Civil rights may not mean what you think…

In reading comments about Arizona law issue it seems people have forgotten that religion is a part of our civil rights. Violating civil rights in the name of civil rights, discriminating to stop discrimination, bullying to stop bullying should cause us all to pause, rethink and refresh our civic interaction.

To say the bullying is justified because of intolerance merely fights “intolerance” with intolerance. There are many things that are lawful, but not everyone participates. We then come to who trumps who. The elephant in the room is our civil rights are being trampled on for another’s civil rights. Meaning, we all lose.

The ACA violates the civil rights of those who hold all life as precious. Given the recent news of abortion statistics, namely the massive slaughter Americans with African ethnicity, the violation of our civil rights, which includes religion, should give pause. The issue of homosexual marriage isn’t the only violation of religious conscience in recent history.

The news heralds the triumph of civil rights with the veto of the Arizona law. Truthfully, civil rights lost. For in the fear of discrimination a law was vetoed that would also protect homosexuals deeply held religious beliefs. And in law, there is now method or process of determining truly held religious belief or mere bigotry. All our civil rights lost.

We can do better, and we must. Perhaps in seeking to be understood we should seek to understand. With the rancor of the Arizona law it shows we’ve all lost. Bigotry isn’t dead, it’s target is merely changed.

6 thoughts on “Civil rights may not mean what you think…

  1. I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently. So are we going to say that people of other religious persuasions have the right to refuse Christians of the services of their public business? Are we fine with saying that businesses (like restaurants) should provide services to everyone without discrimination (even if you disagree with their beliefs/lifestyle), but that somehow when it involves marriage that that is where you draw the line and say that it is impinging on your religious rights? Where’s the line there? It’s difficult to think clearly about this right now! My feeling is that we should think thoroughly through the implications of what we are declaring to be our right. Also, I think down the line it’s going to really come down to whether pastors/churches have to provide services, and that’s where I would take my stand. Thoughts?

    1. I think people are thinking too narrowly on the topic and grossly misrepresented the proposed law. The bill addressed religion it did not address homosexual unions.

      Now, should people refuse is a matter of conscience and/or a business decision. Should people have the right to refuse? Yes. Should a doctor who is a Christian have the right to refuse performing an abortion? I’d think yes.

      1. Yeah, I wasn’t thinking as much about the AZ law as just states in general that are moving the other way (also whether Christians are wise to be arguing for their right to refuse). So do you think then that an atheist business (or Muslim, or whatever else) has the right to refuse business to you if they know you are a Christian (and so they don’t agree with your beliefs)?

      2. That’s one of the big weaknesses of the Arizona law. But, it’s a business decision as well as religious. So, if an atheist rents out a hall and a church wants to hold a service there, should the atheist be able to say no? I’d say yes. What is hard is not having a process to determine religious piety vs bigotry. What is hard with the marriage & the abortion issues is it violates core beliefs. Is a photographer violating another’s rights if they refuse to do a shoot deemed inappropriate?

        It’s a VERY complex issue. Sadly it’s not being discussed civilly, but more by ad hominem attacks or stereotyping. The question is how do we live at peace with two differing viewpoints?

      3. Yeah, that abortion scenario I would definitely agree with. But would there be a fundamental difference between that (where he would be the one committing the sin) and providing a service (which may or may not be perceived as supporting a lifestyle of sin that you disagree with)?

      4. Great question, and the one needing discussing.
        Can a photographer refuse to do a photo shoot it deemed inappropriate for religious grounds? So, should we let a Christian photographer be sued for refusing to do a nude shoot based on religious grounds?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.