By Robert Charles
- April 28, 2015
Legal treatises define “invidious discrimination” as
“treating a class of persons unequally in a matter that is malicious, hostile
or damaging,” a definition that encompasses traditional religious beliefs,
including moral standards and marriage.
In other words, discrimination has not historically
been allowed against any faith -- Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or any variant of
Christianity.
In the United States, we honor -- through our First
Amendment to the Bill of Rights -- the freedom to worship and hold religious
beliefs dictated by conscience.
Similarly, we honor the 14th Amendment’s equal
protection of all Americans, and perhaps more simply, we respect each other as
Americans -- regardless of how we manage our lives, so long as that includes
mutual respect.
Whatever one thinks about the religious views of the
majority on homosexual behavior, or about the idea that same-sex unions
codified as “marriage” under state law, we are all Americans.
But, alas, something simpler and in some ways more
heartbreaking than adults debating constitutional question brings me to
write this column.
You see, a large majority of Americans self-define
as people of faith.
Within that majority, a vast majority belong to
organized, traditional religions and these religions often proscribe
homosexuality, including Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic and various
protestant churches), Judaism (from the Bible), Islam (Quran), and Buddhism
(according to the Dalai Lama).
That is the state of play in America today.
This produces a question for people of good
heart: Are these faiths -- families and individuals -- not also entitled
to be free from “invidious discrimination?”
The answer must be yes, legally and as a matter of
conscience.
Thus, the irony.
Those pressing to widen acceptance of certain sexual
behaviors are, in effect, now punishing sincerely-held religious beliefs.
Rather than tolerance, the parties asking indulgence
from society in their sexual preferences (roughly two percent of the
population) are now pressing legal cases that center on intolerance of others’
religious beliefs.
How can this be?
More to the point, how can this be resolved?
Enter a personal story.
Perhaps in this short story, there is an answer --
namely, preserving tolerance for religious convictions.
A little girl in a schoolhouse in the metropolitan
Washington DC area was recently part of a “Diversity Day,” ostensibly dedicated
to learning “tolerance.”
So far, so good.
As part of the day, the school commissioned
outsiders to come and educate about the correctness of support for the “gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.”
Put aside the question of whether this topic, and
these behaviors, are appropriate for young girls.
Focus just on what happened.
At the completion of a session instructing on the
normalcy of and need for tolerance for these minority sexual behaviors, a class
of young girls was asked to “stand if they supported” this community --
including everything related to their lifestyle.
Two young girls in the large class remained
sitting.
They were both traditional Christians.
The instructors praised those standing as “strong
and intelligent.”
One of the sitting girls asked quietly to be
excused.
After a discussion among teachers, the girl was
escorted out -- then cross-examined in the hallway.
When she tried to explain the basis for her belief
as traditional Christian teachings, she was told that her religious views were
fine for home and in church, but that at school she had to participate in these
“educational” events.
The little girl began to cry.
The teacher instructed her to return to the lecture
-- which she did not want to do, having been singled out and feeling
“uncomfortable.”
The teacher said being “uncomfortable” was part of
the “educational” moment.
The girl then explained that she could not leave her
beliefs at home, since they go with her where she goes.
She explained that she is not judgmental, and does
not try to change the views of others.
But she cannot change inside her what God expects of
her.
Apparently, this response produced a
stalemate.
In the presence of another adult who joined the
conversation, the initial teacher retreated to expressing disappointment that
the girl would not return.
In short, the girl was singled out.
She was singled out for perceived intolerance,
ironically for her religious beliefs, which reflected her views of right and
wrong.
The teacher implied that the child’s faith was
unacceptable.
She sought to coerce conformity, separating the
child from her heart, family, and church.
So, the question: Is that where America now is?
Is this really where we want this country to
go?
Parents were later notified that an “incident” had
occurred.
In the end, the issue was squared through
discussion, ironically about deference to differing, strongly held views.
But why was that not the starting point?
Is this not also a seminal lesson in tolerance,
never mind constitutional prerogatives?
In this moment, the national debate was telescoped
into one family.
The encounter may be coming to a school near you.
What does it reveal?
People arrive at faith and live faith from different
perspectives, rooted in different cultures, life experiences and religious
traditions.
As Americans, should we be turning on ourselves,
teaching our children to reject their hearts, faiths, families and religious
convictions?
For a preoccupation with sexual preferences?
I think not.
To do so would be to sanction invidious
discrimination against each other, against those who follow their conscience,
who hold in their hearts a sense of what they believe to be right and wrong,
reinforced by an established religion of the world, and of America.
None of us has a monopoly on truth.
None of us has a monopoly on truth.
None is therefore entitled -- under our Constitution
or most faiths -- to judge the convictions of others.
Why can we not leave it at that?
Let us turn down the rhetoric and turn off this “us
and them” mentality.
Tolerance of one group’s private behaviors and
beliefs does not require intolerance of those who hold different beliefs.
How about that discussion on a “diversity
day?”
If we do not learn to live with each other, we will
all slide into the pit, or what a friend recently called “a culture of outrage
and victimhood,” defaulting to snap judgments on each other, and not generous
ones.
In deference to that little girl’s conscience and
courage, let’s pull back on the reins.
Let’s not condemn ourselves or misguide our kids, or
turn our future into one of reflexive condemnation, especially when the topic
is sincerely held religious views.
Glibly promoting intolerance in the name of
tolerance is a fool’s errand.
It is dangerous, especially for a people who must
remain united in an increasingly fractious world, true to a moral vision that
includes, at its forefront, genuine patience with each other.
Invidious discrimination, especially against those
of religious grounding -- the majority of this country -- should not be permitted,
in any direction or for any reason.
The real solution is to cool our jets, one and
all.
On the next “diversity day” – or whatever day people
choose to talk about our nation’s strengths -- maybe the conversation can turn
to listening harder to how different families, kids, teachers, and Americans
view the world, and trying to understand their personal convictions -- not
change them.
That little girl taught me something.
She was strong, true to herself, and to her
faith.
She was true, without knowing them by name, to
principles embodied in our First Amendment.
Surrounded by cherry trees, on the wall of the
Jefferson Memorial, are these arresting words.
“Almighty God hath created the mind free.
All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments
or burthens... are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our
religion.
No man shall… suffer on account of his religious
opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to
maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.”
By extension, I think he must have also meant little
girls.
Robert B. Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of
State, former litigator, and onetime teacher at the Harvard Extension
School. He now runs a consulting firm in Washington DC.
No comments:
Post a Comment