Tweet
photo: bastique via Flickr
Evangelicals like Chuck Colson, Roman Catholics like Archbishop Donald Wuerl, and the other religious leaders who signed the “Manhattan Declaration” don’t seem to understand that justifying discrimination in the name of religious freedom is not a good idea.
For example, Wuerl and the DC city council are at loggerheads over a new non-discrimination bill. As Wuerl correctly describes it,
Under the bill, religious organizations would be exempt from participating in ceremonies or from teaching about same-sex marriage in religion classes and retreats in accord with their faith beliefs, but they would be required to recognize and promote same-sex marriage everywhere else, including in employment policies, and adoption and foster-care policies, against their beliefs.
Shorter Wuerl: “God forbid that same sex couples be allowed to adopt children, or care for them as foster parents, or have health benefits through their legal partner’s employment. We certainly won’t be a party to such immorality.”
Archbishop, if the government offers grants to provide housing for low-income people that have strings attached that you disagree with, such as prohibiting discrimination against certain family arrangements, don’t apply for the grant. It’s that simple. No one is holding a gun to your head, saying “take this money or else.”
This isn’t about religious freedom — it’s about churches asking for special rights: the right to legally discriminate in workplace practices and the right to legally discriminate in the delivery of publicly funded social services.
As a Christian and a pastor, seeing the signers of the Manhattan Declaration trying to justify discrimination on the basis of the Christian faith makes me sick. In the mid-20th century, the Dutch Reformed Church justified apartheid in South Africa on religious grounds, much to their shame today. At the same time in the US, southern evangelicals were doing the same in their defense of Jim Crow. Now we see the leaders of today’s American evangelicals and Roman Catholics following this same path with regard to gays and lesbians.
When the US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional, that didn’t force religious groups to conduct marriages of mixed race couples. It did, however, require them to treat such couples as legally married in the eyes of the state. As Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady wrote in Varnum v Brien last April [pdf],
A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our [Iowa state] constitution requires.
Cady wrote a unanimous court decision for the state of Iowa, but his words explain why anti-discrimination laws do not conflict with religious freedom.
Colson, Wuerl, and their co-signers may be Christians, but the statement they released hardly speaks for all who claim the name of Christ. In their statement they say
We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.
Which practices, I wonder, are gravely unjust? Hypothetically speaking, how about an evangelical housing agency refusing to give the same-sex partner of one of their employee’s health insurance in the same way that the partners of other employees are covered? What about a catholic hospital or nursing home that refuses to allow a legally married same sex partner the power to make decisions on behalf of their incapacitated spouse?
Hmmm . . . religious leaders proudly passing by the victims of injustice. Why does this sound familiar?
Maybe these folks need to read their Bibles a little more thoroughly, before parading their love of discrimination in public. The rest of us who call ourselves Christian sure would appreciate it, as would those of any religious tradition (or no religious tradition at all) who work for justice.
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
preach it peterr. how dare they call themselves christians — who do they believe jesus would discriminate against and hate more — women, brown people, gays, or poor people?
Yeah, WHO would Jesus hate???
I don’t know about “hate,” but it is safe to say that Jesus was rather hard on religious leaders who paraded around offering long prayers in public to show off their piety and who loved to sit at the head table at banquets in order to be seen.
Hypocrisy is not unique to religion and democracy, it’s just heavily concentrated there.
wasn’t he fond of saying Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Amen, Sister eCAHN! Testify! :)
I don’t know about “heavily concentrated.” Wall Street, for instance, seems to have plenty of its own.
I’d say it’s more of a trait that is common to being human, rather than the province of a particular subset thereof.
OT…. What happened to Dr Kirk who used to write for FDL?
We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.
Jonathan Swift
These godbotherers need to tend their own affairs. There’s enough wrong with their own herds that they don’t need to spend nearly so much time arguing about how other, non-aligned sheep should behave. Don’t you have some altar boys to apologize to, Bishop?
Wall St. isn’t hypocritical at all–it’s all about greed, and they admit it (bizarre recent statement of Blankfein notwithstanding). Nope. Hypocrisy is concentrated where people pretend they are superhuman.
Thank you Peterr, for representing the essence of true faith.
This seems to be a theme tonite: If you are advocating points of view that are counter to the law of the land, do not bring God into it. If you want to support and/or finance advocates of your “beliefs” in the public policy arena, or accept taxpayer dollars in support of your initiatives, you are not observing the separation of church and state. That is fine: RELINQUISH YOUR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. Don’t bring God, as you understand God, into it when the IRS is passing the plate. PAY YOUR TAXES AND YOU WILL, AT LEAST, HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE THE ISSUE.
And when it comes to government contracts, I think the churches are better out of it. Most people think the works of the Church are done with Church money; state money shouldn’t be co-mingled. Didn’t the oh-so-holy Bishops just give the House of Representatives a big lecture about how all money is fungible?
Fuck them.
Oh, and Colson is just an awful, awful man. America should have stripped him of his citizenship and exiled him as part of his Watergate punishment. Not foreseeing his continued felonious activities was a terrible error on Judge Sirica’s part.
This morally presumptuous and theologically repulsive screed seems to have been inspired by Satan. This is not the place to expose its religious and moral shortcomings, but interested leaders in the pro choice world must band together and rebut this travesty. I for one will help.
Doctrinal issues are exactly that; doctrinal.
What needs to be done, needs to be done in the world we live.
It’s only occasionally that the doctrinal and the necessary intersect, and it should be the necessary things that are addressed, rather than the illusory and I say, whimsical doctrinal issues.
Time to take away some tax exempt status either you are down with the idea that everyone is equal under our laws and under God or your out.
The world would be much better off without the Church of Rome.
The very idea of the criminal Chuck Colson passing himself off as a Christian has pissed me off for so long, I’ve lost track.
fucking hypocritical fucking felon.
The world would be better off without the Taliban, the Taliban in ermine and Prada, and the Taliban in Suits on American Cable TV.
In other words, sorry peterr, the world would be better of without church.
I tried to use retrained language previously, but enough of that.
Even so-called progressive churches are helping to move American politics to the right, whether they realize it or not. Doctrinal issues have no business in the real world that people live in, especially as regards politics and our legislative process.
Out, out, OUT, damn spot!
Threaten the church’s cash make them all dance given many of these churches do political work shouldn’t they be taxed like a PAC would be?
And how many priests have had sexual relations with their young alter boys or other parishioners.
How long have they been sweeping this under the rug.
How many have been convicted or exposed to law enforcement for adjudication.
How many have had trials rather then sent to other parishes to avert criminal prosecutions and jail time.
After the health care bill came out of the House, I got an e-mail from some Catholic organization I had never heard from before. They were celebrating the abortion “win”. I answered and began with the words “How dare you!” I then told them they should stay out of the health of women and see if they could make their priests leave children alone. I doubt that I will hear from them again.
We need Lefty Churches to Preach against the False Churches and Prophets who JC warned were coming. Churches opposed slavery and fought for Civil Rights even though there is a bible quote somewhere about slaves being obedient? to their Masters.
Gay rights goes against the bible too the thing is we can evolve past the bible.
The GOP certainly has on keeping the Sabbath holy how many Americans used to work 7 days a week just to get by and thats a Comandment.
Show me the harm Gay Marriage does to society? Principle of Harm no harm no need for a law regulating behavior
Damm GOP is all for the freedom of Corporations to do anything they want to us people.
Us people however have to all conform to religious law. Where is the GOP on laws to make sure workers can afford not to work one day a week? The laws Moses brought down from the mountain interfering with Corporate Profits?
Which practices, I wonder, are gravely unjust?
Good question I can’t even follow where their *cough* logic is leading.
Which is precisely my point. Evolving past such doctrinal views, such that the doctrine is meaningless; because it is.
People grant gay mainstream success to just about everybody, except for GAY PEOPLE! We who came out, and have the most to lose, have claimed our rights.
Nobody grants our rights to us. It is by our coming out and claiming them that we have mainstreamed. We have supporters, and that’s great, but you can’t have rights unless you demand to exercise them. Everything else is fluff.
