| The "right" to be intolerant? |
In Atlanta, a GA Tech senior is suing for her right to be intolerant -- Ruth Malhotra feels that her Christian faith "compels" her to speak out against homosexuality. GA Tech, however, does not allow speech that discriminates others on the basis of their sexual orientation.
So, here we are again -- at that crossroads of where religious idealism meets political pragmatism. (or, how do our ideals translate into reality?)
Some quotes from the article:
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian." AAAAAAH. The likening of this to a civil rights struggle is laughable. The so-called "war on Christians" that is taking place in America is nothing but a rally-the-troops ploy from the likes of Daddy Dobson and "Reverend" Falwell.
I wonder how many white supremacist/racist religious groups in the south in the 1960's had similar battle cries as these?
A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults Â? including 80% of evangelical Christians? agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."
"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.
Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. This is an interesting quote, because of some online conversations I've been a part of in the last little while (isn't it interesting how things "connect?").
If you sincerely believe that homosexuality is wrong, and it's your mission from God to live out all aspects of your faith in the public sphere -- what happens when your mission causes serious harm and hurt to others? I'm not sure.
As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans "free exercise" of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.
... The open question is what constitutes harassment, what's a sincere expression of faith? and what to do when they overlap.
[the whole article is here]
How many times has hate been spread, all under the guise of religious piety?
Why does there have to be an ultimatum when it comes to the public practice of religion (particularly, Christianity)? It's seen as all or nothing -- if you want to censor the hateful and discrimatory parts of a religion, then you're viewed as attempting to suppress the whole faith system, including the positive giving/loving/encouraging aspects of it.
Pluralism has gotten a bad wrap. Whenever you attempt to find a common moral denominator amongst religions, you're either accused watering down your faith -- or, more likely, you're seen as not having any substantial faith at all.
Looking at the case outlined in this article, if anything, some common ground needs to be found -- I don't think the law should support "the right" of an individual to discriminate or hurt another group of people.
In many religions, you'll find a version of The Golden Rule -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's such a simple, foundational concept, but it's ignored when we turn people different from us into the Other. When we objectify them as "Other," we forget about the golden rule, and sacrifice our fellow human beings to our religious ideologies.
Maybe this is the one ideal we can hold onto, that -- when applied unilaterally, benefits all who are involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
