Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Discrimination or Conscientious Objection?

Our Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, started a media stir when he recently signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. The law was intended to limit government interference in the practice of one’s faith. The federal government under President Bill Clinton passed a similar law in 1993, and some nineteen other states also have such a law on the books. So why is Indiana taking such a firestorm of criticism from celebrities and on social media?

The timing is probably the main factor. When the federal law was passed twenty-two years ago, same-sex unions were not the hot button issue as they are now. Today, those of us who believe in natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman, are quickly labeled as bigots. Those who have no religious objection to same-sex unions see the law as discriminatory.

I have explained the reasons for standing firm for natural marriage in a previous post, so I won’t go into detail again. Suffice to say, God’s created natural design has provided complementary parts in a man and woman that come together to form a union. There is a natural reason why it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Any attempt to subjugate that design is unnatural, that is, inconsistent with nature. The objection is to the observable incompatibility with the physical design, and becomes religious through acknowledgement of the Creator of that design.

The same-sex proponent says, what right do you have to impose your discriminatory religious beliefs on me or anyone else? I would answer this way. While morals are constant, mores change. What society views as morally acceptable today is not the same as it was a few years ago, and that is not a good thing. Our moral backbone has degenerated over the past few decades. This has taken a toll on the traditional family unit, the effects of which are evident in our society today, especially in the inner cities. We have lost respect for human life.

A couple of weeks ago, a Colorado District Attorney could not file murder charges against someone who cut the unborn baby from a woman seven months pregnant. Under Colorado law, a baby still in the mother’s womb is a fetus, and they could not confirm the baby’s viability by proving it took a breath after it was removed. The mother survived, but the baby did not. No murder charge? How have mores in our society become so perverted? We have allowed it to happen.

Secular media repeatedly produces entertainment promoting the progressive agenda attempting to portray it in the mainstream, and their efforts have been effective. Over time, behavior once considered abhorrent becomes normalized and acceptable. Marriage is no longer seen as a covenant made between a man and a woman. Now it can be any pairing that makes the couple happy. Seeing such arrangements appear normal on a daily basis affects our point of view. We can easily become numbed into indifference, and the structural foundation of our society gradually weakens.

For those of us trying to stay the course, we need to distance ourselves from the frenzy. We have a responsibility to avoid the scandal created by appearing to go along with the changing tide. Doing so is difficult because of the appearance of intolerance. We want to be intolerant of the sin, but not the sinner, and that makes us easily misunderstood and often misrepresented. The religious person cannot in good conscience appear to support something he views as sinful. To do so involves us in the sin of scandal, that is, conduct that may encourage a lapse of faith or religious obedience in another by making our involvement appear as approval.

If a couple comes into my bakery for a loaf of bread, I have an obligation to serve them regardless of their sexual orientation. No sin is involved and I would have no problem selling them a loaf of bread. But if they ask me to use my talent to create a wedding cake with two little plastic men on top, I cannot do so without projecting some tacit approval contrary to my religious beliefs. My conscious would not allow me to cooperate in an event I view as invalid.

The exemption from complicity does not target only same-sex marriage. A heterosexual wedding where the impossibility of consummation exists could also raise a religious objection. A Catholic baker may not want to cater the wedding of one of his fellow Catholics were it to take place outside of the Church due to an impediment to the marriage, such as a prior divorce. A pharmacist living his faith could not distribute abortive birth control, such as the morning-after pill. The American Pharmacists Association delegates at their annual meeting held in San Diego this year said the practice of providing lethal-injection drugs is contrary to the role of pharmacists as health care providers, and urged their members not to do so. No one should be forced to go against his good-faith conscience.

Most difficult for the religious person is convincing others that our non-participation is rooted in love, not hate. We have a genuine concern for the spiritual well-being of those we believe to be in violation of God’s natural plan, and we have a concern for own spiritual health as well. We are to love everyone., but we do not have to condone everyone’s behavior. A few years ago, I did not attend my niece’s wedding because she was a Catholic choosing to marry outside the guidelines of Catholic Canon Law. I don’t hate my niece. I love her. We get along fine even though we have differing points of view.

The proprietor of a pizzeria in a nearby town was interviewed by a local television reporter concerning the newly passed Indiana law. She innocently indicated she would serve anyone who came into her shop for pizza, but would not cater a same-sex wedding reception. After the story aired, she was inundated with hate messages, and threats to burn down her business. The pizzeria was forced to close temporarily. The same people who seem to think you and I need to support everyone and every action are the same ones who often spew hatred toward anyone professing a different point of view. Who are the really intolerant ones here?

The band Wilco cancelled their Indianapolis concert date in protest of the Indiana Religious Freedom law. Think about this. They have a conscientious objection to playing in Indiana and have exercised their right not to do business here. Yet, they think I should give up my right not to do business where I have a conscientious objection.

I find a certain irony in observing the current agenda of the politically correct. We are not to do anything to violate our nature’s environment – no pipelines, no drilling, no coal, no pesticides, no genetically engineered vegetables, no artificial preservatives, and the list goes on. We must keep rain forests and wet lands in their natural state. Yet, those same folks think nothing of manipulating our reproductive nature with artificial birth control, in vitro-fertilization, abortion, genetically modified babies, and unnatural sexual relations.

The leftist outcry against the Indiana RFRA has been so intense that the Governor asked for changes to be made to insure it does not allow discrimination toward homosexuals. New language limits the extent of Religious Freedom to religious organizations and non-profits. Religious freedom for individuals could end up being more restricted than ever. I am glad the owners of the pizzeria have a stronger spine than our legislators. All should realize that man-made law has no power over a properly formed conscience.

I have been reading The American Catholic Almanac by Brian Burch and Emily Stimpson, The April 10 entry is about the 1966 film, A Man for All Seasons, based on the life of Saint Thomas More, and his refusal to betray his conscience regarding the marriage of King Henry VIII. The almanac quotes the following exchange between Thomas More and the Duke of Norfolk:

Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship?

More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

I would say this to the LBGT community of sympathizers. Good Christians do not hate you. In fact, we love you. Those portraying Christians as bigots are wrong. And if some fundamentalist Christians do hate you just because of your orientation, they are sinning. Here is the gist of the issue from my Catholic point of view. It is not that good Christians do not want to serve you because you are homosexual. There is no sin in having same-sex attraction. The problem arises when that attraction leads to unnatural behavior. That is the point where complicity on our part risks implicit approval of your actions, which can cause us to commit a sin of scandal.

God gave us free will. You can do what you want to do with your body. That is between you and God. But once the boundary is crossed, we cannot cooperate in behavior we view as unhealthy. You should not be able to force me to provide you with cigarettes because you choose to smoke. If I believe I could be causing harm to your lungs, I cannot cooperate in your habit with a clear conscience. Doing so could be sinful for me even though you are the one choosing to smoke. It is the same situation with a same-sex wedding. You can legally do what the law says, but you should have no right to force my involvement. My approval cannot be legislated. And why would you want services from someone reluctant to provide them? Just to prove a point?

Religious freedom restoration is not about discrimination. It is about protecting the right of every person to act in accord with his or her conscience. Calming the waters on this issue requires understanding on both sides. While religious approval of same-sex marriage cannot be legislated, neither can the feelings of those with same-sex attraction. A properly formed Christian conscience says they must be treated with love, respect, kindness and compassion.