This is why I see the idea of religious freedom laws trying to skate into legitimacy, as a form of nullification by other means. To my mind, when I see people trying to override anti-discrimination laws that might require a business to serve LGBT customers, or claim anti-religious discrimination to allow them to not hire, or to fire, or to disregard the marriages of LGBT people--what I think I'm looking at is a nullification argument, where the individual has some kind of right to just say "Well--my religion!" and then anything goes. So why stop at gay or trans discrimination for employment or denial of birth control to employees?
Why not just go ahead and reach back to when people used the Bible to discriminate against their fellow man and even sanction slavery?
Well, that's just it--religion can make an argument for slavery. Religion can, and has, been used to excuse or explain abuse and neglect against children. It can be used to excuse or explain abuse against our environment. It can be the basis of hate crimes or wars. It seems like an all-purpose claim to deny government authority--and that just doesn't make for a civil society. I don't think the ideals of a government with laws against "cruel and unusual punishment" are compatible with the ideals that would lead to public stonings.
So, while I hear religious freedom arguments as a desire for people of faith to be "left alone" by their meddlesome government--I see this tactic as an end-run around secular authority to practice localized theocracy. It isn't just about laws impacting the rights of individuals (or "corporate persons" who have neither souls to damn nor noses to punch) but whole communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment