Liberty Cannot Prevail Without Discrimination.
If a terrorist committed to the annihilation of Israel walked into a deli, which unbeknown to him was owned by a Rabbi, and demanded that he cater his feast at the local mosque should the Rabbi be allowed to decline? If a former Nazi concentration camp guard died and his family went to a Jewish funeral director to prepare his body, insisting the funeral service be adorned with a Nazi flags, can the the funeral director refuse because the service is an affront to his heritage?
Religious freedom, as defined in the recent debate over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is under assault; its supporters are accused of bigotry and discrimination. The ability to engage in relationships and activities consistent with our values is essential to liberty. The First Amendment means more than the right to go to church without interference. Despotic regimes like China, Cuba, Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union afford their people what they call freedom of worship, which means that if the people went to an approved worship service behind closed doors no one would interfere. Where religion is prohibited from affecting social affairs tyranny reigns. Religion provides a moral compass for a culture. If the government has no moral conscience, then right becomes what the government says is right, which results in oppression and tyranny.
The religious freedom provision of the First Amendment guarantees people, religious or not, the right to freely express their convictions, and to act and form relationship based on their own world view. As a Christian I have the right to advocate or decry for social morality. I have no right to impose my belief or practices on others, and I have a right to not be imposed upon by those who chose to live differently. My judgments and opinions are part of the social discussion. I have the right to chose or decline to participate in events based on my conscience. That is what it means to be free, the right to say "yes or no."
A free society is one where people have the right to pursue life, liberty and property according to their own purposes and convictions. However, liberty is not anarchy. Liberty has boundaries. In any society there are tensions and competing interests, convictions and values. In America we have shown forbearance and allowed people to live in accord with their convictions even to the point of excluding others. We allow the Amish to live simple, modest life. We welcome Muslims and Buddhist, and those of no faith. People of faith and people of no faith have the right to determine their own level of participation in society and make ethical decisions consistent with their own values. To gather together for social and business purposes even to exclusion of others. People of faith, or people of no faith, have the right to express their faith or agnosticism, according to their convictions, and to chose to engage or decline any action that affronts them.
In a letter to a Jewish Congregation in Newport Rhode Island following his first inauguration George Washington explained religious liberty:
He wrote, "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens." He went on to explain that when people have differing practices and ethical standards saying religious liberty allowed them to sit under thier own fig trees. That religious freedom meant that the government allowed groups to act and live differently and separately, and protected their right to do so. In other words. for Dr. Martin Luther King's call for freedom to reign requires forbearance toward different religious expressions. Liberty can not prevail without the presence of discrimination
Websters has two definitions of discrimination: one is "to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things" and another is : "to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups". Our Constitution and laws extols the first kind of discrimination as virtuous while prohibiting the second as immoral. In a free society we give people the right to discriminate as long as their choices do not harm others. Harming others means more than offending or inconveniencing them. We allow people to conscientiously object to military service even though it places others in the position of sometimes dying to defend the right for them to refuse. We even celebrated preferential treatment when it is appropriate.
Every month in millions of schools across America assembled committees of parents, faculty, counselors and advisors meet and grant opportunities, privileges and accommodations to students who have some impediment or disability that prevents them from learning. This discrimination, required by law, gives specific individual students educational services and denies the same access to others. For many years employers and educators hired or admitted using a form of discrimination called euphemistically affirmative action. A certain percentage of people admitted to a school or hired for a job were given preferential treatment based on race to compensate for their disadvantage. These are example of legal, acceptable even socially beneficial discrimination.
Some discrimination, while not legally mandated, is essential to a successful society. When an employer post a job opening on a web site they declare certain qualifications. They do this to discriminate between those who are eligible and those who are not. The job posting gives opportunity to some and withholds it from others. Not only is this exclusion legal and moral it is absolutely essential to liberty and prosperity in our society. Would any of us really want to require a hospital to interview a high school dropout to head their neurosurgery department? It is absurd. Equally absurd is the notion that a law that protects people's right to live and have relationship according to their convictions is bigoted.
Our Constitution and our laws forbid bigotry. Bigotry is a discrimination for no benefit, or to intentionally disadvantage one groups. Laws that are made to create a protected class, such as Jim Crow laws, in the South are forbidden. Actions that denies people access to fundamental and necessary actions or affairs necessary to live or "to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups" are the second kind of discrimination" and are illegal. But how do we decide which is fair and unfair discrimination? Our Constitution says that people can be denied opportunity and access to certain things "by due process of law."
