Topic: 1st Amendment
Why the ACLU Opposes Proposition 8 There are some altruists who believe that if religion, "the opiate of the people,” were expunged from planet earth, society would be better. Though the ACLU may believe in the right of same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage, perhaps it also has a more nefarious agenda.by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Saturday, September 20, 2008
There are many powerful people who purport to believe that religion, "the opiate of the people (Karl Marx)," is a scourge on humanity. Altruists, they purport to genuinely believe that society would be better if all religions, especially Christianity, were expunged from planet earth.
That's not a constitutional view of course. Freedom of religion is as sacred as the freedom of speech. Like the right to marry, it is part of what is innate in people and what is part of who we are as humans prior to government. It's self-evident, no matter what one believes about religion, that governments need to, as much as is possible, keep out of the business of policing religion. Any law or ordinance that puts government into the business of arbitrating religious belief should be shunned. Indeed, governments ought to be in the business of promoting and exalting those freedoms that abound in a free people. This includes the "right to marry" and the practice of religion openly and freely.
The ACLU may believe in the right of same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage too. That's fine; however, if Reverend James Wilson is correct, perhaps it has a more nefarious agenda in mind. Perhaps there is a secret treasure to be exhumed from the corpse of our mangled California family law. With a victory against Proposition 8 in hand, perhaps the ACLU can end religion in public life completely. We will be able to think religious thoughts, but we will not be able to either speak our beliefs or practice them in public.
Reverend James Wilson wrote in his September 15 article "Proposition 8 protects freedom of religion" at Reading.com that:
"The state Supreme Court decision OK'ing civil rights laws for suppression of doctors' consciences is part of an alarming pattern. The decision held doctors liable after they refused for religious reasons to inseminate a lesbian. The doctors referred her; there was no injury to the woman as she was inseminated and gave birth. But the court said doctors lose their right to free speech and religion when licensed to practice medicine in California. And if the experience of northern Europe and Canada is any indicator pastors will lose those rights should Proposition 8 fail in November. That is because courts in those nations have found pastors (and any who express politically incorrect views) guilty of hate speech.':"
One would ordinarily think this is ridiculously alarmist, but reading the series of bilious comments by readers of Wilson's article gave me pause. Here are several:
"Rev. James Wilson, it's a shame you don't follow Jesus' teachings to love one another instead of spreading hate like this column. Practice what you preach." You have no idea what the Bible says, do ya...
Rev. Wilson did not quote the Bible, but anyone who has read Romans chapter 1 knows that he did not quote it out of courtesy.
"He's just being a hypocrite." it IS "hate speech", MR. Wilson (you don't deserve to be addressed as "Reverend" - that title should be reserved for people who attempt to reflect God's love and compassion in their lives).
Rev. Wilson's most controversial line was that "love without truth is not love." I admit that I've picked some of the most obvious examples of spiteful disregard found in the reader comments. Nonetheless, Reverend Wilson's article is simply one of a tremendous variety of instances in which the volume of the spiteful ad hominem attacks increases exponentially when faith is mentioned at all. The raw enmity expressed in any number of reader comments associated with those expressing religious disagreements with homosexuality itself is a firestorm. Whether the religion is Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, the hate as furious as it is obvious.
In accorddance with my nature,I had to get into the act. I commented:
"The Reverend's article, although restricted to an audience of Bible believing Christians, nevertheless proves its broader point by the overwhelming anger and hate personally directed at its author for his faith. Are we to trust any movement that so indiscriminately hates those who offer reasonable disagreements with it based on personal religious beliefs?"
Since my post was not faith based, the response I received from a fellow reader, "specialK" was reasonable and well-measured:
"It's not for his faith, rather his active campaigning to rescind and eliminate the civil rights of a small minority of citizens when he himself and the majority here enjoy the legal recognition of your primary relationship. To claim that his rights are being impinged on because I now have the same, or shall I say, equal civil (not religious mind you) rights, should not in any way interfere with the Rev's religion. The hate must only be coming from those who suffer from ignorance and fear."
However, "specialK"'s response was not to the point. He, like many, did not see that freedom of speech and freedom of religion could be impacted by the laws of California. He (or she) thinks that it is alarmist to assume that letting same-sex couples say they're married could, in any way, impact freedom of religion. Still, the motive of those seeking to defeat Proposition 8 should be relevant to us. Is the motive of those who seek to defeat Proposition 8 less government? Plainly not. If it is more government, then what is it they most seek to govern? Likewise, all voters might want to ask, what segment of society are the opponents of Proposition 8 most willing disparage?'
My articles have not been addressed to a faith audience, and so, because I understand the nature of our competitive Western society in which we take adversarial positions in order pursue the truth, I haven't been particularly troubled by readers who ignore my arguments and then endeavor to defame me because my thesis is disagreeable to them. That's all part of the American smear machine we call our national discourse. Even though the often decried ad hominem attack is a well-known logical fallacy, it is as beloved of 21st century America as apple pie and college football.
