Conservatives have spent a lot of time recently asserting their right to illegally discriminate, which they like to call "religious freedom". The problem is that these conservatives seem to have different standards depending on whose rights are being discussed.
A perfect example of this issue comes from an article titled "How the far left's legal goals put everyone's freedoms at risk" recently penned by the director of the Freedom of Conscience Initiative for Alliance Defending Freedom, Jeremy Tedesco. The basis for this opinion piece is a lawsuit where Tedesco's client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, was determined to have discriminated against a same sex couple for refusing to bake them a cake for their wedding.
Tedesco believes that his clients should be able to discriminate based on their biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin despite the fact that such actions are against the law. The reality is that Masterpiece Cakeshop has the right to refuse service. They just don't have the right to do so based on who the person is. To counter this, Tedesco argues that his client is an artist and that "Like many cake artists and individuals in other artistic professions, Jack objects to artistically designing and creating cakes that celebrate things that violate his beliefs".
Unfortunately, like many other defenders of biblical bigotry, Tedesco doesn't seem to fully grasp the difference between the company’s first amendment rights and discrimination. Artist or not, the cake is the product or service that his client provides. Jack and the staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop are free to refuse to make any cake they see fit. No customer can force them to make a cake they don't offer. For example, if Masterpiece Cakeshop only makes vanilla cakes, they cannot be sued for refusing to bake a chocolate cake. Having said that, if a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple entered Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested the same cake it would be discrimination to bake that cake for the heterosexual couple but refuse to make that same cake for the homosexual couple.
This is also true of wording for the cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop has the first amendment right to refuse to write anything supporting gay marriage, just as they have the right to refuse to write bible verses or the confederate flag. The reality is that denying service based on the service is not the same thing as denying service based on the person.
Of course beyond that, Tedesco makes no mention of the hypocrisy his client is displaying. Being gluttonous is also a sin according to the bible. Would Tedesco be willing to defend Masterpiece Cakeshop if their sincerely held religious belief was that they won't serve fat people? Beyond that it should be noted that the bible never says gay marriage is a sin. If Masterpiece Cakeshop was following their religious tenets, they would inquire about the sexuality of all patrons before providing service. Not doing so compromises their religious beliefs and exposes how fraudulent their religious convictions really are.
Not surprisingly, like most biblical discrimination advocates, Tedesco thinks he has a situation that exposes the hypocrisy of those demanding equal treatment for all. Tedesco writes "Suppose a fine art painter advertises to the public that he or she will make oil paintings on commission, and then a patron contacts the artist and requests that the artist paint a commissioned picture that celebrates gay marriages, and the artist refuses, saying, 'I won't do that. I don't believe that." - is that discrimination? The answer again is no.
The artist can deny service based on the content of the service. In this case the "celebrating gay marriage" is the content and is therefore protected by the first amendment. What the painter can't refuse to do is paint a picture for a homosexual couple simply because they are homosexual. That is discrimination and that is what his client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, did and why they lost their case.
Perhaps the best way for people like Tedesco to understand the implications of the position is to ask them if they would support a bakery that refused to provide a cake for a Christian wedding that didn't include any wording, despite making that same cake for an atheist couple. If Tedesco got his way, this sort of discrimination would be perfectly legal.
In the end, the fight here is not about religious freedom. The courts have already determined what is an isn't covered, and arguments like the one presented by Jeremy Tedesco show an ignorance to the facts in order to feign oppression. The real fight is over who is protected by discrimination laws. So while Tedesco can lament adding "sexual orientation" to the protected classes of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, his concern over "protecting only those with "acceptable" views and permitting the government to present dissidents with a terrible choice: coerced agreement or forced silence" should fall on deaf ears since nearly every law on the books does this exact same thing.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The false hope of more guns
Never wanting to let a tragedy go to waste, the conservative media were quick to pounce on the recent murder of four marines in Tennessee. Breitbart News put up one article titled "‘PRACTICING MUSLIM’ WHO KILLED 4 MARINES WORKED AT SUPERIOR ESSEX IN FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE" while Fox News quoted Charles Krauthammer as saying this attack is "in all probability an example of radical Islam at work".
At this point the motives are unknown so it is possible that the killer is an Islamic terrorist. It's also possible that his yearbook quote “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?” showed he was tired of being treated like a terrorist despite being an American citizen. Of course it's also possible that neither his faith nor U.S. Islamophobia played any part, but peddling fear is really the goal of today's entertainment- based news.
Ironically, many of the media outlets that are quick to play up the possible connection between a Muslim killer’s faith and their actions are the same that downplay race in murders perpetrated by white assailants such as the case of Dylann Roof who killed nine people at an historically black church in South Carolina last month.
Regardless of the motives one thing is clear, the killer used a gun to perpetrate the murders, which means gun rights advocates needed to move swiftly to not only defend the right to bear arms to but insist that the only way to stop events like this in the future is to have more guns. The usual raconteurs like John R. Lott and Todd Starnes posted articles titled "Chattanooga shootings: Why should we make it easy for killers to attack our military?" and "Chattanooga shooting proves it's time to arm our Armed Forces".
The problem is that even if these marines had guns on their person the shots were fired from outside their facility without any warning. It's likely that by the time they took cover and got a good vantage point to return fire the shooter would have been gone. Such a policy might have been more effective in other military base shootings such as Fort Hood or the Washington Naval Yard, but there are plenty of other locations across the U.S. that are just as "gun free" as a military base that don't experience these types of mass killings. Airport terminals for example do not allow any weapons, yet they are not havens for mass shootings.
The reason seems to be that airports have stricter security for entering the facility than most military bases. Perhaps rather than having every federal employee armed to the teeth to prevent what is a rare occurrence, we should just provide better security that would deter or prevent shooters from reaching unarmed staff; because, while it is likely that having more armed personnel would limit the number of people who die during a mass shooting, it is also likely that the increased presence of firearms would lead to a rise in shootings.
Data show that carrying a gun increases aggressive behaviors which means having armed employees could turn heated or violent workplace incidents into homicides. Given that this sort of escalation has occurred on military bases in war zones before, it seems the military is not immune to workplace shootings.
The problem is that simply having a firearm isn't a silver bullet for preventing shootings. Data show that from 1994 to 2003, of the 616 police officers killed by criminals while on duty 52 of them were shot with their own weapon while in the military "insider attacks" accounted for 96 deaths in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2012. Obviously the presence of guns did not deter the attackers in these situations.
This narrative that more guns equals less crime is a common one in the conservative media, but the data used to make this assertion has been roundly disputed. While its certainly possible that crime goes down as more people carry firearms, the Statistics also indicate a trend towards more firearm deaths with an increased number of concealed carry permits.
If the solution for preventing gun deaths results in more gun deaths is it really a solution?
The reality is that outside of eliminating all guns, the best way to reduce gun violence is to give the authorities the tools necessary to restrict who can purchase firearms, to track the sale of guns, and to seize weapons that were obtained illegally. Unfortunately, gun advocates’ devotion to putting a firearm in the hand of every good guy also makes getting a gun easier for bad guys. Changing that fact doesn't require the repeal of the second amendment.
At this point the motives are unknown so it is possible that the killer is an Islamic terrorist. It's also possible that his yearbook quote “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?” showed he was tired of being treated like a terrorist despite being an American citizen. Of course it's also possible that neither his faith nor U.S. Islamophobia played any part, but peddling fear is really the goal of today's entertainment- based news.
Ironically, many of the media outlets that are quick to play up the possible connection between a Muslim killer’s faith and their actions are the same that downplay race in murders perpetrated by white assailants such as the case of Dylann Roof who killed nine people at an historically black church in South Carolina last month.
Regardless of the motives one thing is clear, the killer used a gun to perpetrate the murders, which means gun rights advocates needed to move swiftly to not only defend the right to bear arms to but insist that the only way to stop events like this in the future is to have more guns. The usual raconteurs like John R. Lott and Todd Starnes posted articles titled "Chattanooga shootings: Why should we make it easy for killers to attack our military?" and "Chattanooga shooting proves it's time to arm our Armed Forces".
The problem is that even if these marines had guns on their person the shots were fired from outside their facility without any warning. It's likely that by the time they took cover and got a good vantage point to return fire the shooter would have been gone. Such a policy might have been more effective in other military base shootings such as Fort Hood or the Washington Naval Yard, but there are plenty of other locations across the U.S. that are just as "gun free" as a military base that don't experience these types of mass killings. Airport terminals for example do not allow any weapons, yet they are not havens for mass shootings.
The reason seems to be that airports have stricter security for entering the facility than most military bases. Perhaps rather than having every federal employee armed to the teeth to prevent what is a rare occurrence, we should just provide better security that would deter or prevent shooters from reaching unarmed staff; because, while it is likely that having more armed personnel would limit the number of people who die during a mass shooting, it is also likely that the increased presence of firearms would lead to a rise in shootings.
Data show that carrying a gun increases aggressive behaviors which means having armed employees could turn heated or violent workplace incidents into homicides. Given that this sort of escalation has occurred on military bases in war zones before, it seems the military is not immune to workplace shootings.
The problem is that simply having a firearm isn't a silver bullet for preventing shootings. Data show that from 1994 to 2003, of the 616 police officers killed by criminals while on duty 52 of them were shot with their own weapon while in the military "insider attacks" accounted for 96 deaths in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2012. Obviously the presence of guns did not deter the attackers in these situations.
This narrative that more guns equals less crime is a common one in the conservative media, but the data used to make this assertion has been roundly disputed. While its certainly possible that crime goes down as more people carry firearms, the Statistics also indicate a trend towards more firearm deaths with an increased number of concealed carry permits.
If the solution for preventing gun deaths results in more gun deaths is it really a solution?
The reality is that outside of eliminating all guns, the best way to reduce gun violence is to give the authorities the tools necessary to restrict who can purchase firearms, to track the sale of guns, and to seize weapons that were obtained illegally. Unfortunately, gun advocates’ devotion to putting a firearm in the hand of every good guy also makes getting a gun easier for bad guys. Changing that fact doesn't require the repeal of the second amendment.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Conservatives hate America too
Looking to fill time during a slow news week the good folks at 'Fox and Friends' devoted multiple segments of their July 9th show to Ariana Grande's "I hate America" comments. The conversation fit nicely into the Fox News narrative that conservatives devotion to America is greater than that of liberals and especially that of Hollywood liberals.
To prove their moral superiority Fox News offered up data from a Gallup poll which Steve Doocy said suggests Grande "might not be alone about hating America" because "just 43% of 18 to 29 year olds say they are extremely proud to be an American". The problem is not being "extremely proud" to be American is not the same as "hating America". The only people who could really be associated with "hating America" are the 1% of Americans who responded they were "not proud at all". It should also be pointed out that there is no data in poll to show that kids today are any more or less patriotic than their predecessors.
Curiously there was no mention of the Fox News poll from 2011 that found that Democrats were the most likely to say they were proud to be American while Tea Party voters were the least likely. Using the Fox and Friends logic their own poll seems to indicate that Tea Party members might hate America.
Having said that the real problem for conservatives in these "proud to be American" polls is their cognitive dissonance. While a Gallup poll from 2013 shows conservatives are the most likely to say they are proud to be American it also lists them as the most likely, by a wide margin, to believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed in how the U.S. turned out. They somehow hate how the country has turned out simultaneously loving it more than anyone else.
The irony is that this seems to be the same argument Grande is making. She hates certain things about America but is still proud to be American.
Of course Grande's comments are simply a pretext for Fox News to blame Obama for how awful the country is. The guest for this segment, Miss Kansas 2013 Theresa Vail, said she "can speculate" that the problem with Grande and other millennials is the fact that "for the past 6 or 7 years...we've had a president who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism; he doesn't speak up for American values...so can you blame millennials for their modicum of patriotism".
The hypocrisy of this a statement is outstanding since there is no better source for criticism of the U.S. than conservative media. Certainly having people like Rush Limbaugh say they hope Obama fails or rooting against the success of policies like the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, or renewable energy don't seem very patriotic but if you want to see why people have a negative view of America just check out the conservative media conversations on immigration, gay marriage, free speech, religious freedom, or gun rights. These people honestly believe they are slowly losing their rights and America is going to hell. Perhaps this pervasive attitude not the presidents words is the reason for the current perceived lack of patriotism.
Perhaps more troubling was the segment of the Fox and Friends broadcast where Laura Ingraham put in her two cents on Grande's comments. Despite being 30 years her senior Ingraham displayed all the class of a 15 year old girl when she calls Grande, who came from middle class background and worked her way up from cruise ship karaoke lounge act to Broadway to television, a "spoiled, entitled pop princess". Making matters worse, Ingraham calls Grande "estupida" in spite of the fact that her heritage is Italian not Hispanic.