Our legislative process determines who can drive and who cannot. They discriminate. A law is permission to discriminate. Sometimes our courts revoke people's access to social privileges. Most jurisdictions deny people access to prostitutes. We deny people the right to go in to a bank and demand money where they are not depositors, even though the person may need the money and the bank may have plenty to go around. It is legal to discriminate against thieves? Aren't you glad of it? There are even times we deny people the right to raise their own children in their own homes because of its unsafe environment. We take away liberty of the parent to protect liberty of the child.
The opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act say the legislation needs to be fixed? Why? What is wrong with the law? History teaches legislatures sometimes make bad law? Not all law is good. Some argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration act passed by due process needs to be fixed, objecting the law discriminates, because it favors one group over another. Although the opponents are passionate and vociferous, their objection is patently absurd. Of course the law discriminates. All legislations discriminates. It tells some people they can do something and another group they cannot. It creates access and opportunity for some, and takes it from another. In our culture social differences and conflicts arise. When these disputes between one group and an other begin impacting public awareness laws may be passed declaring one group right and the other wrong. It is based on a discriminatory process called legislation. When any law is passed usually one group wins and another loses. One has opportunity another does not. We call this process the democratic process, and it is based on discrimination. The alternative is for right to be determined by might or money. Without the ability to discriminate our liberty dies.
Liberty and justice are denied when right and wrong are determined by the vocal or by the most strident The recent shooting of an unarmed black man by a police officer in Ferguson Missouri is a case in point: .The government from the President down to the chief of Police reacted in a strident vociferous protestations that Michael Brown was surrendering with his hands up and murdered by officer Darren Wilson. The legal process established that reality was quite different. Michael Brown was the aggressor, the police officer acted in his own defense. And to this day the only corrective or punitive action that has been applied to anyone in this situation has been applied to the Police Force whose personnel were crime victims themselves. The only people who have seen any gain from the terrible incident in Ferguson Missouri are those who behaved criminally. Agitators are seldom seeking either liberty or justice for anyone. When a vocal minority with the help of a media hubris set social agenda the result is mob rule.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a reaction by the state of Indiana to the recent Hobby Lobby and other cases of clear religious intolerance by the federal government in application of the Affordable Care Act. It was debated by both houses of the legislature and in the public forums. The law passed in both houses of the legislature. As with every piece of legislation there were winners and there were looser. The result favored one group over another and protected the right of some at the expense of others. That is what we call due process and it is based on discrimination. Discrimination by due process is essential if liberty is to prevail.
But what about those hurt by a bad law what do they do? They use due process. If opponents of the law feel it is flawed they can be heard, they can go to court, they can petition the legislature, they can change the law. They can get the discrimination they seek. So when the Governor is asked about the effects of this law. His response need not be to defend it or to fix it, but to encourage people to use due process to establish liberty. RFRA must discriminate if our society is to remain free.
Religious freedom, as defined in the recent debate over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is under assault; its supporters are accused of bigotry and discrimination. The ability to engage in relationships and activities consistent with our values is essential to liberty. The First Amendment means more than the right to go to church without interference. Despotic regimes like China, Cuba, Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union afford their people what they call freedom of worship, which means that if the people went to an approved worship service behind closed doors no one would interfere. Where religion is prohibited from affecting social affairs tyranny reigns. Religion provides a moral compass for a culture. If the government has no moral conscience, then right becomes what the government says is right, which results in oppression and tyranny.
The religious freedom provision of the First Amendment guarantees people, religious or not, the right to freely express their convictions, and to act and form relationship based on their own world view. As a Christian I have the right to advocate or decry for social morality. I have no right to impose my belief or practices on others, and I have a right to not be imposed upon by those who chose to live differently. My judgments and opinions are part of the social discussion. I have the right to chose or decline to participate in events based on my conscience. That is what it means to be free, the right to say "yes or no."
A free society is one where people have the right to pursue life, liberty and property according to their own purposes and convictions. However, liberty is not anarchy. Liberty has boundaries. In any society there are tensions and competing interests, convictions and values. In America we have shown forbearance and allowed people to live in accord with their convictions even to the point of excluding others. We allow the Amish to live simple, modest life. We welcome Muslims and Buddhist, and those of no faith. People of faith and people of no faith have the right to determine their own level of participation in society and make ethical decisions consistent with their own values. To gather together for social and business purposes even to exclusion of others. People of faith, or people of no faith, have the right to express their faith or agnosticism, according to their convictions, and to chose to engage or decline any action that affronts them.
