Religious freedom restoration acts and other horrors

Item from Sarah Posner in The Nation, February 1, 2017:

A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled "Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom," obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

The executive order, and similar "religious freedom restoration acts" are based on two mistaken notions: 1) that Christians are being persecuted in the United States, and 2) that religion is the foundation of morality.

First, Christians (and all other religions) are perfectly free to worship their gods, in church and at home. The government does nothing to interfere with worship. Churches are tax-exempt. No law enforcement officers are employed to spy on Christians or to keep them from praying or studying the Bible. Christians do not need to worship secretly. They are not in hiding. They may hold enormous rallies in stadiums without interference.

What, then, is the nature of their persecution? The Christians who feel as though they are under attack cite certain rights that they feel are being infringed: they feel that their right to freedom of speech is being threatened by "political correctness." "You can't say 'Merry Christmas' any more. You have to say 'Seasons Greetings' or 'Happy Holidays.'" But what makes such Christians feel truly put upon is that, in their business dealings, they are not allowed to discriminate against certain members of society that they deem to be sinners. A Christian-owned bakery cannot refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple; a Christian-owned restaurant cannot refuse to serve homosexuals.

A Christian-owned business is not allowed to, based on their Christian beliefs, deprive so-called sinners of their own civil right to have what the non-sinners have.

The freedom of speech argument doesn't hold up, because anybody is free to say "Merry Christmas" with impunity. There is no law against saying "Merry Christmas" to a Muslim, to a Jew, to a Hindu, to a Sikh, to an atheist. The only risk to the defiant wishers of a "Merry Christmas" to all is the disapproval of some of their neighbors. Disapproval does not infringe freedom of speech. Being prohibited by law from saying "Merry Christmas" would infringe on their First Amendment rights.

The aggrieved Christian's second complaint is more complicated. Is a Christian's right to live according to the teachings of his or her religion protected when the teachings lead the Christian to deprive a perceived sinner of his or her rights?

The right to discriminate against gays and transgender people has echoes in the past "right" in this country of discriminating against blacks in housing, employment, and freedom of movement (i.e., saying that it is a business owner's right to refuse service to blacks). Many Christians would say that discrimination against blacks has no parallel with discrimination against homosexuals, because homosexuality ("the gay lifestyle") is a matter of personal choice, a behavioral matter. But, in fact, the modern world has moved on from that view; the current view, informed by a better understanding of homosexuality is that it is not a choice. The modern world has, based on improved knowledge, changed its opinion on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Many Christians have brought themselves up to date on their thinking on homosexuality. Others have chosen to cling to a law code made thousands of years ago by people whose understanding of life is now out of date by thousands of years.

Many Christians (and many believers in other faiths) labor under the mistaken notion that religion is the foundation of morality. Indeed, religion is an enforcer of morals, but religion has often enforced some very misguided morals. Religion has supported slavery, torture, the subjugation of women, and religious warfare. What religion has enforced, in many if not most cases, is the version of morality that the powerful want those with less power to follow. Religious morality serves power and the status quo. With better understanding, the status quo changes; religion resists better understanding, in both science and morality.

At this point, the believer might ask me just what is the foundation of morality, then? I think that the foundation of morality is the understanding that what causes me to suffer probably causes other people to suffer. And so, if I want to bring about less suffering in the world (and I do--I don't want to suffer), I need to refrain from doing things that cause others to suffer. That's my answer: empathy, the word that is scorned in tough-guy circles. No punishment by any god is necessary. Humans have been living together for millennia, and we have learned enough to develop our own rules for living together morally. The rules are not handed down from on high, although people in power (whether political or religious) would sometimes like you to believe they are.

What it boils down to is that the perpetrators of religious freedom restoration acts want the right to negatively affect the lives of others based on their fervent but mistaken views. Such laws harm civil society. That's why such laws are unconstitutional.

Government by spite

Hearing the news that the Trump administration wants to prevent California from enacting stricter environmental rules than the Federal Government reminded me of a couple of things: First, the fans of states' rights seem to abandon their firmly held belief if a state does anything that might benefit its inhabitants. States' rights are reserved, apparently, for states that want to do less for their people than the Feds want them to.

Second, notice how quickly Republicans jettison their own deeply held principles as soon as they prove inconvenient, or as soon as Democrats say they're a good idea. (This was especially true under Obama. Note that his nomination of Merrick Garland, who Orrin Hatch had previously said was just a peachy choice, made Garland suddenly unacceptable.) Frankly, the Republicans don't care whether a given policy is beneficial or harmful; their actions seem to be driven by a desire to stick it to the Democrats whenever they can.

The United States has lived under the protection of New Deal-type laws since the 1930s, and the Republicans just can't stand it. In addition, ever since the impeachment of Richard Nixon, the Republicans have been obsessed with revenge, using any excuse to even the score by impeaching a Democratic president. It still rankles.

It seems to me that the Republican rush to roll back any government program that smells of the New Deal, no matter how successful or popular is motivated by spite.

My retirement idyll

The juncos approach my bird feeder, but they rarely use it, preferring to feed on the ground. Or at least that's the way it's been most of the winter. They alight in the branches near the feeder, then drop to the ground almost every time. In the last day or so, some have eaten directly from the feeder, although their approaches to it seem tentative. They're still uncomfortable. I'm wondering why they have chosen to eat from the feeder now. Maybe they're storing energy for their migration? No idea.

This is the sort of retirement I envisioned when I quit working last year. I would catch up on my reading, putter around the house and yard, get more walking done, spend more time in the woods, drink craft beers.

I have been working steadily since I started college. My performance appraisals have always been good. I have never been laid off from a job. I enrolled in a pension plan, and when I switched to an employer that didn't offer a pension, I set aside money for a 401K. I was a hard-working model citizen. So last year, I figured that, between Social Security and an annuity I set up from my pension, I could retire and my wife and I could live in comfort, although certainly not in luxury.

Now, my wife is not well, but she is too young for Medicare, so I had to spring for Obamacare. More expensive than it ought to be, maybe, but it's doable, especially since my income has decreased enough for us to get a subsidy.

My timing is perfect, apparently. Now Trump and Ryan and Bannon and the ludicrously named Freedom Caucus have decided that it's time to dismantle any part of the government that is not the military. At the end of a happy life, my family and I are facing the possibility that everything we have worked for will be taken from us.

Once upon a time, Republicans balked at paying for a little economic security for the unemployed. Today's Republicans have decided they have no time for people who work long hours, perhaps at more than one job, and are still poor. A Democrat, while wishing to help the unemployed, could grudgingly understand the Republican point of view. If the Republicans believed the poor were lazy, so be it. But their turning their backs on hard-working people is impossible for me to understand.

Many of the working, struggling poor were persuaded to vote Republican in the last election. Well, they failed the civics exam, didn't they? They will suffer with the rest of us.

Now my retirement will not be as idyllic as I had hoped, but perhaps it won't be so boring. There is some exhilaration to be found in fighting the evil Donald Trump, and I will be there at the barricades whenever I can.