This evening
the nation is still watching to see if Governor J. Brewer of Arizona will sign
or veto a bill that allows for “religious reasons” a business to deny services
to anyone they so wish to do so. The rationale is that no business or person should
be forced to provide services to a person for whom they view as living a
lifestyle, or who has views that are against their religion. While the law is
broadly written and makes no mention sexual orientation, gays are its primary
target.
While Arizona
does not have any laws protecting gays from discrimination with regard to
housing, services, etc., three cities within the state have such laws. The law
before the governor is an effort to override the laws of the three cities and allow businesses and
individuals to discriminate with the State’s blessing. I am disappointed that similar legislation is working through the
Georgia legislature, and likewise under consideration in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Missouri.
The bill is driven
by a cluster of "conservative" Christians who view gays as living an unhealthy and
sinful lifestyle, and feel gays should be second class citizens. They are uncomfortable with interacting with gays. Their
perspective is akin to John Calvin’s views and his rule of Geneva. The
viewpoint holds that the Christian faith should govern the law of the land,
and no Christians should be forced to work with or provide services to those
who they consider to be offensive to them and their beliefs.
Under Calvin’s
leadership, Christian values were imposed upon all citizens. Everyone was
required to go to church, whether they were part of the elect or not. Swearing,
playing cards, playing non-religious music, doing any work on Sunday, even quietly
in private were outlawed and could land one in prison. Those whose faith was
defined a little more broadly than Calvin, could find themselves in prison for
what doing what they viewed as being okay by their understanding of faith, but
which Calvin views as sinful. After
seven years, Calvin jettisoned imposing religious laws upon the whole
population.
I am against
the Arizona law on a number of levels and hope Brewer vetoes the bill. I am
against imposing Christian views upon the country as a whole. Whose Christian
understanding of faith should prevail, conservative Baptists? Conservative
Methodists? Roman Catholics? Are we to outlaw the eating of meat on Friday? The
religious beliefs of The Salvation Army which views smoking and alcohol as
evil? What about those churches that view eating out on Sunday or filling up
your car’s gas tank as sinful?
I detest
laws which set one group above another, giving one group the ability to use
their majority to abuse and discriminate against a minority. The strength of
American democracy and its Constitution is that it protects the minority and reminds
the majority that they must be mindful of the minority and do not live in land
where the tyranny of the majority is enshrined.
It
infuriates me when people use the Christian faith as the cover for unjust discrimination and prejudice,
to grant privileges of one group over another group, and to justify conduct
that in other contexts would be criminal and ungodly. Such conduct contrary to the Christian values that I know and value. We have seen religious
rationale as justifying the enslaving of other races, as segregating people of
different faiths into designated “quarters” with inferior infrastructure,
denying people with employment opportunities or advancement or equal pay for
the same job, destruction of property, beating and killing, prohibiting people
of different ethnicity from socializing and marrying, denying entrance to a
college, and turning down bank loans. We are not talking about what has taken place
in past centuries for many of these things have taken placed during my
lifetime.
My belief
system should not be imposed upon others, nor should the beliefs of another imposed
upon me and my family. That said, if I am working in the world, I should be
able to interact civilly those who have different beliefs and values, and I
should not deny them services that I can reasonably offer and which they
reasonably can expect. My interaction is part of life, and does not pollute my
faith and life.