In a letter to a Jewish Congregation in Newport Rhode Island following his first inauguration George Washington explained religious liberty:
He wrote, "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens." He went on to explain that when people have differing practices and ethical standards saying religious liberty allowed them to sit under thier own fig trees. That religious freedom meant that the government allowed groups to act and live differently and separately, and protected their right to do so. In other words. for Dr. Martin Luther King's call for freedom to reign requires forbearance toward different religious expressions. Liberty can not prevail without the presence of discrimination
Websters has two definitions of discrimination: one is "to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things" and another is : "to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups". Our Constitution and laws extols the first kind of discrimination as virtuous while prohibiting the second as immoral. In a free society we give people the right to discriminate as long as their choices do not harm others. Harming others means more than offending or inconveniencing them. We allow people to conscientiously object to military service even though it places others in the position of sometimes dying to defend the right for them to refuse. We even celebrated preferential treatment when it is appropriate.
Every month in millions of schools across America assembled committees of parents, faculty, counselors and advisors meet and grant opportunities, privileges and accommodations to students who have some impediment or disability that prevents them from learning. This discrimination, required by law, gives specific individual students educational services and denies the same access to others. For many years employers and educators hired or admitted using a form of discrimination called euphemistically affirmative action. A certain percentage of people admitted to a school or hired for a job were given preferential treatment based on race to compensate for their disadvantage. These are example of legal, acceptable even socially beneficial discrimination.
Some discrimination, while not legally mandated, is essential to a successful society. When an employer post a job opening on a web site they declare certain qualifications. They do this to discriminate between those who are eligible and those who are not. The job posting gives opportunity to some and withholds it from others. Not only is this exclusion legal and moral it is absolutely essential to liberty and prosperity in our society. Would any of us really want to require a hospital to interview a high school dropout to head their neurosurgery department? It is absurd. Equally absurd is the notion that a law that protects people's right to live and have relationship according to their convictions is bigoted.
Equally absurd is the notion that a law that protects people's right to live and have relationship according to their convictions is bigoted.
A law is permission to discriminate.
Our legislative process determines who can drive and who cannot. They discriminate. A law is permission to discriminate. Sometimes our courts revoke people's access to social privileges. Most jurisdictions deny people access to prostitutes. We deny people the right to go in to a bank and demand money where they are not depositors, even though the person may need the money and the bank may have plenty to go around. It is legal to discriminate against thieves? Aren't you glad of it? There are even times we deny people the right to raise their own children in their own homes because of its unsafe environment. We take away liberty of the parent to protect liberty of the child.
The opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act say the legislation needs to be fixed? Why? What is wrong with the law? History teaches legislatures sometimes make bad law? Not all law is good. Some argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration act passed by due process needs to be fixed, objecting the law discriminates, because it favors one group over another. Although the opponents are passionate and vociferous, their objection is patently absurd. Of course the law discriminates. All legislations discriminates. It tells some people they can do something and another group they cannot. It creates access and opportunity for some, and takes it from another. In our culture social differences and conflicts arise. When these disputes between one group and an other begin impacting public awareness laws may be passed declaring one group right and the other wrong. It is based on a discriminatory process called legislation. When any law is passed usually one group wins and another loses. One has opportunity another does not. We call this process the democratic process, and it is based on discrimination. The alternative is for right to be determined by might or money. Without the ability to discriminate our liberty dies.
When any law is passed usually one group wins and another loses.
Liberty and justice are denied when right and wrong are determined by the vocal or by the most strident The recent shooting of an unarmed black man by a police officer in Ferguson Missouri is a case in point: .The government from the President down to the chief of Police reacted in a strident vociferous protestations that Michael Brown was surrendering with his hands up and murdered by officer Darren Wilson. The legal process established that reality was quite different. Michael Brown was the aggressor, the police officer acted in his own defense. And to this day the only corrective or punitive action that has been applied to anyone in this situation has been applied to the Police Force whose personnel were crime victims themselves. The only people who have seen any gain from the terrible incident in Ferguson Missouri are those who behaved criminally. Agitators are seldom seeking either liberty or justice for anyone. When a vocal minority with the help of a media hubris set social agenda the result is mob rule.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a reaction by the state of Indiana to the recent Hobby Lobby and other cases of clear religious intolerance by the federal government in application of the Affordable Care Act. It was debated by both houses of the legislature and in the public forums. The law passed in both houses of the legislature. As with every piece of legislation there were winners and there were looser. The result favored one group over another and protected the right of some at the expense of others. That is what we call due process and it is based on discrimination. Discrimination by due process is essential if liberty is to prevail.
But what about those hurt by a bad law what do they do? They use due process. If opponents of the law feel it is flawed they can be heard, they can go to court, they can petition the legislature, they can change the law. They can get the discrimination they seek. So when the Governor is asked about the effects of this law. His response need not be to defend it or to fix it, but to encourage people to use due process to establish liberty. RFRA must discriminate if our society is to remain free.
Comments
Post a Comment