It's Not Always About Legality

Mark Osler's March 31st HuffPo piece fails to live up to its title, "Bigotry or Belief? A Test", in a few rather obvious ways. The first mistake he makes is in conflating whether something is legal or not with whether it amounts to bigotry. This is somewhat understandable since he is a law professor and therefore may think primarily in legalistic terms. However, his "test" only determines whether an individual or group can legally get away with a specific set of behaviors/actions. It says nothing about whether those behaviors are biased and/or bigoted. It is quite possible to be an upright law-abiding citizen and still be a narrow minded bigot.

The other blatant flaw is his reliance on scripture. The manner in which he uses it does not come close to determining whether a belief is bigotry. The best his "test" can do is come up with a relative sense of how sincerely an individual holds a specific belief and whether they attempt to apply that belief universally. In one sense that may mean they do not apply their beliefs in a hypocritical manner but that does not justify the belief itself and does not mean that the belief itself is by its nature not biased. It is also rather problematic to come to a conclusion at all based on scripture. As I have often pointed out, scripture tends to alternate between incoherent and contradictory.

Religious Bigotry of DOMA

I'm thrilled that at least a few of our politicians have some sense of decency. There effort to repeal the highly discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act is commendable. However, more emphasis should be placed on the nature and origin of this hideous affront to our Constitution and the freedoms it is supposed to guarantee.

Religion is the source of this irrational bigotry aimed at homosexuals. Occasionally, opponents of same-sex marriage try justifying their denial of basic rights to homosexual through sociological and cultural claims. All of them have been routinely debunked. Al Franken's exposure of Minery as a liar is a pretty good example (check out the video in the piece linked above). It always comes down to religious beliefs, and religious beliefs alone.

I find this both annoying and amusing since it is very hypocrital. There are two passages from Leviticus (18:22 & 20:13) that are almost always cited for the purpose of justification. Setting aside that creating public policy out religious beliefs alone is in direct violation of the first amendment, this narrow focus is rather telling. Nowhere in the Bible does it specify which parts of Mosaic Law (Contained predominantly in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy)are to be given greater weight. There are dozens of "sins" listed before, between, and after the Leviticus verses on homosexuality.

For the sake of expedience I'll stick to just a few that appear in between:

      "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
       And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; tou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God." Leviticus 19: 9-10

So, nearly every one in agriculture are sinners. They tend to harvest everything they can. How many in the big agricultural companies reserve a portion of their fields for the poor?

       "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee" Leviticus 19: 19

I've always thought Monsanto and ConAgra were evil but this seems to be a bit excessive. The fashion industry also seems to have avoided the wrath of god despite all their blended garments. Are there any wardrobes left in America that don't mingle different materials?

        "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that commiteth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

Just how many of the Republican politicians who always seem eager to oppress homosexuals have not committed adultery? Does this mean if they can justify DOMA we can justify lynching them? Even if you're Bible thumper this one has to end badly. After all, some of their greatest Biblical heroes were unrepetent adulterers (Abraham, Noah, David, etc.)

These are just a few of the passages they conveniently ignore. There are plenty more. As for using any passage of the Bible to promote public policy I just have one thing to say,

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances." Amendment 1, United States Constitution

Free Expression vs. Intolerance?

A recent piece at the Huffington Post seems to be a little more muddled and confused than usual. The authors, Esposito and Lalwani, seem to have difficulty differentiating intolerance from discrimination and persecution, which are by no means synonymous.

They start out relatively clear about there being a fine line between free speech and harassment.  Initially, they appear to endorse the right of expression even when it is hateful. However, they derail their own line of reasoning when they get to "the stunning verdict in Geert Wilder's acquittal." What really makes it stunning? Wilder did not physically attack or harm in any way any individuals. His speech was reprehensible but well within the bounds of the free speech/expression Esposito and Lalwani previously defended.

This odd disconnect does seem to stem from the very first sentence. The notion of "defamation of religion" is absurd. Not only does religion neither need nor deserve protection it is also impossible to objectively determine what constitutes such defamation. Who gets to say what rises to the level of defamation? In my view a number of Huffington Post writers, like Rabbi Boteach, routinely defame atheists.

Esposito and Lalwani also seem to ignore the difference between individual believers and the specific religion they follow. They are not the same. The rights of an individual whether it relates to religion or not should never be violated. A religion is not a person and should never be treated as if it is. Religion has no rights. Only an  individual has rights.