best. If free abortion on demand is determined to be best by this model, so be it.
Oh, I might also add that I disagree with how teenagers today can get an abortion even when their parents object to it. Parents and grandparents have rights too.
The dying right: Why Christian fundamentalists are in panic mode
The religious right knows that time is running out — and that makes them even more dangerous
CJ WERLEMAN, ALTERNET
2/28/14
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/the_dying_right_why_christian_fundamentalists_are_in_panic_mode_partner/
Excerpt:
Like a cornered animal, which turns instinctively to confront pursuing predators, the Christian Right, knowing it represents the views of an ever shrinking number of Americans, is engaged in an existential fight to the death. Veto or no veto, Arizona’s anti-gay bill is just another of its many efforts to transform America’s secular democracy into a tyrannical theocracy.
The Christian Right’s dirty little secret is they are acutely aware that changing demographics are running against them. While they may believe the earth is a mere few thousand years old, they’re not complete idiots. They can read polls, and the data tells them this: millennials are abandoning religious belief. According to a recent Pew survey, one in four Americans born after 1981 hold no religious belief, which is nearly double the national rate of atheism. Other studies confirm this trend, including a recent study by the Public Religion Research Institute showing more than half of non-religious Millennials have abandoned their childhood faith…
The Christian Right’s ideology drives virtually all social policy debate within the Republican Party, whether it’s immigration, women’s reproductive rights, the death penalty, or same-sex marriage.
Chris Hedges says the Christian Right’s ideology calls for the “eradication of social ‘deviants,’ beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country. Once these ‘deviants’ are removed, other ‘deviants,’ including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as ‘nominal Christians’—meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible—will also be ruthlessly repressed. The ‘deviant’ government bureaucrats, the ‘deviant’ media, the ‘deviant’ schools and the ‘deviant’ churches, all agents of Satan, will be crushed or radically reformed. The rights of these ‘deviants’ will be annulled. ‘Christian values’ and ‘family values’ will, in the new state, be propagated by all institutions. Education and social welfare will be handed over to the church. Facts and self-criticism will be replaced with relentless indoctrination.”
While the Christian Right is becoming the dwindling minority, it remains an existential threat to civil rights, secularism and our democratic values. It’s a threat fueled by a seemingly unlimited supply of campaign finance, and a rabid base that believes it’s fighting for its place in a 21st-century world it can’t reconcile against an ancient book that says gays are an abomination. You know, like shellfish.
Sam: I don’t understand your question.
—————————————————–
Annie: I think you’re spot on regarding the hypocrisy of the “moral” agenda.
Oh, I don’t know, RTC, would you say more people are obsessing over gay culture? Does that make them all gay?
The rights of the fetus do not trump the rights of the already born woman. I also notice that the interest in the well being of the child diminishes significantly after it’s born, by those on the right. If abortion would be made illegal and women were forced to stay pregnant and give birth, I can see Tea Party people out on the street holding up signs,” Taxed Enough Already. No expansion of AFDC!”
Annie wrote: “The rights of the fetus do not trump the rights of the already born woman.”
I agree with this statement 100%. What you may not realize is that not every pro-life person like myself wants to outlaw abortion.
In a nutshell, here is my stance on the abortion issue:
1. I disagree with Roe v. Wade because States have always regulated murder laws. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion. So I favor overturning Roe v. Wade. It is a State issue that each State should decide for themselves.
2. I think State legislators should recognize both the right to life of the unborn, the rights of the father, and the rights of the mother.
3. I see the unborn baby as a developing body getting ready to become a person. I believe there is a right to life, but that right does not trump every other right that exists. I would favor allowing abortion legally within the first trimester, but regulated in a way kind of how divorce is regulated. Legal action is needed to do it. Government policies should be implemented to discourage abortion. I think our societal culture needs to be a culture of life and not death. Abortion should never be an on-demand type of birth control.
Bron: Who do you discriminate against?
———————————————–
DavidM: You are religious, you’re just not honest. Much of your dialogue on this blog reveals an obsession with our society’s relationship to religion. You’ve pored over many Supreme Court decisions that have dealt with religious topics; you have read and quote many religious texts. Just because no organized religious institution adheres closely enough to the biblical principles, as you understand them, for you to deign to affiliate, does not mean you are not religious.
What you are is dishonest. I am aware that there are some religious sects that teach their adherents to deny that they’re religious in order to gain trust, or allay suspicions, to facilitate proselytizing among the heathens.
