I don’t have to be politically correct so I won’t. When I
first learned Supreme Court Justice Scalia had died, I felt relief spread
through my body. I think you would have to be a mature gay man to understand my
reaction.
Mr. Scalia was anti gay in a huge way. He claimed the
culture and mores of our nation were
Christian, Biblically based, and hetero-sexist. He claims the constitution was
written by men who believed those tenets in their day and thus was the basis of
the US Constitution.
I think he is wrong. The law – whenever it is written – has
impact far beyond the time frame of when it is written. It sets out with
clarity what it is legislating about and how behavior is to be conducted and
enforced. What is lost is the context in which the law was created.
Understanding the universe in Biblical times was scant. Science was
non-existent. Scientific method and education methodology was non-existent,
too.
Religious beliefs were all over the place from none to full
control of the nation-state in enforcing the religious thought of the day.
Throughout history leaders of governments – political power people – told the
populace what they believed and expected loyalty from them for those beliefs.
After all, the leader was taking responsibility of the well being of ‘his
people’ and the least they could do was give him loyalty. Of course that meant
obedience when needed.
It didn’t take much time before leaders wanted their
citizens to agree with him in social, moral, legal and religious matters. It
was precisely the abuse of these ‘matters’ that gave birth to freedom of
religion or at least the desire for it. England morphed from Roman Catholic
to the Church of England which is really a protestant form of Catholicism.
Henry the 8th was the king who wanted freedom to divorce his wife
and marry another woman. The Pope said no so he told the Pope to get lost, and
established the Church of England. Unfortunately, in time, the Church of
England enforced many of the same improprieties and power moves unfriendly to
the believers.
So freedom of religion protest movements began again in England and all over Europe .
Eventually, the New World was settled and pilgrims sallied forth from England to
found new, independent protestant churches. Congregationalists were the English
Puritans of New England, Methodists and Presbyterians, Lutherans and what
became Episcopalians were formed in short order. Furthermore, these struggling
congregations duplicated themselves as they aided the move westward to settle
this new, huge land mass.
Freedom of religion? It was lived out here in America . The
sole point of this was to freely meet with like minded people in theological
matters and practice your religious beliefs. Didn’t agree with one group? Then
you were free to join with another more to your liking. Didn’t find such a
thing? Then you gathered with other like minded people and formed your own
discussion group, fellowship group, or a new congregation of believers. Some of
these were traditional while others practiced bold new ways of worshipping
their God.
Not all churches were Christian. Some were Jewish. Some were
Unitarian. Others were philosophy and history fans who met regularly and
discussed matters of the day. None of these churches sought power over the
government. Read Thomas Jefferson and his discussions with people of the same
era and learn how religion was avoided by most of the founding fathers of America . The
Constitution specifically didn’t mention religious beliefs because the writers
knew the trouble they would create.
Religious freedom and the other Bill of Rights items came
later after the Constitution was written and approved.
For any judge of the lower courts or the US Supreme Court to
say religion and law are wedded from the beginning of this nation is a travesty
of their oath of office.
Abortion, gay rights, civil rights, voting rights and many
more issues all are part and parcel of the religious morality arguments. What
would God say? What would Jesus do? These are debating points made moot by the
Constitution. No law should be founded on a religious principle.
But Scalia begged to differ.
He was a conservative power mind who felt government is limited in power
and that the freedom of religion gives power to the people to regulate their
own lives. He is partly correct here. Religious freedom gives people the right
to regulate their own lives provided
they do no harm to others in the working of their religious beliefs. No law
should be enacted with respect to or by religious beliefs. That means we don’t
harm religious beliefs or practice of same, but neither are religious beliefs
empowered to enact laws to harm other people who do not share the same
religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion has two sides: Side A gives each of us
the right to choose our own belief systems and worship according to them; Side
B says I have no right to impose my religion on another person.
I believe abortion is a woman’s choice. Therefore, I make no
law requiring abortion or denying abortion. It is up to each woman to make that
choice. No law or court ought interfere with this constitutional right to
choose moral issues. It is the moral confluence of abortion and religion which
denies government power in this issue.
Scalia thought otherwise. He argued similar on gay rights.
He felt there was no such thing. His religious beliefs kept him from allowing
others the right to live their truth. You can’t have it both ways.
Scalia was an ideologue of the conservative “My Way or the
Highway” stripe. Now do you understand why a gay man, a father, a grandfather
and a supporter of women's rights, minority rights and religious rights found
fault with Antonin Scalia? His was a hideous personality intent on enslaving
huge groups of people to his narrow point of view. He had the power and he used
it.
I say good riddance to such manipulation. May his soul rest
in peace with the universe he so dramatically misunderstood.
February 16, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment