Discrimination- or Freedom?

Discrimination:

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Synonyms:

prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship;

Now let's be clear, I have an opinion about this. It boils down very simply to:

Don't use your freedom to take away from mine.

We have been deluged recently by new laws giving a narrow freedom to a relatively small group of people. By so doing the law is giving permission to discriminate, give prejudicial treatment against others. These have been specifically aimed at allowing people to refuse service to Gay and Lesbian individuals in the name or religion.

Someone commented on Facebook that we have now defined a group of people who aren't allowed to sit at the soda fountain counter in Woolworth's. The reference is to the sit-ins in the 1950s and 60s when African Americans were not allowed to be served at those fountain counters. They were arrested because they were breaking the law.

Some will point out the obvious differences in the laws. I agree that there are some. But there are also similarities that are the root of the problem. The greatest similarity in my view is that these laws give individuals the right to decide who can utilize the services. Personally, I can think of people I would not want to serve if I were running a business. Maybe I would like to keep convicted violent offenders out of my store. Perhaps I would want to make sure that i didn't have to interact with some bigot who would not agree with me. It could even be that I wouldn't want to have any organized crime people buy in my store. After all, in all these situations, it may very well be that you are known by the company you keep.

Yes, I am stating this in an extreme. So let's change the circumstances a little. What if you are an observant Jew who follows the Kosher laws. Into your store walks a guy carrying a ham sandwich. What would that guy say if you refused to serve him because of the sandwich? Yet, you now have the right to do that.


Okay, I know very few LGBTQ people who would want to give any business to many of these places that might not want to serve them. But that proverbial slippery slope is always looming on the horizon. It is not out of the question- as we have already seen in Tennessee- that a professing Christian refuses to do their job because they have to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

In spite of legal decisions, it will not be companies like Hobby Lobby, etc. who will be doing the discrimination. It will be individuals exercising their religious freedom. When it comes to individuals expressing their freedoms, it often devolves into discrimination and prejudice.

We can argue this one all night- and many do. In general, no one should be forced to do things against their conscience. But most of what these laws are about is not that. It is a way of hitting back at the progressive and liberal ways they see as dangerous. Maybe they feel they can push back against the force of history. Maybe they want to recreate the 21st Century equivalent of the private schools that sprang up in the south after segregation was ruled illegal. Maybe it will work for them for a while. But it doesn't get rid of the issue- and doesn't do anything but set up more walls.

And hurt people when taken to their extremes.

I Get Angry - Very Angry

If this law is enacted in Michigan, it will be another step backwards in the fight against discrimination. It would allow doctors and EMTs to refuse care, repeat REFUSE CARE to people whose lifestyles they disagree with.

If it wasn't from a local CBS newsfeed in Detroit I would have thought it was a headline from The Onion.

It says something very unhealthy about American politics when a bill like this is even considered as a possibility. It goes against every ethical standard of every health care license issued. It contradicts every basic human value and every bit of Christian faith. It is a perfect opportunity to dig into a) The Parable of the Good Samaritan and b) The story of the woman caught in adultery - let those without sin cast the first stone.

What kind of nation are we becoming when we justify torture because someone else attacked us so we can respond with revenge and anger? What kind of human and humane value systems are we discarding in the name of an abusive understanding of religion? It is a good thing these politicians were not in charge in the civil rights era.

Oh, wait a minute, they were. And they were proven to be on the wrong side of history, faith, and ethics.

If we allow that kind of thing it is no different from the radical Islamist sects who want to impose sharia law. It lowers us to a least, and pretty damn low common denominator.

It's Just This Simple

Matthew 22:34-40-- When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Of course, simple doesn't mean easy. Why? Because we are humans who have been slow to learn this thing call loving your neighbor as yourself. Or, at least when it comes to defining who my neighbor is. But maybe we can get better at it. What I think will be more likely to enhance our ability to do so is to understand that in a world like ours, EVERYONE is our neighbor- and we each are everyone else's neighbor. The world-wide recession in the past six years shows that. The price of oil and its effect on gas prices AND food prices shows that. Even the world-wide terror alerts and the Ebola reactions show that.

Yet, Jesus was speaking something far more profound than we are willing to admit. We humans are community-based creatures. We need other humans to support us, protect us, raise our children. The simple fact of the long period of growth of human children and their powerlessness and helplessness is an indicator of that. When our primitive human ancestors started to form small bands or tribes, the movement toward community was begun.

But it was also the beginning of competition between tribes which only morphed (dare I say metastasized?) into states, nation-states and then mega-states. Suddenly the definitions of neighbor needed to be expanded- or identified differently. The result was the expansion of tribal conflict into war, into global war. As I mentioned in one of my posts on the 10th Armored Division in World War II the number of people involved in that conflict was staggering. There were 1.9 billion people impacted by the war. That is an amazing 90% of the world population in 1941!

Who says we are not all neighbors?

Certainly not Jesus. He broke all those neighbor taboos from women to Samaritans to children to lepers to those possessed to Romans to tax collectors to the poor to orphans to those in prison to those caught in adultery. In short, he broke the taboos by making all of the known enemies of the day his neighbors. What is kind of scary to me is that the only group he was less-friendly with - the religious and political leaders. (That I will just let sit there. Make your own determinations of that one. At least for today.)

The challenge I hear from Jesus in this hate-filled world in this time of fear and finger-pointing is to take a different look at the enemies we put on our hate list. Until we can treat them with love, we are not living up to our name as Christians. I hear Jesus telling me to pray for them- and to pray that we ourselves may be blessed by them. It is a two-way street.

Conscience- or Discrimination?