As the legal folks at FDL would say, this presumes facts not in evidence.
As the post would indicate, I’m not saying “the church” is without its problems. OTOH, the world seems to have plenty of problems that have nothing to do with the church.
Clapping – well said.
http://bible.cc/ephesians/6-5.htm
We have been moving evolving past the Bible at least since the Civil War. We are now growing up enough to ask why and not take because as an answer any more. We are as a group thinking for ourselves and demanding reasons to understand.
Children accept because, Republicans think all morality is a joke but its necessary to Pretend to keep the Masses in line.
We ask why because we want to understand sometimes we are wrong but thats the risk we have to take to grow up as a society we have to make our own mistakes.
To presume that the world is better with church in it is also to presume facts without evidence. It’s a belief on it’s face to assume so.
Claim your rights we support you but not all the churches are evil just the loud ones.
This would make a great debate looking at the help and harm the church has done and judging it in total. But the should the Church be spared if we can find 10 good men in it?
I say the world is the world, and that’s what we should deal with.
I’m not totally dissing faith; faith is a belief one has without facts, and for example I believe that a lot of people are naturally good. I also believe a lot of people are naturally bad.
Thanks, Peterr. Really good post. Just a few weeks ago the right wing was having a fit about the Hate Crimes bill because it would infringe on their free speech. I was amazed that people would think that they had the RIGHT to hate and to speak about it.
It strikes me that saying “the world would be better of without church” seems to be rather totally dissing faith. I don’t see any qualifiers there.
I’m in the world, and I’m also a person of faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
The Churches should be asking why the Republicans nobly lie to them about being on their side about abortion.
Since Reagan 20 years of Republican Presidents and still nothing. Yet the Fundy churches still keep buying the GOP drinks…no wonder their angry 20 years is a long time to wait on a girl or guy.
I am dissing doctrine. The “how” of faith.
I am absolutely sure you have beliefs, and am sure that you should have them; a desire and want for well being of others, a sense of outrage when you see an unfairness, and so forth. I do too.
What I do not see as particularly useful is the architecture of doctrine and sureness. And that’s what I mean by “church.” The codification of beliefs makes actual believing harder in my point of view.
Agreed your rights to free speech end where my rights begin. Life Liberty the pursuit of Happiness trying to take away an others right by using free speech to push others to take away an other’s rights is wrong.
This subject would make a good debate if the Lake’s lawyers would lead it.
Some faith not Peterr’s or mine? ( I have faith?) :)
Faith is funny notice the Fundies are not arguing we should keep Kosher. Although with Vienna Beef Franks being better than Hebrew National and sans meat packing scandal well even kosher meat can lose the spirit while keeping in the letter of the law.
The spirit of the Bible love one an other and treat others as they would like to be treated.
Things, you are truly funny. By the way, I like Ballpark.
:)
You make my point again.
It’s the spirit of the thing, rather than arcane and arbitrary rules to codify that spirit.
It’s a rubbish argument anyway. No Catholic priest has ever been required by law to preside over the marriage of a Jew or Pagan or Muslim or Hindu person. No Jewish Rabbi has ever been required by law to officiate over the marriage of a non-Jew. Etc., etc….
When they bring up crap like this as a reason to outlaw same sex marriage they are, at the very least, being utterly disingenuous. At worst, compete hypocrites.
So much for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Hey let’s let some bogus concern about discrimination trump those things, ok.
Agreed. We’re all hypocritical, there’s only a matter of degree.
Time to draft the ‘Milk Declaration’, or the ‘The Bay Declaration’ or something…
Lots of muckity muck christians trying to get their two cents worth in.
This is so dangerous. Naral’s leadership is so deficient now, and This manifesto is a shot across the bow to see if the time has come for a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade. I suspect the only factor restraining them is the fear that a successful assault would damage Republican candidates. Once they feel they have enough public acceptance or passivity they will go for it. And Roe is extremely vulnerable as law. There must be a strong public campaign or all is lost.