Discrimination in the Name of Religion: Methodists, Religious Freedom Laws, and What’s Right
In
the 1980s when I was heavily involved with gay rights in Columbus, Ohio, I was
invited to be a speaker at a downtown Methodist church where the congregation was
breaking in two over the issue of recognizing LGBT rights—a startling idea
in those days. One of the most
incredible speakers was a young man, openly gay, who was currently in the
seminary studying to be a Methodist minister.
When more or less everyone there pointed out to him that the Methodist
Church condemned homosexuality and certainly would not allow him to be
ordained, he smiled and explained with tremendous sincerity, his voice like an
angel, that “My calling is so strong, so
long felt, so deep, that I know in my heart that God would not call me to take this path if it didn’t lead to
fulfilling my mission within the Church.
I know that before I graduate
the Church will change its mind and open its arms to welcome gay people into
its flock.” He was on the verge of tears
as he said this.
It
was very moving.
I
had two conflicting reactions, both of which I kept to myself. One was pity because I knew (and so did most
everyone there) that he was so very wrong as to what would happen, and
the other was “Don’t be a fool!” since
he was wasting his time in catapulting so forcefully against a large and unmoving
brick wall.
I
don’t know what happened to that dedicated young man, but in 2016 that same wall
is standing with only the slightest hint of a crack. The Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline still deems homosexuality “inconsistent with
Christian teaching” and flatly prohibits the ordination of gay clergy. Nor may Methodist minister perform gay
weddings, as happened May 7th of this year when the Rev. David
Meredith, a Methodist minister, married Jim Schlachter at the same Methodist
Church I’d spoken at thirty years before, leading all Methodists involved to be
the immediate subject of suspension.
Adding to this fire, more than 100 members of the Methodist clergy came
out in a “love letter” sent to the national convention in Portland, Oregon, two
days later, which appealingly asked the church to open its heart to its gay
parishioners. The convention promptly
tabled the whole matter by creating a future study group.
 |
| The Marriage of Meredith and Schlachter |
All
over the country states are battling laws protecting LGBT rights, and two
recent terrifying events have particularly caused dire reactions: gay marriage
and transgendered people in bathrooms.
I’ve written much about these topics in the past [see “Related Posts”
below], but in this post I want discuss the religious justifications for such
virulent denial of gay people. I’ll
focus on Christianity, although most traditional religions, and particularly Islam, are no
better.
First
let’s address whether the bible in fact condemns homosexuality. As I’ve explained at length in a prior post
[see “Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?” June 29, 2014; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2014/06/does-bible-condemn-homosexuality-and.html],
in spite of learned explanations as to why it doesn’t, I conclude that the
bible does indeed make such a denunciation rather clearly in both the Old and New
Testaments. Of course it also condemns
things such as getting a tattoo and eating shellfish, but let’s move on.
I’m
certainly willing to grant all people freedom of religion to believe whatever
they want. I’m a lawyer and an American
citizen so that vital concept is important to me.
That said, I do not grant
religious people the right to use their religion as a weapon to attack beliefs
or people not in agreement with them.
The way to settle such disagreements is to test the competing ideas in
the public forum and let the American people decide. Gay rights activists have been fighting in
that hot arena a long time, and have been mangled by large arena lions for decades. Recently, as if by magic, gays have emerged
largely victorious, nursing multiple wounds. Their political ascendency is startling to
devout believers of the bible, who have (in the blink of an eye in biblical time)
lost their god-given right to treat gays as condemnable misfits. Incredibly, gays—archetypal sinners—are now protected
in matters such as marriage and discrimination, and society’s demand to treat
these evildoers as fellow citizens is unacceptable to many traditionally
religious people.
Legislators
in some states (I mean you, Mississippi, North Carolina, and—alas—my native
state of Indiana) have passed laws either forbidding protection of gays from discrimination
or creating “religious liberty” exceptions to such protection so that those
with sincere religious beliefs don’t have to abandon them when dealing with spiritually unclean homos. These laws have
come under legal attack as unconstitutional, and eventually the United States
Supreme Court is likely to deem them so.
Really? Yes, says the lawyer. Of course freedom of religion in the First
Amendment to the Constitution would and should keep governmental entitles from
enacting laws dictating how religions must run themselves (“Catholic Schools must teach that the bible is wrong
when it says gays are an abomination”—such a statute would be
obviously unconstitutional), but religious people moving around in the public sphere have
to behave as all citizens do in the marketplace or when dealing with
authorities.
Meaning? Well, flower shops run by a believer in Islam cannot refuse to make flowers for a Jewish customer. If the Muslim owner of the shop doesn’t like that, he/she should get into a business that doesn’t deal with the public. Kim Davis, a country clerk in Kentucky, has to issue marriage licenses to everyone—it’s her job—and can’t use her personal beliefs to decide she’ll not perform that job when a gay couple wants to exercise the power of the state to marry. If she can’t bring herself to issue the license, she’s self-deciding she's not fit to do her job and must therefore either resign or be fired. There’s no right to be a public official who can change public laws because of disagreement with the lawmakers who passed them.
Deeply
religious people, very upset by this, are vigorously asserting the
contrary. I read in the news recently
about a clerk in a Department of Motor Vehicles office who used religion as the
grounds for not issuing a driver’s license to a gay applicant. If the clerks of the country could legally do
that we’d soon have a patchwork of citizen “types”: those whose status offends
no one, those who offend some but not most people, those in questionable
categories who would never be sure if they could buy a burger, attend a movie,
hire a wedding photographer, etc.
Our
country cannot operate with degrees of protection for public access. “Religious Freedom” laws sound like a good
idea only because of their title (no one is against religious freedom) but extending them to sanction “pick and choose”
compliance with the law either in the marketplace or when seeking government
services would mean that the United States is abandoning concepts of
citizenship that have been treasured on this continent for centuries.
Summing up is simple: Let’s be very sure we don’t legislate hatred.
----------------------------------------
Related
Posts:
A Guide to the Best of My Blog,” April
29, 2013; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-guide-to-best-of-my-blog.html
“Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality and Gay Marriage?”
June 29, 2014; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2014/06/does-bible-condemn-homosexuality-and.html
Comments
Post a Comment