Back in the 60s (and before) there was this moral position about war that was called "Conscientious Objection." You had to prove to your local draft board that you were opposed to war- and that being drafted and going to war was against your faith and belief. It became quite contentious in many places. Some draft boards were notorious for never granting CO status to anyone but those who were from the traditional "peace churches:" Quaker, Mennonite, Brethren, etc. Other draft boards would take the position that someone who went to all the trouble to put together the application probably was being sincere. There were all the positions in-between that caused much anguish and tension within communities and families.

This was of course the Vietnam War era and the thinking was that they didn't want to give CO status to someone who was just out to save his own butt in that particular war. If you were opposed to ALL wars and wouldn't have fought in other wars either, then you were more likely to be deemed CO. Otherwise you found yourself with a difficult dilemma. What if you didn't get your draft board to grant you CO status so you could do alternative service in a hospital or other such institution for two years? What if you ended up getting drafted and ordered to report for your physical or, if passing that, your induction?

Well, you had several choices. First, you could simply follow the law and your notice and go into the Army if drafted. Second, you could enlist in one of the military branches before being drafted and try to get something that would fit your conscience. Third, you could refuse, get arrested and sent to prison for several years. Or, fourth, you could leave the country and become an ex-pat in Canada. There were people who chose from this list and followed their conscience. Some went into the service, voluntarily or not, because they didn't want to go to jail or leave the country. Others who didn't want jail went to Canada. Needless to say there was a lot of soul-searching by a lot of young men in that era. The stakes for any individual were of course quite high. To become a felon, refugee in a foreign country, or move from your principles and possibly be killed in war- none of those was particularly enticing. Many of those were not from the traditional peace churches also faced separation from their communities or families simply for taking the stand.

Were there those who misused this? I am sure there were. Did some lie or build a case that wasn't their true beliefs but were simply to stay out of Vietnam? Of course there were. But most of those I knew were honest- sincere- and ready to take the consequences. Some fought it in the courts; most of them lost their appeals. Nearing the end of the Vietnam Era the Supreme Court broadened the requirements some, allowing those who were not part of the "peace churches" to be considered.

Back to accepting the consequences, though. That was the underlying decision faced by many. Which consequence, in their mind, was the least onerous, the best of all bad options?

So what does this have to do with discrimination?

• Example: A doctor who refuses to see patients who wish to have an abortion because of their belief that abortion is wrong.
• Example: A counselor who refuses to counsel a gay man because he believes homosexuality is sinful and would urge that person to work to change their sexual orientation.
• Example: A family-owned company does not want to pay for contraception as part of insurance coverage because of a sincere belief that it is sinful and against God's will.

The doctor, counselor, or corporate owner could easily see themselves as "Conscientious Objectors." Who am I to make them follow MY conscience or beliefs against theirs?

Ah yes, but it can get really tangled up. It has only been in my lifetime that in some states it became legal for people of different "races" to get married. It is only in my lifetime that people were told they couldn't treat people of other "races" or ethnic groups differently because they were "different." That is to name but a few examples of how discrimination can show up in the guise of "conscience." It wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote. And it is not long before that when even men who didn't own property were given the same right.

When, then, does conscience become discrimination? When does conscience become prejudice- or become a justification for what acts and looks like prejudice? When can a society- by cultural standards or law- tell people that their "beliefs" or "conscience" is wrong, unpatriotic, or even "illegal."

Mormons in the 19th Century wanted to practice polygamy- by their conscience. The greater society said no. Was society "discriminating" against Mormons in so doing?

Yet, prohibitionists in the early 20th Century persuaded the society to adopt "their" "moral position." The society suffered greatly.

Perhaps to answer the questions we need to look at issues and ethical principles like "the greater good" or "justice" (in the ethics sense of equality of care, fair distribution of resources, etc.), "autonomy", "do no harm, do good. We can get into different types of ethical stances and come out in different places. I believe it is worth the discussion. We are having it, of course, in our country at this time over same-sex marriage and its ramifications as well as the Affordable Care Act and contraception.

Let's do it in honest and supportive ways. Let's recognize that there are consequences to any of our actions. Which ones are we willing to accept- and live with- and which ones do we feel will cause harm and injustice? Let's do it with openness about what we really do believe and why we believe it, accepting that in a diverse and highly pluralistic society we may be in the minority as often as we are in the majority.

The COs of the Vietnam War era were definitely in the minority. Yet they were listened to and accepted. What can that mean for our current debate?

Never in Service of Discrimination

Came across this on Facebook. With the veto of the anti-gay law in Arizona, there is still more going on. I gather there is a bill in Mississippi ready to do the same thing.

Here, in a petition is a short, impassioned plea for sanity, is a way to take a stand that does not mix religion and discrimination. As it says these arguments are far too similar to justifications for Jim Crow laws that kept African Americans from dignity and equality.

Clergy can sign the petition at this link.

Clergy Against Discrimination

As evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics we are alarmed by the pending Mississippi bill that would allow virtually anyone, including businesses, to discriminate against customers in the name of religious liberty. We call on Mississippi and all states to abandon legislation that threatens democracy, civil rights and religious freedom itself.

These misguided efforts eerily echo Jim Crow laws that robbed African Americans of their basic human dignity. Businesses once barred not only blacks, but Jews and Asians from buying homes in certain neighborhoods or eating in restaurants even after Supreme Court rulings overturned segregation laws.

We must not allow faith to be used in the service of discrimination.

When we seek to codify legislation that discriminates against any class of people—no matter our diverse theological beliefs about marriage—we tarnish the treasure of religious freedom and the highest ideals of our democracy. Most of all, we are complicit in violating the Golden Rule that unites us as Christians—to love God and our neighbor as we love ourselves.
-Link

Faith in Public Life:
Advancing faith as a powerful
force for justice, compassion
and the common good.