Solrab Ahmari’s piece in Commentary Magazine caught my
attention. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd.
v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of
Jack Phillips, the owner and devout Christian.
Ahmari’s piece raises some interesting questions, particularly for
Social Conservatives. In one part he says
Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, which asserted a constitutional right to gay
marriage, social conservatives have fought a rearguard action to preserve
freedom of conscience and the right to dissent from the latest sexual
orthodoxies in the public square. “OK, you got your gay marriage,” the
religious right in effect told victorious secular progressives. “But don’t
force us to assent to it in violation of our faith.”
Freedom of Conscience seems to be mostly “I believe what you
are doing is a sin and I cannot contribute to it.” For Jack Phillips, it was that his making a
wedding cake for a gay couple whom he believed was sinning would cause him to
sin. In some respects, I can appreciate
that. A Kosher deli will not serve pork
nor mayonnaise on a corned beef sandwich, violating Jewish law, so why should Jack
Phillips have to act against his religious beliefs and make a wedding cake for
a gay couple?
However, we seem to be faced with a dilemma. Jack Phillips believes that baking a wedding
cake for a gay couple violates his religious freedom. But what about the gay couple? Is the fact that they are a gay couple planning
to marry inherently not an expression of their
religious freedom? I do not know about
the couple involved but many churches today officiate gay weddings and many
gays are religious, although disagreeing with their church on sexual
orientation. Conservatives view things
like gay marriage as Secular
Progressivism and considered in the eyes of many religious conservatives as
anti-religion. As Ahmari states
But as the Phillips case showed, the inner logic of today’s
secular progressivism puts the movement continually on the offensive. A
philosophy that rejects all traditional barriers to individual autonomy and
self-expression won’t rest until all “thou shalts” are defeated, and those who
voice them marginalized. For a transgender woman to fully exercise autonomy,
for example, the devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew must recognize her as a
woman. People of faith and others who cling to traditional views must publicly
assent to what they don’t believe.
Traditional views.
The problem with traditional views is that they tend to restrict the
rights of others. Let’s rephrase Ahmari’s
last sentence above.
For a black person to fully exercise autonomy, for example,
the devout white separatist Christian must recognize them as a person. People
of faith and others who cling to traditional views must publicly assent to what
they don’t believe.
Or
For a woman to fully exercise autonomy, for example, the
devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew must recognize her as a full citizen and allow
her to vote. People of faith and others who cling to traditional views must
publicly assent to what they don’t believe.
Traditional views saw interracial marriage as immoral (and in
many states illegal). Then along came Loving v. Virginia. However, I am sure many people continue to
view interracial marriage as immoral. My
best friend growing up faced the demand of his parents, born in Italy, that he
must marry an Italian girl. They were so
adamant that they threatened to disown him if he did not. He acquiesced. That was a traditional view.
Ahmari concludes with
Defending traditional morality on the basis of religious
liberty alone, in other words, risks cornering religious conservatives in the
long-term. The alternative, of course, isn’t to give up on religious freedom.
That defensive battle must continue to be fought. But religious conservatives
should also go on the offensive and once more formulate a substantive politics
of the common good. We live in an age of great moral and ideological ferment
and rethinking. Even the left is in flux, as evidenced, for example, by the
#MeToo phenomenon, which at heart involves a secular rediscovery of the fundamental differences between men and
women. (my italics)
Religious conservatives have answers to these dilemmas. They
can’t afford to retreat, and they shouldn’t.
While this is an interesting argument, we must not tie
ourselves too closely to traditional morality.
The reason Madison included religious freedom in the First Amendment was
because it formed much of the reason for the colonies in the first place. You had the Puritans founding Massachusetts,
the Quakers founding Pennsylvania, and the Catholics founding Maryland. They all violated the traditional morality of
the Church of England and came to the new world to practice their faith
freely. They also agreed to let others
practice their faith (at least to a degree).
Don’t forget that slavery was justified by moral tradition.
I believe the answer lies with the understanding that a
person is free to practice his or her religious faith, even if their faith is
no faith. The separation of church and
state allows couples to marry without the approval of a religious
authority. Transgender is relatively new
in our history, but many churches have declared it immoral because it violates
traditional norms. They key is if you
believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, then don’t marry someone of the
same sex. If you believe changing your
sexual identification is immoral, then don’t do it. But why interfere with the rights of others?
Still, we cannot co-exist without finding some common
beliefs and norms. But those norms
change over time. It wasn’t that long
ago that society accepted girls as young as 16 (or even 14) could be
married. Now we accept this as being too
young an age. Women are becoming
increasingly accepted in the workplace, although as the #MeToo movement shows,
there is still much work to do. But no one
today would say that women be denied the right to vote, even without the 19th
Amendment. As we evolve as a society and
nation, we must keep an open mind and heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment