Religious Freedom and Conflicting Beliefs

Please stop rallying behind Kim Davis as an example of someone who's First Ammendment Rights were violated. She's not. Her rights are fully intact. The government is not asking her to perform the ceremony. It is not asking her to add her personal stamp of approval on these unions. It is merely asking her to issue a certificate. Her approvoal or disapproval is not needed. Rather, this is an example of Ms. Davis imposing her convictions on others. "I believe that is sin, therefore, I will not allow you to do it." This is totally different than if she were being forced to do something she didn't believe in. If she is deeply convicted that it is wrong for her to be involved even incidentally, then she needs to ask for a transfer to a different job. At that point, if the state fires her, then it is worth considering as an issue with her First Ammendment Rights. If the state imprisons her for leaving her job because she feels she can't in good conscience provide marriage licenses to same sex couples, THAT is a violation of her First Ammendment Rights. This is most definitely not the same as a pastor who is asked to perform a same sex marriage. He has every right to refuse, just as the couple has every right to find someone else who won't refuse.

I've seen parallels drawn between Ms. Davis and Germans working in the government in Nazi Germany. People have applauded her "standing up to evil" and resisting a government that is trampling her rights. Please stop. These situations are in no way related. A German soldier told to execute a person merely for the crime of being born into a different race, should have been able to recognize that what he was told to do was wrong, and should have refused to do it. (However that brings up the discussion of evolution, and the beliefs that the people they were executing were not "fully evolved" or "fully human", that their DNA was mixing with the "true humans", and preventing further evolution, and therefore, by exterminating them, they were doing humanity a service. But that's a discussion for a different day.) The crux of the matter is who is being forced. Let's set aside arguments about right and wrong, moral and immoral for a moment (not that they don't matter, they most certainly do, but in *this* discussion, they don't. This disussion is about who is being forced to do something they don't believe in. Ms. Davis believes homosexuality is a sin. The gay couple who comes in believes they have every right to get married. By refusing to issue them a marriage liscense, Ms. Davis is imposing her beliefs on the couple. Does that mean she must act against her conscience? Absolutely not. She can seek a different job. Now, let's change the discussion. Should that gay couple be able to go into any bakery and demand that they make them a wedding cake? No. That would be imposing their beliefs on someone else. The business owner has the right to politely refuse, because they don't want their business associated with gay marriage. The couple has every right to look somewhere else. The same goes for officiants. A pastor can refuse to marry them, because it would be a violation of his consience to do so. They have every right to find someone else. The pastor and the baker are not imposing their beliefs on the gay couple. Forcing them to comply would be imposing the gay couple's beliefs on them.

Let me make one thing clear. I believe homosexuality is a sin. It's laid out fairly clearly in the Bible. If you disagree, just read Romans. Personally, I find it repugnant. However, I realized something. My reaction to homosexuality is what God feels about sin. It is repulsive to Him. I am repulsive to Him, because I am a sinner, and yet He looked past my sin, saw me, and sent His Son to die on the cross to pay the penalty for my repugnant sin. If He can look past my sin to me, and love me in spite of myself, how can I do any less for my fellow man? My job is not to enforce my morality on those around me. My job is to live my life consistently, following God's law to the best of my ability, and doing everything in my power to show love to those around me. Did Jesus braid a whip and beat the prostitutes and drunks of his day? No. He went to the temple, to those who were practicing a false form of religion, and beat them. He spent so much time with the drunks and prostitutes that He was labeled as one of them by the religious leaders of His day. Does that mean that He was endorsing their lifestyle? Absolutely not! But He saw past the sin, to the sinner in need, and knew that reaming them out for not living a holy life was not the message they needed to hear. "I forgive you, I love you, go and sin no more," was the message they needed. I can't forgive people, I'm not the one who has been sinned against, but I can show them that regardless of their condition or their actions, God loves them.

Freedom of Speech Redux

In my last post, I discussed the Freedom of Speech, and if states should be bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The incident that sparked the discussion was the debate whether "truck nuts" are protected by free speech.

On the one hand, we have a tasteless and vulgar display that some states have chosen to outlaw. When they try to enforce their laws, there is public outcry, claiming censorship and infringement of First Amendment rights, even though the First Amendment was originally never supposed to apply to states, and was initially intended to ensure that individuals could disagree, vocally, with government without fear of retribution.

















On the other hand, we have a store that is selling a politically charged gag item that an individual found offensive. In response to the displeasure, the store pulled the mints. Two similar situations, two very different outcomes. In both cases an item was on display that was offensive. In the first case, it was actually illegal (or could be interpreted to be illegal) under state law. Regardless of legality, it was clearly tasteless and vulgar, and not really the type of expression intended for protection under the First Amendment. (Don't get me wrong, even though I personally find this display to be tasteless and vulgar, when I say it is not the type of expression intended for protection under the First Amendment, I don't mean that it shouldn't be protected on a Federal level.) This case receives attention as an infringement of First Amendment rights.

In the second case, it was an admittedly tasteless, albeit perfectly legal display that expressed displeasure with the government. The kind of speech that the First Amendment was actually intended to protect.

Freedom of Speech

Have you seen this? Truck Nuts Free Speech Debate

First off, let me say, I'm sure the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now, to think that we would be using the freedoms they fought and died for to display plastic animal genitalia on our vehicles. The freedom of speech they were referring to was the ability for a person to speak their mind and express an opinion that was diametrically opposed to the government's view with no fear of retribution from said government.

We see subtle examples every day of our true freedom of speech being eroded, such as when high ranking government officials refer to their opponents as terrorists merely for disagreeing with them. To his credit, Mr. Biden reportedly has backed off his supposed comments, however the fact remains that this situation is much closer to the type of speech that the Founding Fathers sought to protect.

But I digress. Back to the question at hand, which is, 'Does the First Amendment allow people to hang vulgar and tasteless ornamentation from the back of their vehicle?' The short answer is yes. The Federal Government is prohibited by the First Amendment from punishing or penalizing us for the simple act of expression. However, the caveat here is that the First Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Washington can't outlaw it. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to define and limit the Federal Government, not the individual states. States were initially envisioned to have much greater rights and responsibilities. The reason for this is that if the majority of the duties of government are carried out on a state level, it will require greater participation by those being governed. It may be less efficient, but it demands that people remain involved in the majority of the decisions made by their government. It requires the general population to be engaged and aware of what is going on. It makes it much more difficult for a smooth talker to weasel their way into office, and if they do make it in, an engaged populace will quickly pick up on the inconsistencies and call them to task.

Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of the 14th Amendment is incorporation. Incorporation is the slow erosion of states' rights under the guise of the protection of individual's rights. However, rather than protecting individual's rights, it merely results in increased bloat of the Federal Government. As a result, we are left with states that should have the right to decide what they want to allow by way of tasteless and vulgar speech, but instead find their hands tied by restrictions that were never intended to be applied to them.

Does the First Amendment protect truck nuts? Not as originally intended, but as our government has slowly infiltrated our lives over the years, it now does. Pause with me and morn the passing of states' rights.

Let me close with a moment of silence now for good taste and common sense.