Ingraham's comments are a microcosm of the problems with the love of country argument. In spite of being completely uninformed on the topic Ingraham acts like a bully by publicly shaming a 22 year old girl. She smugly pretends that her positions represent that of a true patriot and uses racially charged language to imply outsiders should appreciate America like she does. She ironically offers up a perfect example of why some people might hate certain parts of America.
Clearly Grande made an error in judgment but one wonders if the holier than thou pitchfork mob remember what it was like to be young. Did they never do or say anything that they later regretted? Did they never act out when with a group of friends? Did they never tell their parents or anyone they loved "I hate you" but didn't actually mean they hated the person but rather the situation?
One also wonders if there would be such vitriol from the right if a celebrity baker was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding or an celebrity gun owner was refused the right to carry his gun to his kids school then came on Fox News and said for those reasons they hated America. Odds are they would happily accept the excuse offered up by these "patriotic" celebrities and rationalize the comments in context.
Regardless of the disingenuous nature of these attacks the reality is to a large extent patriotism is a subjective idea which means who the conservative media deems patriotic is completely irrelevant. In the end if what defines a true patriot is determined by the folks in the conservative media you can bet that a majority of Americans would wear the label of unpatriotic as a badge of honor.
To prove their moral superiority Fox News offered up data from a Gallup poll which Steve Doocy said suggests Grande "might not be alone about hating America" because "just 43% of 18 to 29 year olds say they are extremely proud to be an American". The problem is not being "extremely proud" to be American is not the same as "hating America". The only people who could really be associated with "hating America" are the 1% of Americans who responded they were "not proud at all". It should also be pointed out that there is no data in poll to show that kids today are any more or less patriotic than their predecessors.
Curiously there was no mention of the Fox News poll from 2011 that found that Democrats were the most likely to say they were proud to be American while Tea Party voters were the least likely. Using the Fox and Friends logic their own poll seems to indicate that Tea Party members might hate America.
Having said that the real problem for conservatives in these "proud to be American" polls is their cognitive dissonance. While a Gallup poll from 2013 shows conservatives are the most likely to say they are proud to be American it also lists them as the most likely, by a wide margin, to believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed in how the U.S. turned out. They somehow hate how the country has turned out simultaneously loving it more than anyone else.
The irony is that this seems to be the same argument Grande is making. She hates certain things about America but is still proud to be American.
Of course Grande's comments are simply a pretext for Fox News to blame Obama for how awful the country is. The guest for this segment, Miss Kansas 2013 Theresa Vail, said she "can speculate" that the problem with Grande and other millennials is the fact that "for the past 6 or 7 years...we've had a president who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism; he doesn't speak up for American values...so can you blame millennials for their modicum of patriotism".
The hypocrisy of this a statement is outstanding since there is no better source for criticism of the U.S. than conservative media. Certainly having people like Rush Limbaugh say they hope Obama fails or rooting against the success of policies like the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, or renewable energy don't seem very patriotic but if you want to see why people have a negative view of America just check out the conservative media conversations on immigration, gay marriage, free speech, religious freedom, or gun rights. These people honestly believe they are slowly losing their rights and America is going to hell. Perhaps this pervasive attitude not the presidents words is the reason for the current perceived lack of patriotism.
Perhaps more troubling was the segment of the Fox and Friends broadcast where Laura Ingraham put in her two cents on Grande's comments. Despite being 30 years her senior Ingraham displayed all the class of a 15 year old girl when she calls Grande, who came from middle class background and worked her way up from cruise ship karaoke lounge act to Broadway to television, a "spoiled, entitled pop princess". Making matters worse, Ingraham calls Grande "estupida" in spite of the fact that her heritage is Italian not Hispanic.
Ingraham's comments are a microcosm of the problems with the love of country argument. In spite of being completely uninformed on the topic Ingraham acts like a bully by publicly shaming a 22 year old girl. She smugly pretends that her positions represent that of a true patriot and uses racially charged language to imply outsiders should appreciate America like she does. She ironically offers up a perfect example of why some people might hate certain parts of America.
Clearly Grande made an error in judgment but one wonders if the holier than thou pitchfork mob remember what it was like to be young. Did they never do or say anything that they later regretted? Did they never act out when with a group of friends? Did they never tell their parents or anyone they loved "I hate you" but didn't actually mean they hated the person but rather the situation?
