This past week, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed into law a bill that allows Hoosiers the right to legally discriminate against any one, for any reason, merely on the basis of a "sincerely-held" religious belief. It would be bad enough if Indiana was, in this regard, the sad exception that otherwise proved the rule that America is a tolerant county. But, sadder still, it isn't. As stated here, Indiana is actually the 20th state to pass such a law.
It states the obvious to say that these laws, which are almost certainly unconstitutional both on their face and in practice, are simply proxies for enabling the hatred that many conservative religious groups feel for the LGBT community. After all, these groups are by far the most enthusiastic supporters of these bills--and when they express their support for them, their arguments are all about pushing back against the rise of support for marriage equality across the country. Their focus, in other words, is not on real violations of religious freedom (banning specific religious services, closing churches, and so forth), nor is it on people who "offenses" against orthodoxy might involve non-sexual issues (like mixing wool with linen). No, what they really want is the power of the state to stand behind their ability to shun LGBT individuals and couples.
Let's think about that for a moment. Let's start by saying that, hypothetically, we accept the idea that LGBT individuals and couples, by embracing that aspect of their lives openly, are sinners in the hands of an angry God (to borrow a phrase). I don't. But it helps us to examine what it is that the "religious freedom" advocates (almost all of whom are Christian in faith) are really asking for the right to do. What they are asking for is the right to refuse hospitality based on one aspect of human experience--sex. And even then, they are not asking for the right to refuse service to people who have engaged in heterosexual misconduct (husbands cheating on wives, for example).
In short, they are asking for the right to judge, and refraining from the obligation to love, despite the fact that the Bible contains many more references to caring about outcasts and victims than it does about homosexuality, and reserves to God the right to judge. The advocates of these bills are not asking for freedom to worship God. They are asking for the freedom to supplant Him, Her, It or Them. And no such freedom exists,either in the Bible or everyday life.
And they are also asking for the ability to supplant the power of the state (which is also established in the Bible) with whatever their "sincerity" of the moment inspires them to do. Today, it may be refusing food service to members of the LGBT community. Tomorrow, it might be burning them to the stake. Or, it might be a more intermediate step on the slippery slope--like, say, the right to force them or others to go to church, and not necessarily the church of one's own choice.
Indiana, and the 19 other states that have enacted such laws, have already gone a long way down that slippery slope. These laws surely can't survive legal challenges. But, as long as they are on the books, they have the potential to enable things far worse than the refusal of public accommodations. In the short run, the only consolation is the outrage that has arisen against Pence and Indiana--including outrage from those with their own sincerely-held religious convictions. Thank God for the Disciples of Christ. Literally.
It is telling that Pence signed this bill behind closed doors, without access to the general public. He might want to consider the words of 1st Corinthians 4:5, before he enables the ability of others to judge. I doubt, though, whether he or his supporters would truly understand its implications for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment