The entire framework of Western civilization is being turned upside-down in the current challenge to the historic commitment to religious freedom by those who want to elevate faddish “non-discrimination” laws based on sexual behavior to a higher value.
It is now considered perfectly appropriate to force religious people to participate in rituals celebrating what they consider to be sinful sexual behavior.
That’s what we have seen as florists, photographers, caterers, videographers, bakers and others have been prosecuted, fined and forced out of business for simply declining to participate in same-sex marriages.
Suggesting people are “hateful” and “bigoted” for simply choosing not to participate in ceremonies, activities and rituals forbidden by the Bible is in itself “hateful” and “bigoted.” Is it not? By specifically targeting florists, photographers, caterers, videographers, bakers and others who are known as Christians to provide such services is akin to coercing observant Jews to cater a wedding with pork as the main course. It’s barbarically insensitive, cruel and inhumane.
But let’s take the religious and moral component out of the picture for a moment. Is it too late to re-examine the explosive idea that all sexual behavior is equal and healthy from a purely materialistic and secular perspective?
Two points:
- Does it actually diminish the achievements we’ve made toward a racially colorblind society to equate sexual behavior with race in terms of the anti-discrimination protections we afford individuals? Where do we go from here? Will we see anti-discrimination protections for people based on how they groom themselves or dress or for the kind of language they use? Should employers be forced to stop discriminating based on the actual qualifications of prospective employees? Where does this anti-discrimination fad against behavior-based activity cease?
It seems to me every person is required to “discriminate” between good choice and bad choices. It’s not a good excuse to run a red light because one doesn’t wish to discriminate between colors. Sometimes “discrimination” is not only acceptable, it’s encouraged and required. No one would want to live in a society in which people didn’t discriminate between good behavior and bad behavior, right?
Everyone, therefore, agrees some behavior is good and some is bad – including both sides of the debate on religious freedom vs. anti-discrimination laws based on sexual identity. They simply disagree on what constitutes good behavior and bad.
That’s why, in a civil, self-governing society, decisions about what’s right and wrong are left to the legislative process where people have their say. But that has not been the case with same-sex marriage. It has been almost exclusively forced upon the populace by judicial rulings completely unaccountable to the people – and with no possibility for redress of grievances.
Like it or not, that is a form of totalitarianism, tyranny and civil unrest.
- And what about the question of “health”? Health is a big issue for government these days. Anti-smoking proclamations are all the rage. Cities are banning transfats and Big Gulps. The first lady is telling kids what kind of foods they can and cannot eat.
No one, however, is talking about the health effects of homosexuality, sodomy, promiscuity and adultery any more. Those topics, once understood by anyone and everyone, are not even open for discussion for fear of being called a bigot or a prude. But I’m going to risk the barbs by doing just that.
It was a big news story throughout the world 18 months ago when actor Michael Douglas explained his throat cancer did not come from smoking, but rather from a sexually transmitted disease associated with oral sex. Do you remember that? Nobody, by the way, disputed the diagnosis. Everyone seemingly therefore understands there are indeed health risks associated uniquely with sodomy and, presumably, to other types of sexual behavior.
So the question on the table is this: Why isn’t it appropriate to discriminate against sexual activities and lifestyles based purely on the health effects? I believe that’s just what Michael Douglas was suggesting, by the way, in making his personal announcement. I don’t recall anyone denouncing him for doing so. I don’t recall anyone calling him a bigot for suggesting there are health consequences for certain kinds of sexual activity. Yet, it is characterized as bigotry for people to choose not to participate in observances, rituals and ceremonies celebrating such activity as a lifestyle choice.
How does that make sense?
How does any of this make sense?
I believe in our societal zeal to do away with “discrimination,” we have collectively lost our ability to discriminate between right and wrong.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|
