2 Comments

Who hates Who?

divided

In big letters above Barney Quick’s column on Wednesday, April 1st, it reads, “The Great Divide.” Mr. Quick was true to his name as he pointed out that there are “2 Columbuses.” He described the two sides as “those who have been pushing for the country’s transformation into something utterly different than it has been for 239 years, and the one composed of those who are horrified by such an agenda” [emphasis mine]. The fact that Mr. Quick’s math is a bit skewed is not the only thing worth noting.

Why are there two Columbuses, Mr. Quick?

If I’ve read your column correctly freedom “has been stood on its head” because those who support transformation believe that the “religious freedom” bill is conservative code for “free to discriminate.” You argue that “paralles to racial situation do not hold up” but according to Rev. Delman Coates, African-American Pastor of Mount Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, MD., “As pastors and clergy leaders we… dispel the myth that all African Americans pastors are fundamentally opposed to the idea of marriage equality,” and African-American  Rev. Freddie D. Haynes, Senior pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, in support of gay-marriage adds, “All people in this country should be afforded the same rights. No one entity owns civil rights.”

Again, there are two sides.

Now, it’s hard in a town like Columbus, where there are approximately one hundred Protestant churches (that’s about 1 church for every 430 people) to treat Christianity as a “niche belief system in our society.” Yet, that is precisely what Mr. Quick is trying to do with those who are “pro-transformation.” There are two Columbuses and two Americas simply because people like Mr. Quick, who fear change, are like stubborn children who want their way and nothing else. The problem with that is that, as one pastor once taught me, that which does not change, dies. Change is a very necessary part of growth. The fact that many of the supporters of this so-called “religious freedom” law are making the same arguments that were once made to defend segregation is proof that the divide is based on fear of change.

And while Mr. Quick believes that freedom is under attack, great defenders of freedom like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills would be quick to tell Barney that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right or wrong. The idea that one religion defines marriage for an entire state would be a direct contradiction to Bentham and Mills argument. But what did they know about freedom?

There are two Columbuses Mr. Quick, because those like you, who fear change and believe that their exercise of “religious freedom” supersedes the rights of others to be free from discrimination, refuse to join the rest of us here in the 21st century. Those people are stuck in 1960s, still fighting over who gets to sit at the bar or the front of the bus. That puts your math off by almost 50 years.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/local_story/Column-_1427858145

Advertisements

2 comments on “Who hates Who?

  1. I’m surprised you managed to type so many words and still avoid actually making an argument. You can claim RFRA is license to discriminate, but you can’t translate your sincerely held believe into reality without making a case.

    By all means, let’s actually have the debate. I’ve yet to see a liberal than can avoid fallacy or ad hominem for even a couple minutes on this particular topic (or most, for that matter).

    Liked by 1 person

    • First off, thanks for taking the time to dig up this blog and comment. I hope you read a few of the other articles and would love to hear your comments on them.

      I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “you can’t translate your sincerely held [belief] into reality without making a case.” As the Indianapolis Start stated on April 3, 2015 “The religious freedom law says the government cannot intrude on a person’s religious liberty unless it can prove a compelling interest in imposing that burden and do so in the least restrictive way.

      And, yes, that leaves room for interpretation. So what the law could actually accomplish, experts agree, will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, probably in court.” Now, Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana was rather upset with the “fix” that Governor Pence signed saying that “Our legal advisors tell us that it actually changes our law in a way that could now erode religious freedom across Indiana.” What were the changes to SB101 that removed the protection that Micah Clark wanted and what did Micah Clark need protected from? Micah Clark has been a big proponent for banning same-sex marriage (http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/news-opinion/for-better-or-worse-micah-clark-on-gay-marriage/). What is it that Micah Clark and like-minded people would like to be able to do that current law does not protect them if they choose to do it?

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: