There are times the noise in my house is too loud. Sometimes it comes from one of my kid’s rooms. Sometimes it comes from my spouse or me. The reality is that when the noise is too loud, no one can hear.
Like many, I have been watching the ongoings in Indiana surrounding the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Also like many, I have yet to read the bill in its entirety.
My desire is to understand what this bill says and what it doesn’t — what it means and what it doesn’t — but transparently speaking, it’s hard to discern accurately because I can’t hear. There’s too much noise.
What I do hear is the rhetoric. What I do hear are the chants. What I do hear are the passions and protests and bold proclamations from all corners of the room telling the rest of us what to believe. And you know what? Sometimes I get sucked into believing them — allowing my emotion to determine reality — forgetting that I haven’t read the bill in its entirety.
The reality is that Indiana’s religious freedom act is similar (but not exact) to the law in 19 other states and the federal act signed by Pres. Clinton in 1993. It’s similar to the law Arkansas is currently considering. The specific language of the law has varied slightly as varied courts have made varied judgments. While the aim is to provide legal exemptions when primarily a business’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened, the concern is that the language creates the possibility of legalizing discrimination. Such is why Indiana congressmen are beginning this morning to discuss a so-called “fix” — ensuring LGBT customers, employees, and tenants are not discriminated against. Note that any time discrimination is believed to be the reality, more than simply someone — understandably — will make a lot of noise.
Therein lies a significant problem, no less. The noise on all sides keeps us from having the tough conversation this country needs to have. We need to respectfully discuss whether or not religious freedom ever equates to discrimination. And if it does: is that constitutionally allowed?
Because of the deep emotion already embedded in this topic, many of us will struggle with anything less than 100% agreement from another. Some obviously feel justified into verbally pounding another into like thinking — believing we all must agree on what discrimination is, is not, and what’s ok in the name of religion. And if we don’t agree, the other person must be either ignorant or idiotic. Way too many (on television and social media especially — outside the confines of real relationship) are generously justifying the ignorant and idiotic identifications. That’s concerning, as we will not make wise, lasting progress when we justify the use of tactics eerily similar to bullying — as outlined in our most recent post. Forcing a person to believe what we believe only magnifies the disrespect and prolongs the lack of a solution.
The reality is that multiple admired individuals disagree on how to legislate religious freedom and therefore if/how/and when to mandate compliance…
- Is it ok to mandate that a Christian homeschooler adhere to all public school policies?
- Is it ok to mandate that a Muslim inmate shave his beard? … or a Muslim t-shirt maker prints a satirical picture of Muhammad?
- Is it ok to mandate that a Jewish deli serve ham?
- Is it ok to mandate that any Christian, Muslim, or Jewish baker, photographer, florist, or leader serve at a gay wedding?
Is it ok to force another to contradict practices consistent with their faith? Is it ever ok to discriminate? And better yet: can we have that conversation?
I’m not comfortable adding anything to the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” mantra that is based solely on sexuality, ethnicity, or any other demographic, entire people group categorization. I also believe we must specifically discuss what is discrimination and what is not — and where can we be more respectful of all people… that includes respect for the LGBT community — and the Christian homeschooler, Muslim inmate, Jewish deli, baker, photographer, florist, leader, etc.
If a religious freedom law becomes an easy escape clause allowing people to be treated poorly, that does not seem wise. But if opposition to any law becomes a tactic designed to silence all opposing opinion, that seems equally unwise. Both ignore the deeper conversation that needs to be had.
What’s the relationship between religious freedom and discrimination? I’d like to have that conversation, but right now, there’s too much noise.
Respectfully…
AR