Tempering Religion with Non-Discrimination

The Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedoms. The government is not allowed to create a state religion (the European historical context from which our founders escaped to America). The government is restricted from making laws that are based on religion. Laws may have many common elements with religion but those have nothing to do with the law. They are separate.

The US Constitution guarantees each citizen with inalienable rights in their pursuit of happiness.

Given those two elements, where are we today with regard to religion and its intersection with our federal form of government? Here are few observations:

• Abortion has been defined as the taking of life while the fetus is in the womb; and abortion rights have been seriously restricted by law accordingly.
• Marriage is between one man and one woman and agrees with most church organizations’ traditional view of marriage. This difficult area has led to many states amending their constitutions to embrace the one man/one woman definition of marriage.
• Adoption codes limit Roman Catholic institutions from processing adoptions of children for same sex couples; where challenged, the church has withdrawn from adoption services
• Gay History curriculum is in the California schools now but under attack by religious lobbyists to remove it. They claim gay history taught in schools goes against their theological beliefs so should be removed.
• Creationism versus evolution theory; churches say the Bible supports creation theory as opposed to the scientific community which claims evolution is the standard in studying origins of life on the planet. Some states are legislating creationism in place of evolution in school curriculum.
• How many more of these can you identify? Share them with the blog and I will add them to the mix

Let us examine these items in brief.

First, abortion. If a fetus were removed from the womb prematurely, would it survive? At what point of development would it survive? Does that help us understand when life begins? The argument has been made that life begins at fertilization of the egg. That may be the inception of a biological process, but does it dictate survival of life on its own? Probably not. Why then do we torture the discussion on abortion rights with this biology versus some other standard. Is it based on religious belief? I think it is. And I’m not comfortable with allowing religion to dictate the terms of this discussion.

For those with religious dogma that insists on no abortions, fine; live your life in that manner; and teach your children and family your point of view. Please, however, leave me alone. I do not believe as you do and the law should not be skewed to serve your beliefs and not mine. Leave each to believe as they will. Leave abortion decisions up to the individuals involved.

Second issue is heterosexual marriage versus homosexual marriage. Churches have the right under our constitution to recognize marriage in any format they desire. Licenses, however, are within the authority of the state. The church does not dictate to the state. The state does not dictate to the church. Why is this a problem, then?

If a religious sect or denomination does not believe in gay marriage, fine; don’t perform or recognize them. However, the state has the authority and expectation to issue licenses allowing marriage between two consenting adults. Regardless of gender. There is no reason to impose a gender requirement. If two people love each other, let them marry providing they are of legal age and can comprehend consent. The church community does not have to recognize such unions. They don’t even have to be labeled as marriages. Union would be good enough for me. The ‘legal community’ needs to recognize the union so wills, property rights, family and child care rights exist. And tax laws, too!

Simply put, it is not the function of churches to dictate to the state what facts are to be believed or not in this matter.

The third issue is gay adoption. There are many agencies that provide adoption services to couples wishing to add to their family by way of adoption. Many of these agencies are or have a background history of Roman Catholic charities. By church edict they are not allowed to process adoptions involving gay couples. Some of these agencies have shut down rather than be forced to go against their creed. I don’t have any problem with that. But gay couples should be allowed to adopt children for many reasons. First, they wish to have fulfilled the desire for building a family like any other couple. They should be allowed to do this. There are more children needing to be adopted than there are couples willing to take on the adoptions. That’s a sad state of affairs; because no research suggests gay couples would make unfit parents just because they are gay, they should be allowed to adopt children so each child has the best chance to experience a positive family life. Also, no research exists that shows conclusively that a child does better in a straight couple environment as opposed to a same sex couple setting. Research does find conclusively that children develop better within a family setting as opposed to a non-family (institutional) setting. My conclusion? Let gay couples adopt kids. Make sure the state has agencies that will process these adoptions without ruffling the feathers of the church based adoption agencies.

The fourth issue is teaching about gays in school curricula.  For parochial schools the churches are free to construct their curricula as they see fit. For public schools, however, religion does not enter the picture. School boards and school administrators need to exercise their professional understanding and authority in developing meaningful curricula. Gay people have existed from well before recorded history. They exist now. What about their lives might be important to learn by everyone, not just gay, or straight, but both? Why is this a problem? Is it because religion suggests that gay is a perversion and thus should be kept from underage kids? Just because religion says so, why does everyone else have to agree with them? Who is in charge of what facts are facts and what doesn’t pass the muster as fact? Let the churches do their thing. Let the rest of us do our thing as long as no one is harmed. What’s the big deal?

The fifth issue involves the divide between believers in creation versus evolution theory. The former is totally based on church dogma, not science. Evolution as a theory continues to be researched as a theory and the years pile up more and more evidence that evolution is legitimate science and explains how species came to be over eons of time, and how human kind developed through the ages to its modern “marvel.” But again, if churches wish to be left alone to believe and teach and learn what gives them meaning, let them be. Just don’t legislate their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Leave us to our reasoned thinking and understanding of the universe.

I am a gay man. I am a mature retired man. I have experienced the thrill of having a daughter and son. I have spent decades in churches and studying religion on a very serious basis. I have a healthy relationship with God. I have an unfolding sense of spiritual ‘rightness’ with the world and a working theology. It is basically a Christian belief structure I am invested in. It doesn’t always click with what my church teaches, but then I’m a work in progress! God know this and accepts it. Why can’t others?

November 30, 2011