What you are not is spiritual. A spiritual person would cultivate greater tolerance for a wider range of human expression that seeks fulfillment outside the precepts of the bible, which is perhaps one of the least spiritual books ever foisted on civilization.
Your argument here is very similar to Southern business owners during Jim Crow who wanted to deny trade to blacks. If this bill had succeeded in Arizona, what would’ve stopped a church or some crazy televangelist, like Pat “God Sent These Storms Because He’s Angry With You” Roberts from buying a local utility and denying electricity to gays? We already know you approve of withholding medicine and medical treatment on the basis of biblically constrained morality. How far would you go. Are you really working on a magic button that can make them all disappear? (Note the question mark.)
RTC wrote: “What you are is dishonest. I am aware that there are some religious sects that teach their adherents to deny that they’re religious in order to gain trust, or allay suspicions, to facilitate proselytizing among the heathens.”
Your statement here implies that you believe I am part of a religious sect. So you believe a falsehood. That is your choice.
I have always openly stated that I am a theist and have never tried to hide this fact. I have never tried to hide the fact that I am well studied, and that includes the Bible as well as other books held to be Scripture by other religions. I have even studied both the Hebrew and Greek languages so I can read the Bible in the original languages. I consider the Bible important because it is the most published book in history. Any student who reads books would be absolutely stupid to ignore the Bible. It has had a profound impact upon our history and culture.
I realize that many people say they are not religious to indicate they do not believe in God. That is not me. The primary reason I say that I am not religious is to clarify that I am not part of any religious sect. There is no dogma of a religion that I might in any way feel compelled to believe because I am part of that religion. When people form associations, there is this inherent desire to agree with certain ideas and principles. For a scientist, he is compelled by the philosophy of positivism to censor theism from his worldview. For the Roman Catholic, he is compelled to agree with the tenets of that faith, which includes the concept that the Pope is God’s ultimate representative on earth. For the fundamentalist Baptist, he is compelled to believe that the “Holy Bible” is the inspired word of God and every word is infallible. I don’t have any of that baggage. That is the only thing that I mean to communicate by saying that I am not religious. If you think every theist is religious, then feel free to think of me as religious if you want. It is not going to offend me as long as you understand that I am not part of any religion. What I don’t like is to be called a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or whatever other category you think my philosophy and beliefs place me.
“I also think people should have a right to choose what happen to their respective bodies…”
Exactly! Now extend that right to the body of the unborn, and you and I are in total agreement.
RTC:
All of us discriminate every day.
There you go again, Appleton. If you’re going to attribute me, at least have the courtesy to get it right! Anything less is malicious.
As for your: The “person at fertilization” notion is a radical view of recent origin.
There are quite a number of people who believe, going back several thousand years, that the soul, like matter, has always been and will always be, that bodily personification is merely one of many dimensions in the journey of life in this universe. You would not be one of them, certainly, but I’m open for correction. So, naturally, I’m confused about your claim it is radical and recent. Late Native Americans, whose spirituality I respect more than any other people’s, would never have been able to survive without their beliefs, any more than they could have without air, water or the earth. Denying them spirituality would’ve been tantamount to death. And so it is with believers today, whose right to believe whatever they want to believe, as much as you hate to recognize that right — while you cherish your own — is a matter of spiritual survival. If my beliefs bring comfort, who are you to deny them? Sometimes the rights of one person conflict with the rights of another. But conflict is not a license to invalidate the rights of one person over another’s, much less to even punish or make a law with wholesale prejudice. That’s what this brouhaha is all about, punishing those damn Christians, those evil conservatives, those godforsaken homophobes, that horrible white privilege, even jeering and gloating, in spite of the fact that this legislation, according to some who have posted here, had nothing to do with religion or gays. Opportunists weaponized it to further an agenda, to discredit, duping the usual suspects to do the heavy lifting. Then you come along and condem the defense of rights for the unborn, whom I believe are individuals as much as you are, who have every much a right to live as you do. Get off your high horse, recognize that my pro life position is equally important to your pro choice position. Anything less, you come off as wanting it both ways, when it comes to the First Amendment. In my opinion, you’re part of a corps of vigilantes, doing shots and padding each other on the back every time another life is snuffed out, a Christian burned, or a conservative shackled. Some, it appears, are here just for the sport of it, cheering or booing, depending upon the position of the football, the hell with personal rights, which is of paramount significance for both business owners and customers (christians and gays, for the militant activists). The most recent post on this blog is also about religion. I’m especially interested in seeing how the bias played out in Arizona will play out against ministers and snakes.
