“The peak of tolerance is most readily achieved by those who
are not burdened with convictions.” – Alexander Chase
An intolerant person is defined as one who “wishes others to
live as the thinks they ought, and who seeks to impose his practices and beliefs
upon them” (Grayling 2002, 7) True tolerance states that humanity thrives most
by “permitting a variety of lifestyles to flourish, because they represent
experiments from which might be learned about how to deal with the human
condition” (Grayling 2002, 7-8).
Democracy has a similar aim in that a government run by the people, for
the people, must include the voices and active participation of all
demographics for it to flourish, especially if it is to afford the protect of
minority rights. There is an inherent danger in democratic style government,
namely majority oppression of minorities.
Grayling says,
Tolerance is, however, not only the centerpiece but
the paradox of liberalism. For liberalism enjoins tolerance of opposing
viewpoints, and allows them to have their say, leaving it to the democracy of
ideas to decide which shall prevail. The result is to often the death of
toleration itself, because those who live by hard principles and uncompromising
views in political, moral and religious respects always, if given half a
chance, silence liberals because liberalism, by its nature, threatens the
hegemony they wish to impose.
Foreseeing this danger, the founders blessed us with the
Bill of Rights as well as checks and balances in government. This was done in
order to protect all citizens, especially minority demographics from majority
oppression, including religious oppression.
Traditionally marriage has been a religious ceremony, and
many prefer it to remain as such. However, in this country, in this secular
country, marriage is a civil right. Vermont, Connecticut and New York, which
all have legalized gay marriage, now content that DOMA is a violation of states
rights. They contend that the federal government has not right or authority to
regulate the institution of marriage. The civil rights granted by marriage
simple have nothing to do with religion, such as social security benefits,
child-care tax credits, family and medical leave to take care of loved ones and
COBRA health care for spouses and children. By denying a citizen these civil
rights, they are thereby being denied human rights. The fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitutions provides all citizens equal protection under the law. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights also speaks to this issue in its first,
second and seventh articles, which says “All are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law…”
DOMA is designed to prevent the legalization of same-sex
marriage at the state level. The LGBTQ community is being discriminated against
as they are denied this equal protection. They are being denied their
civil/human rights. Once more, they are being denied this right from the
Republican Party that supposedly champions personal freedom and liberty and
views the Federal government as intrusive and oppressive. This is a fabulous
example of how the Republican platform has lost its way. It is no longer
centered around small government and states rights, but it has been hijacked by
moralistic, intolerant religious fanatics who at their very core are opposed to
the liberalism, pluralism and democratic ideals that America is founded upon.
I am not saying that marriage cannot be a religious
ceremony. What I am saying is that in a democratic, pluralistic society, those
who do not wish to be religious, those who do not want religion to have any
part of their civil/human rights, shouldn’t be denied their rights because it
makes religious people uncomfortable.
By providing the same rights to all citizens, society will
thrive and become more cohesive and functional. Chris Kluwe, the punter for the
Minnesota Vikings said, “You know what having these rights will make gays?
Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to
pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the
past 200 years mean absolutely nothing…?” Chuck Norris recently said a thousand
years of darkness will not ensue. And many prominent figures who claim that
hurricanes and other natural disasters are Gods punishment for sanctioning
equality are intolerant religious bigots who should not be tolerated, let alone
be given a platform to spew their fear. Intolerance itself is merely a symptom
of fear and insecurity. And this is what the Republican Party has become in my
eyes, a political party based on intolerance rooted in fear and insecurity. The
relevant question is….”Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?” And the
answer is obviously no. Tolerance must protect itself. No one can force another
to adopt a certain viewpoint or practice. The only coercion should be argument
and honest reasoning, which is what we would expect from our government. Religious
freedom does not entail the right to discriminate. Protecting minorities and
civil rights is not an attack on Christianity. It is compassionate. It is based
in identification with all of humanity, regardless of creed, sex, color of skin
and any other label. It is based in ethics, an ethics encouraged not by
religious discourse, but by secular discourse, which provides and equal footing
for all. For a deeper in depth discussion please see my previous post
“Tolerating the Intolerant.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/09/160840674/states-rights-and-doma-clash-on-a-shifting-battlefield?ft=1&f=1001
Grayling, A.C. (2002). Meditations
for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment