I know that there have been a lot of diaries on the RFRA laws like the one in Indiana already. I don't know how much more my take contributes to it.
On the other hand, I think that if people were more convinced of this argument, such laws would be far less defensible.
Now, while it seems clear to me that such RFRA laws are unconstitutional and in direct conflict with the Establishment Clause, I do not find them generally objectionable. If a butcher doesn't want to touch pork, if certain states want to protect that, as someone who wants to support other people's rights so long as they are not infringing anyone else's, I think that is alright. If that is what it's really about.
Yes, as an Atheist, it seems to me to be a privilege that only the religious can enjoy. But I am also willing to live and let live, and focus on some of the more real cases of injustice in our country. I wouldn't tell a Muslim not to be a butcher, anymore than I would tell Iggy Azalea not to be a rapper. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me, but if that's what you want to do, then by all means find a way that you can do it.
But that's not what it's all really about. The issue, for me, arises from the taken-for-granted notion that these religions somehow require such discrimination in the first place.
The fact is that no religion gives anyone a license to discriminate against others. But there are people who will discriminate against others no matter what their motivation. A bigot who hates gays because he claims it is his religion, I have no trust that such a person would not still be a bigot even without that religion.
Taken in this light, these RFRA laws are then merely cover for bigots to discriminate and treat others as second-class citizens, unless anti-dscrimination is explicitly included. Not only are they then in violation of the Establishment Clause, but also the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Let's take the example most cited in these battles: same-sex weddings, equal rights for the LGBT community more generally.
Now, Christian fundamentalists will assert that their refusal to serve LGBT stems from the bible, but regardless of how exactly, it stems from their fervent purely religiously-held beliefs.
In other words, these Christians assert that, if they do not discriminate against LGBT, it goes against their religion.
Forget disputing this on the basis of its content. Consider these two things about this assertion instead.
1. First, that there are a vast number of other Christians who do not discriminate against LGBT. Regardless of what they personally believe, they do not openly object to the LGBT community, or their equal rights. Yet, they still believe themselves to be Christians, believe that they won't be punished by God for being kind to the LGBT community.
2. Second, that the so-called Christians, while attributing their bigotry to their Christianity, oftentimes continue to assert that they are against gays even if not for their Christianity. If I presented you with a Christian who discriminates against gays, and told you to imagine the same exact person, except they are not Christian, would perception of them change to think that they would still not discriminate against gays?
Based on these two points then, my thesis is this: there is nothing specially Christian about discriminating against gays. Just as there is nothing specially Christian about treating them as equals (insofar as treating others who are different than you as equals is a basic tenet of a lot of Christian teachings). Discrimination against gays is entirely about a person's personal views, regardless of the justification. When you strip away the religious justifications, you are still left with a bigot. And this behavior has already been prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.
Challenge them on the first point, and one of the main defenses is that, well, these people are not true Christians. This sets them up to argue who is and who is not allowed to call themselves a true Christian. This represents the bigots waging a holy war against the moderate factions, rather than the common portrayal of the non-religious being the detractors.
One of the other defenses then is that, well, Christians are allowed to express their Christianity individually. These Christians believe it is ok to be LGBT, but I do not. The problem for them then is that it is far harder to argue that these few individuals require a protection that the majority of the rest of the group do not. How are they going to say that Christians need this protection to practice their faith, when the overwhelming majority do not agree? Again, this puts the bigots at odds with the others in the religion.
Challenging them on the second point is a bit more interesting. A lot of times the initial defense is to not even acknowledge the challenge that their rationale brings. If you say the only reason you hate gays is because of your religion, doesn't that mean that if your religion didn't teach you this, either because you are not the same religion or because you interpret the teachings differently, that you wouldn't hate gays anymore?
Invariably, these so-called Christians never plainly answer such a premise. If the answer is yes, they would still hate gays even without religion, then clearly it is not about religion at all, therefore there is no reason to consider it a religious belief that must be protected. Either way, basing their discrimination on their religion is no longer defensible.