One also wonders if there would be such vitriol from the right if a celebrity baker was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding or an celebrity gun owner was refused the right to carry his gun to his kids school then came on Fox News and said for those reasons they hated America. Odds are they would happily accept the excuse offered up by these "patriotic" celebrities and rationalize the comments in context.
Regardless of the disingenuous nature of these attacks the reality is to a large extent patriotism is a subjective idea which means who the conservative media deems patriotic is completely irrelevant. In the end if what defines a true patriot is determined by the folks in the conservative media you can bet that a majority of Americans would wear the label of unpatriotic as a badge of honor.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Fox News doesn't understand religious freedom
Given the amount of time Fox News spends peddling Christian persecution, you might expect them to have a better understanding of the subject. With the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage the conservative fear monger machine has been cranked up to DEFCON 5. Trending in the opinion section on Fox News are ill-informed articles titled 'Tolerance vs. Pride? Spat on by parade-goers, Catholic priest has this message', 'City Threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to preform same-sex weddings', 'You've been warned, America, gay marriage is just the beginning', and 'Ten Commandments: Madness Strikes in Oklahoma'.
Topping the list however is 'Fox News anchor: I didn't know it was criminal to be a Christian' which is an excerpt from Gretchen Carlson's new book where she discusses the manufactured "War on Christmas". The incident that sparked her outrage was a group that requested the state erect a Festivus pole - a fictitious religious symbol from the Seinfeld sitcom - in the same public area as a Nativity scene. Carlson says "I thought it was an outrage that my kids would have to grow up in a culture that forced them to grope their way past a Festivus pole to see a Nativity scene—on Christmas!”
Outside of the fact that this anecdote in no way shows that Christianity has been even remotely criminalized, it should be noted that no one is forcing the Carlson family to drive by government property to view a Nativity scene. If they would like to see Jesus in the manger, there are no shortage of Churches and private establishments that offer such displays free of anything Christians might find offensive. Having said that, if forcing people to "grope their way past" made-up holiday exhibits is a problem, then Carlson needs to recognize that there are certainly American citizens that believe the Nativity scene represents a book of fairy tales. Like Carlson, these people are genuinely outraged that such religious representations are allowed on publicly owned property. The reality is, the courts have long decided that either all made-up symbols are welcome in the public square or none are.
The problem seems to be that some Christians can't understand how anyone would be offended by Christianity. Perhaps the best illustration of this point is when Bill O'Reilly referred to an Atheist group that put up billboards attempting to convince people that there is no god as a "bullying group". If converting people to your way of thinking is bullying, then it should be pointed out that there are far more Christian groups across the globe attempting to convince others to take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior than there are atheist groups hounding people to accept the possibility that God doesn't exist.
Unfortunately people like O'Reilly can't put themselves in the shoes of non-Christians to see how their proselytization could be considered bullying. In their mind these people are preaching goodwill toward men - how could anyone be offended? While the Christians of today certainly aren't as forceful as their Crusades-era predecessors, there is little doubt that some believers push the boundaries. Would Christians feel they were being bullied if Atheists showed up at their door to talk about the fallacy of God? Would they find an atheist on a loud speaker outside of their local sports arena offensive? If schools forced children to recite verses that said God wasn't real, wouldn't Christians demand this sort of speech be removed from the public sphere?
But when you insist that your local court building be adorned with the Ten Commandments because it represents Judeo-Christian values while disallowing other religious-based text, you become the bully. When you want only religions you accept as "real" to be represented in the public square, you exhibit the very intolerance you claim others are showing towards your faith. When you say, as Gretchen Carlson did, that "I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th" you lose the right to be taken seriously.
The reality is that despite the outrage the courts have clearly defined religious freedom in a way that protects all Americans. So when Cal Thomas of Fox News says "gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them" he is exposing his ignorance. The Supreme Court has ruled that churches are free to refuse to perform a wedding for any reason they see fit. Any lawsuits attempting to remove this protection will only further enshrine it.
The tax exempt status of Christian Colleges however is likely to be challenged. The basis for the challenge will come from Bob Jones University vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court decided that religious universities could not retain their exemption and discriminate against interracial couples regardless of their First Amendment rights. The court also made clear that this decision did not apply to churches or other purely religious institutions.
Despite what Thomas would prefer, the court is not bound by Christian doctrine. The court is bound by the constitution and nowhere in the constitution is there an unmitigated right to tax exempt status for every endeavor associated with the church. Of course, it seems likely that Thomas appreciates that these same laws protect Christians from being discriminated against by secular schools, wedding chapels and cake bakers.
