Sunday, April 5, 2015

Religious Cover

("Interview with a Christian")

Religion is not the predicate but the justification for the behavior. In its worse form it allows hatred and bigotry a rationale, and serves as a distraction meant to turn one's eyes from earthly misdeeds.

Instead of looking inward to question why, those who perpetrate these wrongs do not involve themselves in self examination but merely invoke a higher being to serve as ready cover.

It is the same fiction, in different clothing, that excuses the actions of those who keep the poor and the minority from exercising their right to cast a ballot. Instead of calling upon some text to inform them not recognize the rights of the LGBT community, there is in its place the tall tale that our laws must be geared to stop the perpetration of non-existent voter fraud upon the public.

Or, in another context, there should be only grave disappointment for those who rail against undocumented immigrants as a plague upon our society, ones who steal our jobs and endanger our welfare. It serves as an answer to every question asked, and it requires nothing but blind allegiance to morally corrupt reasoning.

Whether it be religious text bent to fit a narrative, or the sleight of hand that makes fiction appear as fact on the political landscape, it is all but variations on the same theme. Mr. Douthat, by suggesting there is a true dilemma which could permit and excuse discrimination, does a grave disservice in the name of religion.


Anonymous said...

This is all about the political left, especially on college campuses, that has abandoned the American tradition of pluralism in favor of an all or nothing social model that brooks no dissent. The political goal behind the uproar is to intimidate or destroy people who think they are still allowed to articulate traditional moral convictions. It discredits our civil society, which we used to think was strong and friendly enough to tolerate all people of whatever religious or sexual persuasion.

Robert said...

What you are commenting on is not exercise of religion. The law was designed to allow businessmen, who perform a service to the general public, to pick and choose those members of the public to whom the service would not be given.

They are not being asked to give their blessing to the gay community, only to give them flowers.

What if they suggested their was a deeply held religious belief that blacks should not be served by them, or Jews. Would that be permissible?

This is not an impingement on religion and the prestidigitation that would transform hatred into something less sinister is nothing but subterfuge.

Anonymous said...

Prove my point by distorting the issue anyway you choose. Voting rights and immigration have nothing whatsoever to do with the exercise of religion either. You also introduce an irrelevant example re Jews and blacks.
Should it be permissible that a Native American printer be legally compelled to make posters illustrating Redskins (football or otherwise) that he finds offensive, or a green contractor to work a shift at a coal-fired power plant? Utilization of the term "hatred" only illustrates a bias, projection, and distortion vs. a benign, and First Amendment right, to the free expression of divergent opinion.