« Proof there is no god | Main | Feed issues »
It occurred to me that a great many people say that homosexuality should not have protected status, ala race, sex, religion, because it's a choice. In other words, just as you choose to be gay, you can choose to not be gay.
I disagree, but okay, let's run with that. No federal protection for conditions that are choices. Sex, but not sexual identity. Gender, but not gender preference.
So keeping that in mind, why is religion protected. I mean, it's obviously a choice. There's no "religion gene", right? There's no sequence that spells out "J-E-W", "M-U-S-L-I-M", or "C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N". It's a choice, whether by voluntary election, as in the case of the Amish, conversion from another religion, (converted jews, catholics, et al. Heck, Rod Carew, converted Jew.), or familial tradition. But it's not a genetic issue.
I'd say that's obvious even without science backing me up, that a black person can't "convert" to whitey. Surgery, as of yet, can change your appearance, but it cannot change your genetic encoding. So, with that in mind, religion is quite obviously a choice.
A federally-protected, protection enshrined in the Constitution, protected at every possible level, possible more protected than any other single quality a person can have in this county, but nonetheless, a protected choice.
We obviously have no problems granting federal protections to choices, so using that as an excuse is rank hypocrisy. So why is being gay different than being Christian?
I'll give you a hint...it's the same reason that organized religion in this country had a reaction of "tsk-tsk, what are you going to do?" about Fred Phelps when he was only screaming obscene shit at families of dead gay people, but the instant he gored a more popular ox, namely families of dead soldiers, he suddenly became an evil, wicked, nasty man, who should be silenced and shunned.
Technorati Tags:
Critical Thought, Religion makes you stupid, Religion: It's how 'merican's spell hypocrisy
Posted by John C. Welch at 22:23 | Permalink
Comments
This is not exactly an accurate analogy.
It is a well established principle in American law that "Freedom of Religion" means freedom of religious _belief_, not freedom of religious _action._ You are only free to act upon your religious beliefs if they are not currently illegal anyway: if your belief extends to what you wear or what time of day you pray, then knock yourself out. But if your belief system includes child sacrifice or paying for sex or taking certain drugs--sorry, you're out of luck. (There is some fuzziness surrounding drug use by Native Americans--but even there the door is closing on drug use.)
If we applied the analogy to homosexuality, then you could be free to believe all you want that homosexuality is good and nice and righteous--belief is protected--but the moment you tried to act, you could get into trouble if someone outlawed it.
Posted by: William Woody | December 10, 2007 11:21 AM
On the other hand, if you think carefully about what John wrote, you'll see he's not talking about pedophilia, but such mundane ideas as zoning and hiring practices, which are actions that affect the public, and are in direct conflict with the general public's wellfare.
In other words, we're not talking about a limited series of actions that are private, but an established body of law that directly affects the general public. So, once again, why should religion be afforded such protections, when it is a clear choice? Would you mind taking a shot at answering THAT question, instead of a strawman?
Posted by: John | December 10, 2007 2:26 PM
"On the other hand, if you think carefully about what John wrote, you'll see he's not talking about pedophilia, but such mundane ideas as zoning and hiring practices, which are actions that affect the public, and are in direct conflict with the general public's wellfare."
Which are also not protected and in fact are being increasingly regulated. Churches are not exempt from zoning laws but depending on the municipality are equally regulated and are required to deal with traffic flow and noise level laws. The Salvation Army has come under fire for its hiring practices as well as several Catholic dioceses, despite both being churches. Other areas have also come under fire as well--including private individuals putting up Christmas decorations that are items of faith (such as a Manger display) on their front lawns in homes that are part of a regulated home owner's association.
"Would you mind taking a shot at answering THAT question, instead of a strawman?"
Again, my point was that in the United States precedence has been firmly established that "freedom of religion" protects freedom of "conscience"--or rather, the freedom to believe as you will. But it does not protect your freedom to act in a way which is contrary to public law. This is not some sort of "strawman argument"; this is established Supreme Court case law.
(To get technical, from my research the primary test here is the so-called "Lemon Test" (from Lemon v Kurtzman), narrowed greatly by Employment Division v Smith--the upshot of it is that if a law has primarily a secular purpose and can be uniformly applied across religious beliefs, then it is constitutional. Labor laws and zoning laws in general meet this test, so they are not considered infringing. Now if a city were to create a special zoning exemption denying a congregation from building on a specific parcel of land, that would be a different matter. But it fails the test because the law targets a specific church and is not a broadly-applicable law.)
Posted by: William Woody | December 10, 2007 4:04 PM
You are only free to act upon your religious beliefs if they are not currently illegal anyway: if your belief extends to what you wear or what time of day you pray, then knock yourself out. But if your belief system includes child sacrifice or paying for sex or taking certain drugs--sorry, you're out of luck. (There is some fuzziness surrounding drug use by Native Americans--but even there the door is closing on drug use.)
So then why hasn't the Catholic Church been busted on providing alcohol to minors? Last I heard, wine is in fact alcohol, and giving it to minors is in fact, illegal in this country.
You also ignore the fact that religious practice is protected as well, for example, protecting the rights of certain christian sects to not recite the pledge, for example. Similar precedent exists for muslims to pray, or sikhs to wear turbans and carry kirpans. The list of legal precedent protecting the expression of religion is long and rich.
Posted by: John C. Welch | December 10, 2007 5:42 PM
Which are also not protected and in fact are being increasingly regulated. Churches are not exempt from zoning laws but depending on the municipality are equally regulated and are required to deal with traffic flow and noise level laws. The Salvation Army has come under fire for its hiring practices as well as several Catholic dioceses, despite both being churches. Other areas have also come under fire as well--including private individuals putting up Christmas decorations that are items of faith (such as a Manger display) on their front lawns in homes that are part of a regulated home owner's association.
Actually, "under fire" is a distraction, as, again, legal precedent has protected the rights of religious organizations to not have to take action that is contrary to their central religious tenants. There are exceptions, but by and large, no, the Catholic Church does not have to hire homosexuals, nor do they have to make married men priests, nor do they have to make women priests.
Again, to be clear, "under fire" is not the same as legal precedent, no matter how you wish to spin it.
i'm well aware of the Lemon test, however, that has absolutely nothing to do with my central point:
It is absolutely hypocritical for someone to say they don't support protecting homosexuality from discrimination because it is a choice, yet support protecting freedom of religious belief and action when it too is a choice.
Posted by: John C. Welch | December 10, 2007 5:49 PM
"So then why hasn't the Catholic Church been busted on providing alcohol to minors? Last I heard, wine is in fact alcohol, and giving it to minors is in fact, illegal in this country."
That varies from state to state; in some states it is illegal to give children wine even at communion. However, in general, the exemption is for minor amounts of wine (a sip, or a teaspoon) for religious purposes. Further, a parent won't be prosecuted for giving their child small amounts of alcohol (wine, beer, etc) for non-religious services, so long as the parent doesn't actually get the child drunk--though given our nanny state, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually groups start demanding children be taken away from their parents because their child got small amounts of alcohol at a special occasion or at communion.
"You also ignore the fact that religious practice is protected as well, for example, protecting the rights of certain christian sects to not recite the pledge, for example. Similar precedent exists for muslims to pray, or sikhs to wear turbans and carry kirpans. The list of legal precedent protecting the expression of religion is long and rich."
Absolutely, and this fell within the purview of the "Lemon" test I cited above. That test was significantly narrowed in the 1990's, which means it's somewhat doubtful that many of these exceptions would survive another court challenge. (The original test was that if such a law was relatively minor but had a major impact on the practice of a given religion, an exemption could be punched through the law for that group. This allowed Christian Scientists to be exempt from getting medical help for their children, for example, or allowed Sikhs to wear a weapon. After the 1990 ruling, however, the emphasis was changed, and the exception granted the Christian Scientists against seeking medical help has been under significant fire--up to and including child welfare taking children away from Christian Scientists.)
The laws providing for certain sects to not recite a pledge or (more interestingly) to allow an individual to claim to be a "conscientious objector" during military service may have been spearheaded by certain religious sects, but those provisions apply to everyone. You don't have to be a Quaker to claim to be a "conscientious objector" in the military, even though it was the Quakers who spearheaded that designation.
"It is absolutely hypocritical for someone to say they don't support protecting homosexuality from discrimination because it is a choice, yet support protecting freedom of religious belief and action when it too is a choice."
I understand that is your point, and it is an interesting one. Further, for most of the religious right who hasn't given two clock cycles to thinking about what they are demanding verses what they are opposing, I think it's a good point.
However, even though Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the First Amendment while homosexuality is not, even the fact that Freedom of Religion is enshrined does not fully protect action--which is my point.
I wouldn't want to see a world where homosexuality is treated the same as freedom of religion: in such a world I could see people saying "well, that's fine that you want to believe in homosexuality, but the laws against male on male sex stand because there is a public need to prevent the spread of AIDS." And if we applied the currently interpreted Lemon test against such an anti-male on male sex law, the problem is it could pass constitutional muster. Certainly anti-sodomy laws (which were designed to prevent homosexuality) have constantly passed constitutional muster: it has required movements from the ground up to get them removed from the books--the courts have certainly allowed them to stand.
In other words, to my mind, homosexuals require full freedom (within the same limits currently set for hetrosexuals, such as current nudity laws) to be able to act without being harassed in any way--which is far more than religion should enjoy. Meaning I think it's far more acceptable to allow "damned Muslims" to pass through my lips after seeing a terrorist bombing than it is to allow "damned faggots" to pass through my lips when I see two guys walking hand in hand down the street.
Posted by: William Woody | December 11, 2007 11:34 AM
Wow. Adding AIDS and sodomy to shore up the wicker man analogy. And as a bonus, relativist justification of racism! It's morning in America again!
Damned Christians.
Posted by: Maurice Kessler | December 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Certainly anti-sodomy laws (which were designed to prevent homosexuality) have constantly passed constitutional muster: it has required movements from the ground up to get them removed from the books--the courts have certainly allowed them to stand.
Actually, at the Supreme Court level, they tend to do rather poorly, even with nimrods like Scalia who never met a government law limiting the rights of the individual he didn't like.
Posted by: John C. Welch | December 12, 2007 7:16 AM
