Some topics become so controversial, you're tempted to self censure and not comment on them. But that's chicken, really, and those are the ones you probably should comment on. This is one such matter, to some degree.
Some time ago, when the Legislature was in session, I wrote a couple of items about a bill then pending that was supposed to protect people from same gender attraction from discrimination, while there was also a bill pending that sought to protect those who had religious convictions opposed to recognizing same gender unions as marriages from having to serve in some capacity associated with those unions. I noted at that time that the debate was descending to the sub intelligent level. The debate had already descended to the trite with words like "fair" and "bigoted" being thrown around without adequate consideration as to the actual nature of the topic at hand, while some on either side struggled to keep the eye focused on the real issues, but not really succeeding in getting everyone to do that. A legislator even ended up being tossed out of a committee meeting after making some childish comment.
Both of those bills failed, which is no wonder given the descent of the debate, but other bills like them, maybe (I haven't read any of them) have passed elsewhere in the US and now a raging debate is going on about one of those bills in Indiana, which as become law, while another in some other state (Alabama?) just passed. This raises an interesting question that's getting ignored, but shouldn't be. It's one that has come up in our country's history on more than one occasion, and the country has flunked it more than once.
That is, are the deeply held views of people protected when they counter the majority view, and should they be?
Keep in mind, we're not referencing free speech. Everyone always claims they support free speech, even if they don't. No, what I"m talking about is conviction backed by action.
Where this has come up most notably in our country's history has been in the context of military service. We've had conscientious objectors all the way back to the Revolution, where some men declined to serve in militia units based on conscience. During the Mexican War, and during the Mexican War some people went to jail, rather than be mustered into their state militias, as they were morally opposed to the war. Others deserted the U.S. Army for the Mexican Army during the war. During the Civil War the situation was similar for Southerners, although in the North a person could provide a substitute for service.
During World War One a few objected to the draft, and even during World War Two some did. And as we know, quite a few did during World War Two. What was the country's reaction?
Well, generally, it was hostility. People didn't appreciate that one darned bit and were pretty hostile to those who refused service. Reactions varied, some paid fines and some were prosecuted criminally. Ultimately, of course, it came to be the case that a person could claim conscientious objector status, which was the law at least by World War One, but people generally don't like that being done. Refusing any service, as late as World War One, was a crime By World War Two, and since, conscientious objectors have been allowed to forgo service. It's a law passed to protect people with such beliefs, but that doesn't keep those people from being harassed during wartime. The thought is that no matter how popular the cause, a person shouldn't be penalized for holding to their deeply held beliefs. We admire that our country has such a law, although it's fairly recent and things haven't always gone well for conscientious objectors, who are a small minority of the population with their views usually based in religion.
There are other examples.
One famous one, now a celebrated cause, is that of members of the far left in American politics who were hauled up to Congress to answer the question, "are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?" Now regarded as a terrible witch hunt, the truth is that more than a few of the people brought up to answer that question were, in fact, Communist, former Communists, or near Communists. The hearings themselves were aimed at, originally, trying to determine if there was a large Soviet run espionage program at work in the U.S. government and in various industries. As it turns out, and as we now know, the Soviet Union in fact did have a pretty substantial espionage program going on dating back prior to World War Two, so the fears weren't completely unjustified. Still, it rankles us now that this question was asked as, no matter how deeply repugnant Communism may have been, it ought to be legal to be one. Indeed, it was, which makes the question all the more offensive, considered alone and without the additional context.
Opponents of slavery who acted upon their beliefs in the Antebellum South, weren't admired generally either, although from a legal prospective their situation was different from what we now are considering. When Prohibition was the law, those women in particular who came out against it were subject to some real criticism, although again there was no legal bar to them doing so. And I"m sure there are other examples.
My point is that right now, people who have deeply held religious beliefs to the effect that same gender unions are not valid marriages, and that they cannot morally serve them, shouldn't be castigated as bigots or forced into service any more than people who believe that a war is morally wrong ought to be made to carry a rifle in support of it. By the same token, it seems self evident that it shouldn't be legal to discriminate in a conventional sense against people merely because they have a same gender attraction. It isn't perfectly possible to craft a perfect law, but generally nobody really wants people fired from their job for having a same gender attraction but it's also the case that people who find same gender unions morally objectionable shouldn't be forced to serve that process thereby putting them in moral crisis or making it appear that their views are irrelevant or that they actually approve of something they do not. The gist of it is that a person shouldn't be fired from their job at the caterers for having a same gender attraction, but the same caterer should be allowed to decline a job at a same gender wedding reception. Seems easy enough, but the sides are now so backed up that people are yelling at each other on this one and some are no longer willing to yield to others who cite moral conscience.
The point isn't whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not unpopular beliefs can be tolerated. Surely, they should be, particularly in the area we are discussing, in which the reverse was the case so recently. Indeed, it's unpopular or untrendy beliefs that probably need the most protection, as a society that tolerates those who hold them protects everyone at the end of the day. That is, people who object to military service on moral grounds shouldn't be made to serve in the military, people who hold radical political views shouldn't be penalized at law for holding them, and people who have moral convictions that preclude them from doing something, such as taking oaths, or serving at certain functions, shouldn't be made to.
The fact is, there are entire groups of people who very sincerely hold religious views that are unpopular or at least untrendy. It is not correct, nor dignified, to force these groups into public submission, as that is a form of oppression. People yelling at them right now are actually arguing contrary to the things they claim to be supporting. You can't be tolerant by being intolerant.
The Amish will not bear arms in service of their nation. Should they be forced to? I doubt anyone thinks they should, even though most people believe its your patriotic duty to bear arms when the country calls.
Indeed, they largely will not mix with others, should they be made to? Should their children be forced to go to public school, Carlisle Indian School style? Nobody would argue that they must.
Jehovah's Witnesses will not take oaths, and therefore they won't even say the Pledge of Allegiance. Should we make them? I doubt it.
Some Moslems so object to eating pork they won't handle it. If there is an Islamic caterer and we want pork roast for a wedding, should they be forced to serve us? Nobody would rationally argue that they should.
Ultra Orthodox Jews will not do anything on Saturday. If the rest of us work on Saturday, should they be made to do so if we do?
Some Protestant Christian denominations strongly object to the consumption of alcohol, and won't have anything to do with it. Nobody argues for Prohibition anymore, and while there are dry counties, by and large you can buy alcohol in most of the country. If people with an objection to alcohol are caterers, should they be required to attend a wedding where alcohol is served if they object to it? I doubt anyone feels that way.
The point is that in the current public debate, there's a lot of overreaction going on, and we've done that before.
The further point is that, for the most part, I think this topic is one where the majority of people don't want people to be hostile or broadly discriminatory to the group at hand. Pretty much everyone recognizes, and has for a long time, that a person should not be discriminated at work, etc., for this, or any other reason, and should be judge on their work force performance. I could try to list other topics that are generally similar, but that would be long and pointless. But there are some groups with deeply held religious beliefs, or sometimes philosophical beliefs, and it's always tempting to leap on them dog pile style and accuse them of bigotry, or whatever. Again, I don't really think, quite frankly, that Communists in the 30s were really "anti American", so much as they were people who held beliefs most of us abhor. I don't think that those who oppose serving in wartime deserve harassment for that view either, and they've surely received it in the past. Again, I could go on, but every time something like this comes up, it seems that the commentary tends towards marginalizing the deeply held beliefs which, no matter their nature, is not usually fair. I.e, I don't think on other issues that the Amish or Quakers are baddies and I don't think that only Democrats and Republicans can love their country. In this debate, therefore, I don't think that people should disregard the views of those who aren't being bigoted, but rather feel that they must act according to the dictates of their conscience on what are in fact very limited areas that for most people will never occur. And in the debate, to at least grant an opponent the status of being informed on their position is always a more rational one than simply accusing them of something.
Indeed, as far back as Plato we were warned, through his recounting of the advice of Socrates, that once a debate descended to the shouting down level, nobody actually won them.
No comments:
Post a Comment