The U.S. Democrats want equality. The Republicans oppose equality because they want to protect religious freedom. But does equality vitiate (= destroy or invalidate) religious freedom? Or does/should religious freedom vitiate equality? Those are questions now confronting the polarized U.S. Senate.
 |
| From BreakPoint's website, which strongly opposes the Equality Act |
The House-Passed Equality Act
On February 25, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed the Equality Act, a far-reaching measure that has been
decades in the making and would prohibit public discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity.
Prior to the House vote, on Feb. 19 Pres.
Biden issued this
official statement: “The Equality Act provides long overdue federal civil
rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,
locking in critical safeguards in our housing, education, public services, and
lending systems.”
Leaders from groups like the ACLU and Human
Rights Campaign argue that the Equality Act ensures that gay and transgender
Americans are no longer fired, kicked out of their housing, or otherwise
discriminated against due to their sexuality or gender identity.
The Equality Act of 2021 was passed in the House of Representatives by
a vote of 224-206. Every Democrat in the House voted for it, but only three
Republicans did.
The Senate-Opposed
Equality Act
As things stand now, the Equality Act is not likely to be passed by the
U.S. Senate. That is because of the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes to pass
most legislation. Far more than 40 of the 50 Republican Senators are opposed to
the House-passed bill.
Perhaps the main reason for the Republican opposition is their
unwillingness to approve anything favored by Democrats. But the primary reason
given publicly for their opposition centers around “religious freedom”
concerns.
If full equality of LGBTQ persons becomes the law of the land, religious
leaders and/or institutions can no longer discriminate against, or denounce,
such people.
Such discrimination or denouncement is based on religious beliefs that homosexual
activity and gender transitioning are contrary to God’s will, the Bible, and/or
traditional religious practices.
Does Equality Vitiate Religious Freedom?
I have been a long and persistent advocate for religious liberty. People
should be free to hold religious beliefs and to engage in religious activities without
interference by others, including—or especially—governmental interference.
But what if one’s religious beliefs/practices infringe upon the civil
rights of other people? Shouldn’t the civil rights of all take precedence over
the religious rights of some?
The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That
was a good and important bill that has helped eliminate much—but,
unfortunately, not all—harmful discrimination in this country.
But there were those who thought that that
bill impinged upon their freedom of religion.
For example, ultra-conservative Bob Jones
University in South Carolina, which thought that the Bible opposes the mixing
of the races, as most Southerners thought from before the Civil War, continued
to oppose racial equality until the year 2000.
In a radio
broadcast on Easter Sunday in 1960, Bob Jones Sr., the school’s founder, explained:
“If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are
against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the
race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the
Bible.”
Jones had the right and the constitutional
freedom to make such a statement. But the government had the right to champion
the civil rights of all citizens, and eventually Bob Jones University had to
enroll Black students and then even permit interracial dating.
Bob Jones Sr. and Bob Jones Jr. didn’t have to
change their religious beliefs, but they did have to change their school’s practices
because of its negative impact on other people.
Isn’t it the same now with regards to LBGTQ
people? People should be free to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish. But
in practice, civil rights, the right of full social equality, must be
upheld for all people.
Equality doesn’t vitiate religious freedom. But the religious freedom of some must never be allowed to vitiate the civil right of equality for all.
_____
Here
are some pertinent online articles that deal with the central issue of this
post:
Equality
Act stirs passions about the definition of religious liberty and RFRA’s role
(Mark Wingfield, Baptist News Global, March 8)
LGBTQ
rights bill ignites debate over religious liberty (David Crary, Religion
News Service, March 8)
What’s
in store for the Equality Act, and why do some religions want a revision?
(Yonat Shimron, Religion News Service, Feb. 26)
Do No Harm Act (Human
Rights Campaign, Feb. 25)
I agree with your conclusion entirely Leroy! My only questions involve details. As I understand it, these civil rights laws only cover public businesses, larger businesses (usually over some number of employees), and private institutions who make use of federal funds. Though I don’t know the details about this current legislation. My guess is that Bob Jones U. had to compromise for its students to make use of federal funds. Am I wrong? Anybody here know?
ReplyDeleteHere is a brief statement about that from "Christianity Today":
Delete"The school lost its tax-exempt status in 1983 after a 13-year battle with the Internal Revenue Service, which said the school's policies violated federal law."
This seems to have been the main factor.
The first comments on the substance of today's blog post came from Thinking Friend Dick Horn in Texas:
ReplyDelete"Great subject. My personal short answer to the original question is NO it does not. Religious freedom protects us from the State initiating a State Religion. My personal religious freedom has never been threatened by the Equal Rights Law. In fact it enhances the basic principle of my Christianity, that all people are created equal and are viewed equally in the eyes of our Lord.
"I have never understood the concern of the Religious right that Christianity was under attack. They obviously have a very limited experience with the rest of the world.
Thanks for the morning thought, that should keep me going the rest of the day."
About thirty minutes ago, my new and much-appreciated Thinking Friend Kevin Heifner in Arkansas, emailed me with these comments to be posted here:
ReplyDelete"Because of time constraints and a thing called work, I scanned your blog but it was enough for this reflection. I have thought for at least several years exactly that of which you write. I believe, and I will go re-read it closely later, that you have encapsulated my position.
"I am grateful that we live in a nation that is founded on civil rather than religious law. At the end of the day, civil law should always appropriately trump religious law. The basic underlying principle is that regardless of what one believes as a faith based statement or religiously. Our constitution and its subsequent amendments nullify those personal beliefs in the public sphere. Individuals are absolutely free to believe what they want to privately and congregate with others who believe similarly. They are not free to impose or legislate their beliefs on those who believe differently. Thus, faith defers to civil corporately under our system. Thank God... pun or no."
Thanks, Kevin, for your substantial comments--and for clearly pointing out that religious freedom means freedom for all to believe what they think is right and good but not the freedom to impose their beliefs on others.
DeleteChristian nationalists want to insist that "God's law" takes precedence over civil law--just as Muslim nationalists in other countries want to follow only Sharia law. But where religious law is supreme, everyone who does not adhere to the dominant religion is disadvantaged and likely to suffer because of their "deviant" beliefs.
For that reason, I have consistently advocated religious liberty for ALL people--and I do so because I think that is most consistent with my belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings
And here is a brief comment from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico:
ReplyDelete"You have made a very logical and reasoned argument for our basic human right for Equality of all citizens; I whole-heartedly agree!"
My feeling is that whenever we reach situations like this we should go where ever The Bible leads us.
ReplyDeleteBut, this develops another problem: the different interpretations of Scripture.
I don't believe we shall be able to solve this issue to Everyone's satisfaction, but we need too remember that JESUS died for All people-even those we may Not like.
GOD help us!
John Tim Carr
Thanks for your comments, John Tim. But the problem is not just the different interpretations of Scripture, it is because of what verses in the Bible they see as most important. Many of the conservatives who are opposing the Equality Act are doing so because of their beliefs that homosexual activity is an abomination. But homosexuality is not condemned in the Ten Commandments; adultery is. And Leviticus 20:10 says, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." Are those who use the Bible to condemn LGBTQ people also using the Bible in their ideas about and treatment of adulterers? Why do they not follow the clear teaching of Lev. 20:10?
DeleteSo, yes, it is Jesus' teaching in the Bible and the teachings about Jesus in the New Testament that we need to follow. Jesus taught that we are to love all people and the New Testament teaches that Jesus died for all, as you pointed out. So is it asking too much for all people to be treated equally in our society?
FDR's Four Freedoms included "freedom of worship," not "religious freedom." As conservatives have made abundantly clear, their concept of "religious freedom" includes radically imposing their religious beliefs on others; whether as a "religious" employer denying birth control coverage to employees, or as a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or imposing theological restrictions on transgender use of public restrooms. This is the road to religious wars and dysfunctional society.
DeleteScience should guide public policy, not theology. Freedom of worship and freedom of speech provide plenty of opportunity for theology to be proclaimed loudly, but that does not mean that any religion should be able to use the state to dictate theologically preferred behavior. When religion stands with science, such as in supporting COVID-19 vaccinations or fighting global warming, then religion has a just cause. When religion is just serving warmed-over racism and imperialism, it is not only the enemy of science, it is the enemy of true religion as well. This is not to say that religion never has a prophetic responsibility to confront misguided governments and societies, for it does. However, that task must be undertaken humbly and carefully. We can call for justice to flow like a mighty river without forcing our neighbors onto a Procrustean bed (although some may think that is where they ended up).
Craig, I agree with your comments, but "freedom of religion" is a good and noble principle which, in this country goes back to Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in what is not the USA.
DeleteHere the quote from "Roger Williams, Rhode Island, and Birthplace of Religious Freedom" on a website called "The George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom."
"Religious minorities suffered from social and legal discrimination, as well as persecution, from the very founding of the English colonies. In 1635, the Massachusetts Bay Colony expelled Roger Williams for opposing the Puritan church’s control over civil law. Three years later, the same magistrates expelled Anne Hutchinson for challenging their authority over worship.
After his expulsion, Roger Williams settled on Narragansett Bay, where he purchased land from the Narragansett tribe and established a new colony he called Providence. Williams proclaimed that everyone had the freedom to worship as they chose. Government would have no control over religion, and religious ministers would have no power to make or enforce laws (we now call this separation of church and state)."
Leroy, when responding to cultural warfare with reasoned, civil debate, you are at a disadvantage. The "religious right" is neither religious nor right, I say, and giving their rhetoric the respect of sincere but misguided opinion is too generous. The way to answer their grievances is to beat them at the ballot box. We can't assume the courts are apolitical and "just call balls and strikes". We need to stack the courts for our side, just like they try to do for theirs. We need to "build our bench" and get in the majority, and use our majority. Politics is like a sport -- may the best team win. Our religious values inspire our political positions, just as their religious values may inspire theirs. Whoever is in the minority will naturally strive to be in the majority. That's what democracy looks like, and that's why we need to abolish the filibuster. Here's an interesting fact: the U.S. Senate is 50 (D) to 50 (R), but the Democratic half represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half. It's become more widely known that the Senate is fundamentally undemocratic, even more so than the Electoral College. I'm not sure that democracy is up to the challenges of the future, especially climate change, but ending the filibuster would let our democracy reflect the will of the people at the last election much better. When you have gridlock, faith in democracy fades and the pressure for a "benign" dictator rises. Sorry to use your blog to rant about this!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Phil, and while your "rant" may not be specifically about the subject of my blog post, it is certainly related to it and so what you wrote is not inappropriate.
DeleteBut I don't like to see the situation we are in as being like sports, where the best/strongest/most talented team wins and the other loses. I would rather think of all U.S. citizens, for example, being on the same team but having different ideas about how to achieve the best for the most people in society. And I would like to think that, eventually, truth, justice, and the common good will overcome the lies/falsehood, injustice, and ill will that is prevalent in society today. If/when that happens, it will be a victory for all, not just for "our" side.
A couple of days ago I received these brief comments:
ReplyDelete"Leroy, good friend, once again I definitely agree with your message. It reminds me of long-ago advice columnist Ann Landers and her famous quote, 'The right to swing your fist ends where your neighbor’s nose begins.'”