Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Our coming theocratic hell: Look out, the right’s “religious freedom” push is just the beginning
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/our_coming_theocratic_hell_look_out_the_rights_religious_freedom_push_is_just_the_beginning/By now, it’s clear that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act was crafted to empower piously bigoted entrepreneurs and companies desirous of freelancing with their own “Jim Crow for gays” restrictions, and to let them cite as legal justification for doing so their precious religious sensibilities. The RFRA, said the original text, sought to give judicial succor to those who found that their “exercise of religion . . . has been substantially burdened,” or was just “likely to be substantially burdened” by performing services for people their faith’s sacred credos enjoin them to abhor (gays, in this case). The ensuing uproar in the media and business circles compelled Indiana’s state Senate to amend the legislation to prevent its deployment against the LBGT community, but state Democrats are still calling for its repeal.
The danger, however, has by no means passed. RFRAs already exist in 21 other states (in three of which, bills are pending to fortify them), and three more are considering adopting similar measures. The RFRA just passed last week in Arkansas may allow faith-based discrimination; we now await a test case.
Yet the real menace to our priceless heritage of secular governance comes from the Supreme Court, which a year ago (in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby) ruled that corporations, on the basis of their religious convictions (yes, the Court decided corporations have those), can exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act’s relevant articles and refuse to pay for contraceptives in their employee health plans. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that this was a “decision of startling breadth,” and she was right.) If a case involving a new manifestation of such legislation (say, the Arkansan RFRA) ever lands before the nine-member Roberts Court, its five conservative justices will no doubt adjudicate in favor of the faithful – and against rationalists who hold that religion, in no shape or form, should be allowed to infect our legal system. What is really needed is a federal LGBT shield law, but none exists.
RFRAs don’t define religion or specify to which religion they pertain. But a lot hinges on how we define religion. Everyone knows what dictionaries say it is. We’re also all too familiar with another definition, one by which faith is an entirely spiritual affair, a matter of transcendental, miraculously elastic interpretation never to be held accountable for the witless antics, casual brutality and gross atrocities committed by its practitioners. (Reza Aslan is the most prominent advocate of this view.) Both definitions lend an aura of dignity and gravitas to what is essentially sordid gibberish that we should dismiss out of hand, as we now do necromancy, phrenology or alchemy, or simply laugh off.
The danger, however, has by no means passed. RFRAs already exist in 21 other states (in three of which, bills are pending to fortify them), and three more are considering adopting similar measures. The RFRA just passed last week in Arkansas may allow faith-based discrimination; we now await a test case.
Yet the real menace to our priceless heritage of secular governance comes from the Supreme Court, which a year ago (in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby) ruled that corporations, on the basis of their religious convictions (yes, the Court decided corporations have those), can exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act’s relevant articles and refuse to pay for contraceptives in their employee health plans. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that this was a “decision of startling breadth,” and she was right.) If a case involving a new manifestation of such legislation (say, the Arkansan RFRA) ever lands before the nine-member Roberts Court, its five conservative justices will no doubt adjudicate in favor of the faithful – and against rationalists who hold that religion, in no shape or form, should be allowed to infect our legal system. What is really needed is a federal LGBT shield law, but none exists.
RFRAs don’t define religion or specify to which religion they pertain. But a lot hinges on how we define religion. Everyone knows what dictionaries say it is. We’re also all too familiar with another definition, one by which faith is an entirely spiritual affair, a matter of transcendental, miraculously elastic interpretation never to be held accountable for the witless antics, casual brutality and gross atrocities committed by its practitioners. (Reza Aslan is the most prominent advocate of this view.) Both definitions lend an aura of dignity and gravitas to what is essentially sordid gibberish that we should dismiss out of hand, as we now do necromancy, phrenology or alchemy, or simply laugh off.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
This is an awesome piece:
The three Abrahamic faiths aren’t the only faiths around, of course. What about ancient Greek religion? If a discriminatory RFRA comes into effect in your area, why not worship Dionysus, the god of fertility and wine? You can imagine the sort of obligatory activities this god would demand of you. You could deny service to those who burden your religion by declining to share your wine or bed. And what about worshipping Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty? Why not profess yourself to be her votary, and refuse service to obese Evangelical dullards or Mormons with their ugly underwear? And what about scientologists? Shouldn’t they be able to deny service to anyone caught repudiating their inner thetan? United States law, after all, recognizes scientology as a religion on a par with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which says a lot. For more information, see under “undeserved respect.”
And why be Eurocentric? Hindus may wish to deny service to Christians, who generally drink alcohol and eat meat, which Hinduism forbids. Followers of Rati, the Hindu goddess of love and lust, might refuse service to the unlovable and un-lust-worthy. And so on.
Or maybe those in states with discriminatory RFRAs would prefer to tailor their bigotry and hop from faith to faith, depending on the people of the day they’d like to deny service to. Nothing stops a person from being a Christian today, a Jew tomorrow, a votary of Rati the day after. If you believe in one magic book, switching to another should pose no problem. What you rarely find these days is an atheist converting to a religion. Once you see the light, your eyes have a tough time adjusting to the dark.
Such are the farcical dilemmas and rank absurdities with which religion threatens to swamp us if it infests our judicial system and trumps secular law, as any RFRA legalizing faith-based discrimination would do. The ghastly morass to which RFRAs will one day probably lead speaks to nothing but the ahistorical ignorance of their drafters. The Founding Fathers never meant for religion to play a role in our affairs of state. If the First Amendment isn’t proof enough of this, doubters might check out other things they wrote.
And why be Eurocentric? Hindus may wish to deny service to Christians, who generally drink alcohol and eat meat, which Hinduism forbids. Followers of Rati, the Hindu goddess of love and lust, might refuse service to the unlovable and un-lust-worthy. And so on.
Or maybe those in states with discriminatory RFRAs would prefer to tailor their bigotry and hop from faith to faith, depending on the people of the day they’d like to deny service to. Nothing stops a person from being a Christian today, a Jew tomorrow, a votary of Rati the day after. If you believe in one magic book, switching to another should pose no problem. What you rarely find these days is an atheist converting to a religion. Once you see the light, your eyes have a tough time adjusting to the dark.
Such are the farcical dilemmas and rank absurdities with which religion threatens to swamp us if it infests our judicial system and trumps secular law, as any RFRA legalizing faith-based discrimination would do. The ghastly morass to which RFRAs will one day probably lead speaks to nothing but the ahistorical ignorance of their drafters. The Founding Fathers never meant for religion to play a role in our affairs of state. If the First Amendment isn’t proof enough of this, doubters might check out other things they wrote.
Undeserved respect indeed. I have seen nothing in those faiths that merits the respect we're forced to accord them.