Samantha,
I think at one time…. When the fetus was able to take a breath was when personhood was validated….
I also think people should have a right to choose what happen to their respective bodies…. You play a god when it’s your will be done….
davidM sez: “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.”
Good news david, every religious person actually can conduct business, as long as they do it on the same terms as everyone else…in a non-discriminatory manner. As a very important – and busy – CEO of a corporation, I’m sure you’ll be pleased and relieved to know that the law does not prohibit you from conducting business.
But seriously, thank you for your comments on this subject. There’s tremendous instructive value for people to see your homophobia in stark and glaring terms.
RTC wrote: “I’m sure you’ll be pleased and relieved to know that the law does not prohibit you from conducting business.”
I’m not religious, so I don’t have these problems. I am not thinking about myself, but about companies like Hobby Lobby. I respect Mr. Green’s right to operate a business in a non-secular / religious way. I also respect the rights of photographers, cake bakers, and florists to operate in a religious way. The First Amendment was written to protect these people, but thanks to the indoctrinated lawyers of the ACLU, the First Amendment has been misinterpreted to mean freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion. As a result, freedom in America, especially religious freedom, is under assault. The homosexuals are leading that assault, as evidenced by their propaganda about this Religious Freedom Restoration Act and SB 1062. I can understand why some religious people are reminded of the Biblical story of Sodom. The homosexuals there made demands for their liberty to have new sexual experiences. It certainly does bring to remembrance the words of Jesus concerning how the last days will be like the experience that Lot had in Sodom.
Bron, Very well stated.
samantha:
I am against abortion and would try and talk my daughter out of having one and I also think it is the destruction of human life.
I cannot wrap my mind around using government to force a woman to carry a child to term and I also cannot wrap my mind around using government to force a woman to have an abortion.
A government which would do either is malignant.
By the way, there are better people to quote than Nietzsche. The quote works both ways though.
samantha:
We are well aware of your views on abortion since you manage to incorporate them into every topic. I thought that you might wish to know that abortion was not a crime prior to quickening under the common law. The “person at fertilization” notion is a radical view of recent origin.
Mike Appleton wrote: “The “person at fertilization” notion is a radical view of recent origin.”
This is true, and I do agree that it is a mistaken notion because of the observation of monozygotic twins. If a person exists at the moment of fertilization, how can it then split into two people?
Nevertheless, the idea of abortion being murder is not of recent origin. Some of the ancient Jews believed that the soul was imparted into the unborn 40 days following fertilization. Others believed it was sometime before birth based upon the independent movement of the unborn. Yet other religious arguments were that the spirit was imparted into the child at birth when the first breath was taken. And there are even religious arguments that a full person does not exist until after puberty… they argue that the mind is not fully developed until then, and that the soul develops through childhood and life, not fully existing until sometime after puberty.
I think the abortion issue does not hinge upon when we define personhood, but simply on the notion of whether we facilitate life or we facilitate death. Should having a hand in death, in killing the unborn, ever be considered moral by a civilized society?
Dredd, It’s almost over. I think it’s ironic Black History Month is the shortest month of the year. I was heartened to see Obama speaking to fatherless black kids today w/ the message of personal responsibility. There needs to be MUCH less hand wringing “white privilege” garbage and MUCH more talk of personal responsibility.
“I am pro government stay out of it either way. I dont understand how you can give rights to a 3 week old embryo.”
Bron, maybe you don’t understand because you are a victim of the same ostracism, perpetuated by hardcore racist a$$holes, you say established and maintained segregation, and you’ve lost your mind.
“When a hundred men stand together, each of them loses his mind and gets another one.” –Friedrich Nietzsche
samantha:
“Bron, are you pro-Bill of Rights or are you “government should not outlaw killing” pro-BOR?”
I am pro government stay out of it either way. I dont understand how you can give rights to a 3 week old embryo.
Dr. Stanley:
your point was understood. My point is that there are plenty of people who would make goods and services available to gays and that federal government intervention is not needed unless the states violate the rights of individuals as was done in the south.
In my opinion it is a violation of individual rights to force a private company to sell goods and services to people with whom they dont want to associate.
You seasoned citizens are way to willing to use government to set things right when the better thing to do is let people work things out. The federal government should only intervene to protect serious violations of individual rights not to manage who is unwilling to sell wedding cakes. The market place took care of those people.
Dismantling The ‘Religious Liberty’ Talking Points Used To Justify Anti-LGBT Discrimination
BY ZACK FORD
FEBRUARY 27, 2014
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/27/3339201/religious-liberty-discrimination/