BYU law professor, Gene Schaerr, has what we have all been waiting for: the United States Supreme Court's score card on protecting religious freedom. Given where he’s from, is it any mystery what he may have indicated, and why? Probably not. What he predictably says is that while the Supreme Court “usually votes to protect religiously motivated conduct” (usually by a wide margin), it falls short when dealing with issues arising out of the “sexual revolution that began in the 1960s.” In those issues, the court has been “much less reliable in protecting religious freedom.” He then gave individual scores to each justice, breaking down their scores along lines concerning LGBT issues, among a few others.
I have problems with his characterization of the differences of opinion, as well as with his conclusions that have nothing to do with protecting religious freedom. The conclusions have everything to do with religious intolerance and the imposition of a religious tyranny, and little to do with the so-called sexual revolution.
I have learned that religious zealots, who assert tolerance as a tenant of their beliefs, intend to only be tolerant of those who do different things (e.g., wear a different colored head scarf or swing dance as opposed to line dance) as long as, under the banner of those different colors and the guise of those different moves, they still think the same, act the same, know how to conform, and know who calls the shots.
The alleged “sexual revolution of the sixties” has little to do with the real issues of religious freedoms. There was no "sexual revolution." The use of the term in this context is used to disparage those who want the religious (who had inordinate control over the government in the past) to live up to their conservative and libertarian ideals and get out of others’ personal lives and out of their bedrooms. That is not a “sexual revolution,” unless Professor Gene Schaerr still wants to determine what sexual positions or acts in which adults can engage, and to decide who should be allowed to marry whom. Truth be told, those who survived the drug culture and supposed sixties' “sexual revolution” are sometimes more conservative than those who turned their backs in protest, or in self-preservation.
What Professor Shaerrr also fails to understand is that freedom of religion is sometimes most protected by allowing freedom from religion, freedom from the dominant or most populous religious sect, or just freedom to enjoy the same privileges and opportunities that others enjoy. Also, sometimes freedom of religion is freedom from religious dogma, no matter how sincere or heartfelt. Let each worship how or what they may, according to the dictates of their own consciences.
As a final invitation to intolerance, Professor Schaerr also seeks to incite a culture battle in which the religious strive to reassert their will by positioning and political gamesmanship, instead of a contest of ideas, in which the persuasiveness of their positions bear sway.
It is in that contest of ideas, where sometimes Professor Schaerr and those who think like he does, don't always get their way. It is, in fact, a good thing they don't always get their way, and that the Supreme Court doesn't score a 100 percent in Professor Schaerr's world. To expect the Supreme Court to be the servant of your will, as Professor Schaerr wishes it was, is intolerant. Tolerance, at its best, is realizing you don't always get your way, that other people might even act and think differently than you do, and that you are still able to live with that.
Loren M. Lambert © July 10, 2016
I have problems with his characterization of the differences of opinion, as well as with his conclusions that have nothing to do with protecting religious freedom. The conclusions have everything to do with religious intolerance and the imposition of a religious tyranny, and little to do with the so-called sexual revolution.
I have learned that religious zealots, who assert tolerance as a tenant of their beliefs, intend to only be tolerant of those who do different things (e.g., wear a different colored head scarf or swing dance as opposed to line dance) as long as, under the banner of those different colors and the guise of those different moves, they still think the same, act the same, know how to conform, and know who calls the shots.
The alleged “sexual revolution of the sixties” has little to do with the real issues of religious freedoms. There was no "sexual revolution." The use of the term in this context is used to disparage those who want the religious (who had inordinate control over the government in the past) to live up to their conservative and libertarian ideals and get out of others’ personal lives and out of their bedrooms. That is not a “sexual revolution,” unless Professor Gene Schaerr still wants to determine what sexual positions or acts in which adults can engage, and to decide who should be allowed to marry whom. Truth be told, those who survived the drug culture and supposed sixties' “sexual revolution” are sometimes more conservative than those who turned their backs in protest, or in self-preservation.
What Professor Shaerrr also fails to understand is that freedom of religion is sometimes most protected by allowing freedom from religion, freedom from the dominant or most populous religious sect, or just freedom to enjoy the same privileges and opportunities that others enjoy. Also, sometimes freedom of religion is freedom from religious dogma, no matter how sincere or heartfelt. Let each worship how or what they may, according to the dictates of their own consciences.
As a final invitation to intolerance, Professor Schaerr also seeks to incite a culture battle in which the religious strive to reassert their will by positioning and political gamesmanship, instead of a contest of ideas, in which the persuasiveness of their positions bear sway.
It is in that contest of ideas, where sometimes Professor Schaerr and those who think like he does, don't always get their way. It is, in fact, a good thing they don't always get their way, and that the Supreme Court doesn't score a 100 percent in Professor Schaerr's world. To expect the Supreme Court to be the servant of your will, as Professor Schaerr wishes it was, is intolerant. Tolerance, at its best, is realizing you don't always get your way, that other people might even act and think differently than you do, and that you are still able to live with that.
Loren M. Lambert © July 10, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment