Credit: Creative Commons
The past few weeks have left me nonplussed regarding basic human rights and those decrying “infringement of their religious liberties.” It is difficult for me not to see organized religion as the common denominator of discord in the form of misogyny, homophobia, racism, and even further marginalizing those living in poverty.
Currently, President Obama is working on an executive order with the goal to be diverse and inclusive: federal contractors must not discriminate against LGBTQ people. Am I the only one who feels that this seems like basic common sense and good leadership? I thought our world leaders were charged with the task of expanding human rights and advocating for targeted populations. Sadly, “religious leaders” such as Rick Warren and Catholic Charities insist that this effort of equity infringes on their religious liberties. Need we remind Catholics of what religious infringement might look like, a la The Crusades and The Inquisition? You remember The Inquisition – those madcap Catholics just providing “tough love for heretics,” Jews, Muslims, and anyone not willing to convert to Catholicism.
In the wake of the foul Supreme Court decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which seemed like a decision made on behalf of the Catholic Pope, I am in a state of worry about how thoroughly religion dictates human rights and which religion(s) shares disproportionate power.
My understanding is that the executive order (which is not in a final draft) will not force heterosexuals to have sex with or marry people of the same sex. It will instead allow LGBTQ people a source of income – to be granted employment. Denying people employment and a way to sustain themselves and their families seems to run contrary to how I understand the purpose of religion. It leaves me asking: “who does your God hate.” Is God about hate? If we continue to travel down a road of “religious infringement” based on people who are different, how does this help to create a peaceful community of people? How does this help humans share a planet and create space for differences?
When I hear the voices of Rick Warren and others of his ilk, I must confess, I hold a great deal of fear that harkens back to WWII, when the world created mythical science to say that Jews were biologically different than other human beings. I also think about Paragraph 175 and about millions of Jews, Gays, and others who were tortured, imprisoned, and killed.
Credit: Creative Commons
The efforts by Warren and Catholic Charities are particularly cynical when looked at in the larger context of American opinion and established law. Well over 50% of all U.S. citizens believe that it should be illegal to deny employment based on sexual orientation. Sadly, recent polls show that over 2/3 of the populace believe it is already illegal. That’s simply not true.
Fewer than half the states provide any employment protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The Federal government provides almost no such protection. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been floating around Congress for two decades but has stalled out in every session. The current version, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), passed strongly in the Senate with bipartisan support. The House won’t even look at it.
In the face of Congressional inaction, the President is doing what he can to enact policies that are not only widely supported, but also fair, just, and equitable. Warren and his cronies are turning religious liberty on its head, invoking a right to oppress that has never existed in law. Sadly, with the ripples from Hobby Lobby just beginning to be felt, it looks like that “right” may become part of our legal wrangling as a nation for decades to come.
Finally, I think about tikkun olam, a philosophy I try to live by and take quite seriously. If we are truly engaged in repairing the world, how are we reflecting on our own actions? I hope all people look at and ask how are each of us in our own way able to contribute to repairing the world – how do we collectively and individually create a more equitable and just planet to share?
—Michael Hulshof-Schmidt teaches at the Portland State University School of Social Work. He is also the Executive Director of EqualityWorks, NW, a company that provides workshops on racial equity and how to stand in solidarity with targeted populations. Follow this link to read more of his work.
-§-
If you would like to be a part of stopping this latest attempt to use religion as a means of discrimination, you can sign this petition and show the White House just how many people are outraged that faith is being exploited to justify anti-gay discrimination.
To me, religion is not something imposed on people, but a personal interaction with one’s faith. I am troubled about the direction this country is moving, allowing people to impose their religious views onto others, instead of maintaining a neutral rule of law where all are treated equally.
As imperfect as our Founding Fathers were, they knew that the majority has a tendency to oppress minorities, and so created built-in checks to lessen that possibility.
But I really think change is here, and that is unstoppable in the long run.
Mr. Hulshof-Schmidt wrote, “Finally, I think about tikkun olam, a philosophy I try to live by and take quite seriously. If we are truly engaged in repairing the world, how are we reflecting on our own actions? I hope all people look at and ask how are each of us in our own way able to contribute to repairing the world – how do we collectively and individually create a more equitable and just planet to share?”
Shawn Morgan replied, You make a great point. I’ll add that no matter what philosophy (or religion) we follow, we do owe to the world of today and tomorrow to make it a better place. I am saddened to see some use religion as a “cloak of hate” towards minorities including my fellow LGBTQ. I was moved by your article and I am certain it will inspire others as it has me. I am eager to read more from you.
This is an important and insightful article. It’s sad that such a loud but small segment of the faith community feels the need to push for extraordianry exemptions to permit outright discrimination. I’m glad that so many organizations are using the Hobby Lobby debacle to push Congress to shrink the religious exemptions in ENDA and push the President to apply the smallest exemption possible in his executive orders. The faith of an individual should never become a corporate right to punish other individuals!
Jackie, Shawn, and Penguin, thank you for your comments here. Sadly, the Supreme Court has now set a most ugly precedent with the Hobby Lobby decision. We are witnessing such a great abuse of power from five Catholic men who are on the wrong side of history. I wonder how many decades it will take to overcome the wrongs of this court?
What Michael Hulshof-Schmidt is actually saying here is this: people such as Rick Warren and I don’t/shouldn’t have the right/freedom to deem offensive behaviors as “offensive.” Michael is committed to the idea of denying me the right to go to the pages of the Biblical Scriptures and to subsequently pull from those pages standards for assessing the types of behaviors that God deems as moral and the types of behaviors that God deems as immoral.
Michael talks about Barack Obama’s “goal to be ‘diverse’ and ‘inclusive.'” Michael fails to understand that there are values which supersede “diversity” and “inclusiveness.”
Why should those of us who advocate – and who strive to display – God-centered, Biblically-inculcated behavior, be forced to feel “inclusive” toward those who advocate, and engage in, behaviors that only a God-denying culture would approve of?
Why should those of us who strive to build futures worth having – by upholding behaviors that strengthen God-centered, heterosexual civilization – be cajoled into “diversifying” via giving in to those who advocate behaviors that endanger/weaken heterosexual civilization?
The Scriptural model of man-woman marriage isn’t an idea that is up for debate. And the fact that people such as Rick Warren, Catholic Charities personnel, and I advocate this model – and no other model – does not make us “Haters.” And it does not make the God we meet in the opening chapter of the Book of Genesis a “Hater” of anyone.
People who are determined to foist upon society the notion that I should be forced to employ, and/or to work alongside, people whose sexual preferences violate the Biblical model, always label as “Haters” those of us who refuse to be doormats to their demands.
That’s because these “labelers” have no intelligent or credible argument. And they have no intelligent or credible argument because, with regard to their cause, emotional, bogus arguments are the only types available.
Sadly, Rexton, your comment begins with a willful misstatement of this article’s principle theme and ends with a hollow, emotionally inflammatory broadside. Sandwiched between these sentences is a series of stock talking points that does a nice job of proving just how desperately the LGBT community needs workplace protection.
Michael is clearly NOT saying that you have no right to your own beliefs/opinions/faith. Instead, this important article points out the danger of allowing anyone’s deeply held personal beliefs — however broadly shared — to block the fundamental rights of other people, including the right to work. People who agree with this thesis do not lack an “intelligent or credible argument” but rather unsderstand that our diverse, complex nation is founded on the principle that articles of faith are in fact personal.
Let’s take Catholic “Charities” as a quick example. I appreciate and admire much of the work that they do. Caring for the poor, marginalized, and oppressed fits nicely with how I understand the core values of Christianity. Once they enter the public sphere, however, and employ people to perform work that has nothing to do with the rituals and promulgation of their specific faith, they lose the right to decide who is worthy of employment.
Operating a business is a public activity and as such is rightly regulated by government to ensure equal access. Who you allow in your pulpit — indeed in your whole church, or even your home — may be guided by your deeply held personal beliefs. Who you employ may not. To use your own charming language, I would be required to “employ and/or to work alongside” someone who believes that fundamental aspects of my humanity will damn me to hell. You, in turn, are required to endure my presence for 40 hours a week.
We need not admire or like one another but we must regard each other with respect and professional courtesy. That is inherently intelligent and credible. Arguing that I should starve rather than obtain work for which I am inherently qualified, however, is not.