I also recognize that very often the more intense and unnecessarily disagreeable disagreements contain a question not answered in an article. That intensity is not what I'm writing about. There is a significant difference, an intense intolerance, shown by opponents of Proposition 8 to those who have religious beliefs. They feel entitled to this intolerance. Voters who value religious freedom should be hesitant to ally themselves with such disdain of the sacred and those who believe.
Besides, who knows, perhaps there is something sacred about humanity. Who knows maybe there is something true in these ancient religions handed down from the mists of time. I know, I can hear the barrage coming now... This article is not for them; it's for you.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The doctors aren't slaves. They can get other jobs, and it's not like this rule affects them off work. It also doesn't make sense for a doctor to reject inseminating a lesbian based on a religious objection to homosexuality. Is being inseminated a homosexual act? It's not like the doctor would have been helping her sin as the Bible only prohibits gay sex. It doesn't prohibit inseminating a person who happens to engage in that from time to time. Of course there's the view that artificial insemination is unnatural and sinful anyways, but if he believes that he shouldn't even have the job in the first place. It would be like a Hindu applying for a cow butchering job, deciding not to butcher any cows because it's against their religion, and still keeping the job. When you get a job you do what it entails, or go look for another job.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-22 06:30:21
DirDem,This seems like a comment on a side bar issue. This is a whole separate argument about the role of the public and private sector. The point of the article is the intolerance towards those who hold religious beliefs in public held by the most vocal opponents of Prop. 8. This sense of entitled anger against religion seems to support the notion that a vote against Prop. 8 does, in fact, endanger religious liberty.However, you bring up some interesting questions. Why wasn't the Muslim taxi driver in NYC permitted to refuse to drive those who carry alcohol or walk dogs? Why shouldn't it be his choice? Right or wrong, the current state of our laws concerning religious liberty in the private sector may actually point to the increased danger to freedom of religion through rejecting Proposition 8. The potential on impact freedom of religion with the current failure to separate public and private government and individual enterprise is the point of the article. Here’s a link to an article that discusses how the George Opinion, that would be largely set aside if Proposition 8 passes, rewrote the constitution of California to include homosexuality as a “protected class” under civil rights law: [link edited for length]
Many would be in favor of such a rewrite, but the effects of such a rewrite are not clearly known. The impact on the religious belief and free speech may be more profound than people might guess. Again, the point of the article is that maybe, just maybe, our founding fathers were correct about the importance of freedom of religion... The first amendment. Just maybe there is something sacred about humantiy. Just maybe arrogance should take a break, and a breather... Just a thought.
Perhaps mr. wilson's agenda is the nefarious one. There are more religious beliefs than his, including the realm of Christianity.
What angers people is his attempt to pass his opions and personal belief off as that of a universal God.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-22 16:40:30
Yes,Reverend Wilson's viewpoint may be consistent with his religion, but he is defending religious liberty, not his religion. He is defending the rights of the Doctors to have DIFFERENT beliefs than everyone else and to act on them. That is what the free exercise of religion is all about.
During the entirely of his article, the elements of Reverend Wilson's own belief, because they are a religious belief, are in hinted at in his article in terms of a belief in an objective truth about Who he believes the Creator to be. Nevertheless, he presents his views in terms of studies that (sadly) are unreferenced.
The notion that a vote "No" on Proposition 8 endangers religious freedom always seemed extreme and extravagant. However, as more people make comments that show no understanding and respect for the beliefs of others AS religious beliefs, the more it seems to me that freedom of religion is very much at stake in California's election. Some people would be delighted to shut off dissenting religious viewpoints. I don't think that is acceptable. It is also granting more power to a big, corrupt, and ineffective government which is already way out of control.
I urge voters to weigh the rights of same sex couples to call their unions a marriage with the rights of freedom of religion and the constitutional freedoms granted to all in the United States of America.
I think there is an anti-cristianity "religion" and ACLU is their champion. Banning christmas trees and changing "Merry Christmas" for "Happy Hollydays" has nothing to do with church-goverment separation. Those are some examples of their "beliefs". So, it is OK to have a bath for muslins to use in a public place ,but not a christmas tree in a public library? ACLU has an agenda against cristianity, not religion.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-23 06:43:01
I'd forgotten about the Christmas tree thing. California's way of trying to make available gay marriage would probably open up a whole new area for the suppression of religious expression, even if that's not what the opponents of Proposition 8 desire. The suppression of religious expression in public life is a suppression of the free exercise of religion.
By the way, if one reads the court opinion, or some of the articles I’ve written analyzing the ruling, it is plain that none of the power they are grabbing is lost on Judge George. Gay marriage proponents, I encourage you to also read that monster. If you understand the thing, at least Log Cabin Republicans ought to agree, that there are a million unintended, negative consequences that attend approaching gay marriage through the George Court.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
