Texas Faith - What’s the balance between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination?

We may not agree on the definition of sin, but the folks who see religion literally ought to consider keeping their doors open to bring the “sinners’ back into the fold of their brand of religion (any religion), instead of condemning them to hell and keeping them at bay. If the literalists want to earn the brownie points with God, then don’t shut the door.

 

TEXAS FAITH: What’s the balance between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination?
By Wayne Slater
wslater@dallasnews.com
2:31 pm on March 4, 2014 |

 

When Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced she was vetoing a “religious freedom” bill that targeted gay men and lesbians, she said religious liberty remains a “core value” in Arizona. But, she added, “So is non-discrimination.”

 

The debate over the Arizona bill – and similar proposals under consideration elsewhere – highlights the tension between two competing and deeply held American values: the right of people to practice their religion vs. the right to be free from discrimination. It’s a balancing act, and not an easy one.

 

It is at the heart of the debate over the Obama administration policy requiring businesses to provide health insurance for their employees that includes forms of contraception. It’s central to the argument by supporters of the Arizona bill that a baker who opposes same-sex marriage shouldn’t be required to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Both sides make a claim on liberty.

 

Clearly, nobody’s advocating that the government sanction, say, the right to deny service to black people at a lunch counter – regardless of whether the owner says it violates his religious beliefs. At the same time, nobody’s saying a Jewish caterer must work the Nazi rally, even if the Nazis claim they’re being discriminated against.

 

The question is, as a matter of public policy, how to reconcile competing rights? How do we protect both the religious rights of one person (which may involve discriminating against some people) and the deeply held right to be free from discrimination? What’s the balance and how best do we achieve it?

 

As expected, our Texas Faith panel of experts on faith and public policy – theologians, activists, clergy, scholars – don’t agree. And in so doing, they offer provocative, thoughtful reasons. If you think you know what side you’re on, read our Texas Faith panel and think again.

 

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism and speaker on interfaith matters, Dallas

 

The question of protecting the religious rights of a person and the right to be free from discrimination comes up time and again like a new day every day.

 

As a nation, we began our life with the immortal “declaration of independence” as our very first document, and we continue to rely upon it as our guiding principle.   “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

No man is an island; and no one can survive by himself or herself without living or relating with others.  From the day we were born to the day we die, and the time in between is spent in connection with someone or the other. The systems of governance and civil society are shaped for co-existence; we cannot function without the other for a considerable period of time.

 

On the civil side of the equation, any law that breaks the “One nation” into many nations of my nation versus yours, knocks out the immortal declaration “that all men are created equal” is flawed. We have drawn a line and our current anti-discrimination laws are good, and must be improved upon rather than decimate them.

 

However, on the religious side, we need to debate and understand the morality of discrimination. Jesus did not condemn the sinner, and went a step further to prevent bigotry and discrimination by embracing the prostitute to make the point that we cannot refuse services to others.

 

We may not agree on the definition of sin, but the folks who see religion literally ought to consider keeping their doors open to bring the “sinners’ back into the fold of their brand of religion (any religion), instead of condemning them to hell and keeping them at bay. If the literalists want to earn the brownie points with God, then don’t shut the door.

 

Refusing service or products to an individual because I do not agree with his or her sexual orientation violates the fundamental bounds set by the civil society and religion.

 

To read the take of other panelists, please visit Dallas Morning news at -  http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/texas-faith-whats-the-balance-between-religious-freedom-and-freedom-from-discrimination.html/#more-35528

...............................................................................................................................
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and a book with the same title is coming up. Mike has a strong presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.