If the answer was simply no, they wouldn't hate gays if their interpretation of their religion didn't require it, then it challenges their very notions of what their religion means to them. In their heart of hearts, they believe that this behavior is what they truly need to do to be living as their religion expects them to. For bigots to admit that they believe something that their religion simply does not require of them, it's probably easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
Of course, this is not meant to portray all believers, only the ones who adamantly proclaim that it is in their teachings to discriminate against others. This belies a mindset that goes beyond religion.
That's the thing about bigots. It is just as important for them to openly display their bigotry as it is to disguise the primary motivations from which it stems. It's because of their beliefs, they will say; but then get rid of the beliefs, are they saying they would be just fine with gays getting marries? I am eager to know.
So what you will often see is a lot of hedging, often a refusal to even engage the challenge.
As atheists, we see this a lot when discussing morality more generally. Christians assert that their morality derives from their Christianity. They then extend it to those of us who are not religious, we must not have any morals at all. But challenge them on what they would do if they no longer believed in the Christian God, are they then going to go out and murder and rape? No, they would still be moral even then, they assert. But somehow those of us who are already godless, we aren't. One wonders how they can reconcile these two assertions in their own minds, but it happens.
I think that it is best to treat all people equally, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of what they believe. I do not have any personal conflict with this belief because I am confident enough in who I am that, if I imagined myself to be anything other than an Atheist, I know that I would still be able to reconcile this belief with my religion. Whether I am Atheist, Christian, or Muslim, I would still firmly believe that it is best to treat all people equally.
Extend this logic to people who discriminate, and it tears up their rationale. I discriminate against gays, but only because I am Christian. That must mean that I can't be Christian if I don't discriminate against gays. That must mean I don't support discriminating against gays if I'm not a Christian. And yet, neither of those two things even seem to occur, not in their minds anyways.
These days, we often focus on the religious motivation of this bigotry toward gays, but we shouldn't forget that there are motivations beyond just religion. Now, it may be a bit obtuse to try to separate things like culture, community, friends and family, from religion, but the point is that they all contribute just as much to creating a bigot as they do a decent human being. All of these can lead to the result of a person who hates gays, and who wants to treat them differently. Similar arguments can be made for racists and sexists.
Now, there are also fellow non-religious people who will object to my assertion that no religion gives anyone a license to discriminate. They will be quick to point out the many instances of church- and biblical-sanctioned hate and discrimination and atrocity to say that, yes, such bigotry is firmly entrenched in religion.
Set aside the fact that all these examples would also apply to the conditions established above. At the end of the day, religion is just one part of a whole tapestry of values and morals and ethics that drive people. We must also consider the times, the culture, the social customs and values, the knowledge we currently have, these also determine what is and is not acceptable. Of course detractors can point to how many Christian teachings teach that Christians should respect God's law above man's law, but you don't see any of them revoking their citizen-ships, do you? Clearly, people make accommodations for their religious beliefs all the time, just as they make accommodations for what their parents teach them, what their teachers teach them, what their media teach them. No matter who the person is, so long as they are part of a society, religion is just one of a myriad of motivations. Why give protected status to a religious system that the person themselves do not give a protected status to in their own actions?
Once again, it is not about religion at all, but about the people who distort it.
So how does this help the overall battle against RFRA laws, and discrimination in general? Why don't these two points ever get brought up to challenge these people, or if they are, taken to the conclusion of their logical journeys? The media often avoids the two points included above, because it all too well exposes the true purpose of these actions: it is not about protecting religious freedom, it is about giving license to bigots. In battles against the RFRA now, people focus on religion; doing so only lets bigots off the hook for defending their true motivations. In protesting RFRA laws, in protesting discrimination, religion is often scapegoated, and this does not help either side. It only helps bigots.
The battles over RFRA laws, and even other issues such as Evolution and abortion, are often characterized as a conflict between people who want to see everyone treated equally, and people who want special protections just for their own favored group. As a result, those of us on the former side end up alienating people who belong in that favored group but might otherwise be our allies in seeking equal protection for all. The truth though, is that the latter side is only using their inclusion in the group as a cover for their underlying bigotry and prejudices, often distorting the values of that group as a result.
We must get their bigotry out in the open, and reject the notion that they are allowed to drape their religion over it and disguise it within a modern civilized society.
EDIT: This diary has been edited to remove an offensive line.