What these Christian activists don't seem to understand is that when people oppose Christian pervasion they aren't declaring war on Christianity - they are simply fighting for equal treatment. Christian religious freedom is bordered on all sides by the religious freedom of everyone else. By crossing those borders you infringe the rights of others. This means one person’s religious freedom is another person’s discrimination. If only we lived in a world where faith was used to lift up all Americans instead of being used to ostracize thy neighbor.
Topping the list however is 'Fox News anchor: I didn't know it was criminal to be a Christian' which is an excerpt from Gretchen Carlson's new book where she discusses the manufactured "War on Christmas". The incident that sparked her outrage was a group that requested the state erect a Festivus pole - a fictitious religious symbol from the Seinfeld sitcom - in the same public area as a Nativity scene. Carlson says "I thought it was an outrage that my kids would have to grow up in a culture that forced them to grope their way past a Festivus pole to see a Nativity scene—on Christmas!”
Outside of the fact that this anecdote in no way shows that Christianity has been even remotely criminalized, it should be noted that no one is forcing the Carlson family to drive by government property to view a Nativity scene. If they would like to see Jesus in the manger, there are no shortage of Churches and private establishments that offer such displays free of anything Christians might find offensive. Having said that, if forcing people to "grope their way past" made-up holiday exhibits is a problem, then Carlson needs to recognize that there are certainly American citizens that believe the Nativity scene represents a book of fairy tales. Like Carlson, these people are genuinely outraged that such religious representations are allowed on publicly owned property. The reality is, the courts have long decided that either all made-up symbols are welcome in the public square or none are.
The problem seems to be that some Christians can't understand how anyone would be offended by Christianity. Perhaps the best illustration of this point is when Bill O'Reilly referred to an Atheist group that put up billboards attempting to convince people that there is no god as a "bullying group". If converting people to your way of thinking is bullying, then it should be pointed out that there are far more Christian groups across the globe attempting to convince others to take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior than there are atheist groups hounding people to accept the possibility that God doesn't exist.
Unfortunately people like O'Reilly can't put themselves in the shoes of non-Christians to see how their proselytization could be considered bullying. In their mind these people are preaching goodwill toward men - how could anyone be offended? While the Christians of today certainly aren't as forceful as their Crusades-era predecessors, there is little doubt that some believers push the boundaries. Would Christians feel they were being bullied if Atheists showed up at their door to talk about the fallacy of God? Would they find an atheist on a loud speaker outside of their local sports arena offensive? If schools forced children to recite verses that said God wasn't real, wouldn't Christians demand this sort of speech be removed from the public sphere?
But when you insist that your local court building be adorned with the Ten Commandments because it represents Judeo-Christian values while disallowing other religious-based text, you become the bully. When you want only religions you accept as "real" to be represented in the public square, you exhibit the very intolerance you claim others are showing towards your faith. When you say, as Gretchen Carlson did, that "I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th" you lose the right to be taken seriously.
The reality is that despite the outrage the courts have clearly defined religious freedom in a way that protects all Americans. So when Cal Thomas of Fox News says "gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them" he is exposing his ignorance. The Supreme Court has ruled that churches are free to refuse to perform a wedding for any reason they see fit. Any lawsuits attempting to remove this protection will only further enshrine it.
The tax exempt status of Christian Colleges however is likely to be challenged. The basis for the challenge will come from Bob Jones University vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court decided that religious universities could not retain their exemption and discriminate against interracial couples regardless of their First Amendment rights. The court also made clear that this decision did not apply to churches or other purely religious institutions.
Despite what Thomas would prefer, the court is not bound by Christian doctrine. The court is bound by the constitution and nowhere in the constitution is there an unmitigated right to tax exempt status for every endeavor associated with the church. Of course, it seems likely that Thomas appreciates that these same laws protect Christians from being discriminated against by secular schools, wedding chapels and cake bakers.
What these Christian activists don't seem to understand is that when people oppose Christian pervasion they aren't declaring war on Christianity - they are simply fighting for equal treatment. Christian religious freedom is bordered on all sides by the religious freedom of everyone else. By crossing those borders you infringe the rights of others. This means one person’s religious freedom is another person’s discrimination. If only we lived in a world where faith was used to lift up all Americans instead of being used to ostracize thy neighbor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
