We are a society riven by opposing points of view. Different mind sets based upon different world views. And this propensity is exacerbated by the dif-ferent balance of values held by liberals and con-servatives. The issues are legion from choice to the size of government.
BIGOTRY RECAST AS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
We are a society riven by opposing points of view. Different mind sets based upon different world views. And this propensity is exacerbated by the dif-ferent balance of values held by liberals and conservatives. The issues are legion from choice to the size of government.
In a recent article I wrote about the lost art of com-promise. Lost, I believe, because of hardened views driven by ideology.
Ideological driven principals are stultifying and un-yielding. This leads to public cynicism, ill content and a withdrawing from certain aspects of public life. Even our hard won right to vote is viewed as mean-ingless by some because of gerrymandering and the obscene amount of money corrupting politics.
Previously I used the example of marriage equality to illustrate my point. I did so by asking a series of questions relating to the ideological arguments swirl-ing around this issue. Questions such as how ac-ceptance of marriage equality would compromise or diminish a persons faith?
It was fascinating to read the comments to my column where not even one reader talked about finding common ground, which would involve, of course, compromise.
One retort was “It is always interesting to read the opinions of people without religious faith tell people who have deep, sincere faith how they should think and act.” And then a quote from Mahatma Gandhi about how there can be no compromise on fundamentals or principles for that “is a surrender”.
Principles are a two-edged sword. If you compromise a principle, it is not a principle but merely a suggestion. The appropriate question is what differentiates a carefully constructed and reasoned principle from blindly following dogma?
As usual the dogs of war on the far right have gone off the rails. Case in point is Senator Ted Cruz who said that marriage equality is “liberal fascism” against Christians. Cruz went on to say that “In the new Democratic Party there would be no room for Christians”.
What a wonderful spin, recasting the rights of Ameri-cans to marry the person they love, to that of fear and loathing. The fear, of course, is that the religious liberty of Christians will be impinged upon. Cruz went so far as to say that the issue of same-sex marriage has “radicalized the Democratic base, creating a sit-uation in which there would be no room to tolerate the ‘religious liberty’ of those who would like to dis-criminate against the LGBT community”. Yes he ac-tually used the term discriminate.
No thought has been given to separating out the right of a faith leader (priest, minister, imam or rab-bi) declining to preside over same sex unions, and that of artisans or business owners to decline based on the fact that they are not bringing together the marriage but merely enhancing the celebration.
In a letter to the New York Times a reader wrote, “We should do all we can to protect liberty of con-science. We should also make clear that offering a service in a commercial market, rather than facilitat-ing a religious rite, does nothing to limit, impinge or corrupt that liberty”.
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, in a New York Times op-ed, said, “But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their business”.
It has been awhile since I read the New Testament but I will give it a go. Corinthians 7:2 says “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Thus leading many Christians to be-lieve that their bigotry is condoned by the word of God. However, in Corinthians 7:6 it says “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” This is clearly a call for Christian decency, understanding, compassion and acceptance.
I know this opens me up to a flood of biblical verses to the contrary. However, I was reminded that the bible is like a person – torture it enough and it will say anything you want.
Homosexuality is a fact of life. Are the rights of the LGBT citizens any less than others? Further, homo-sexuals were made by God thus who are we to ques-tion his deeds?
Based on the Constitutional protection of civil rights and the concept of freedom for all, we cannot single out persons or groups for lesser status. We did this to African-Americans in our past and now, as a more enlightened nation, we are better for having re-nounced it.
I have no issue with those who try to live a decent and graceful life. And if faith makes you a happier and more caring person I am all for it. What I stren-uously object to is using religion to mask bigotry. The misuse of the terms freedom and religious liber-ty to deny basic human rights is discrimination. And the freedom to discrimination against others is no freedom at all.
* * *
Functional Illiteracy
Most recently marriage equality has risen to the fore-front because the Supreme Court is finally taking up the issue.
“Trolls”, are those who launch ad homonym attacks when they disagree with a point of view. Trolls are vicious, mindless demons, who revel in destroying others.
However, there is another class of readers who, pur-posely or not misconstrue a reasoned argument. How instead of working their way through a rea-soned argument some will pick on one word or phrase and take that to be the whole.
Isn’t it interesting how two people can read the same thing and come up with two very different under-standings.
One might think that following my article on the lost art of compromise in our society, that it would be taken as a call for calm and reasoned thought and conversation about the issues that divide us?
Far from it the reactions from those who took the trouble to write has been vitriolic bordering on apo-plexy.
The reactions have been of two basic types; those who purposely or not misconstrued my meaning and intent. And those who took a small piece of my arti-cle and made it the central theme.