Christians Need Not Apply
by Joseph Backholm
If
you don't actually remember it, you're certainly aware of the Cold War
the United States was involved in with the USSR for forty-four years.
We were fighting, but everyone was being passive aggressive about it.
Something
similar has been happening culturally in the war on religious freedom.
For years the war has been undeclared and the damage to religious
freedom has generally been classified as friendly fire. "I wasn't
shooting at you, I was trying to shoot hate and intolerance; so sorry
about that."
The
victims have been numerous. Here in Washington State, a florist is
fighting for her business in the face of two separate lawsuits that
arose from her decision not to provide floral services for the wedding
ceremony of long-time gay customers.
And
around the country bakeries, doctors, counselors, court clerks, and
wedding photographers have been victims of the war on intolerance;
specifically because of their beliefs about sexuality and marriage.
All along the way, those tightening the noose around the neck of religious freedom have claimed to be allies all along.
That's changing. Now that they feel they have the upper hand, they no longer feel the need to be tolerant.
The
City of San Antonio is making a move that would allow the city council
to exclude from public office anyone who has "bias" that they don't
like. Here is the resolution:
"No
person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that
such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in
discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any
person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran
status, age, or disability."
That's
right, folks. If you are a person who has "demonstrated a bias, by
word or deed" against people based on things such as religion, sexual
orientation and gender identity, you are unfit for public office.
On
its face, this is simply absurd. This is exhibit A in the case that
some people are educated beyond their intelligence. This language quite
clearly excludes everyone, including those currently on the city
council, from being on the city council.
Good
luck finding someone who has not demonstrated a "bias" on the basis of
"religion". Certainly everyone with religious faith would be
disqualified because, by virtue of having a religious faith, they have
demonstrated their bias in favor of that particular faith to the
exclusion of others. So all the religious people...denied.
However,
it would almost certainly exclude every atheist as well. Most atheists I
know express their bias against religion on a daily, if not hourly
basis. The chances of finding one who has never done so do not seem
promising. So all the atheists...denied.
Even
the agnostics I know lean in one direction or another. They may not
know what they are, but they almost certainly have crossed some of the
options off the list. You don't have to be a Pentecostal to know you
aren't a Rastafarian. However, once you've crossed something off the
list, you've demonstrated bias. So all the agnostics...denied.
I'm
sure San Antonio will thrive under the leadership of Tarzan who, after a
global search, was found to be the only person eligible for public
office because, by virtue of being raised by monkeys, he had truly never
considered the questions of faith and religion long enough to develop a
"bias".
Of
course they don't intend to actually apply this law as written. They
genuinely believe they are unbiased. The beauty of living in a world in
which the words are never defined is that you get to define them
however you want, whenever you want, depending on what is most
convenient to you at the moment. If passed, the San Antonio City
Council will have created a world in which they are unbiased and those
who disagree with them are biased and this will actually make sense to
them.
With
the purest of motives, they believe they have looked at the available
facts and reached the only reasonable conclusion, which means that those
who disagree are simply allowing their judgment to be clouded by
"bias".
That
bias, of course, is a tremendous obstacle to a kinder, gentler, more
tolerant world where everyone feels good about themselves and no one
judges. Ergo, we declare war on "bias".
We start by excluding those infected by it from public office.
Given
the cultural debates over marriage and sexuality in general, it is
reasonable to conclude that the unstated purpose of this proposal is to
exclude those who hold a historical/natural understanding of marriage,
sexuality, and gender. You know, folks who said things like (please
don't read this aloud in the presence of children) "sexuality is best
expressed within the confines of a lifetime marriage between a man and a
woman."
This
would likely also apply to someone who says something like, "I can be
sympathetic to people who struggle with their gender identity, but I
think there are some things in life we control and some things we don't
control. Like our age and the species we were placed in, our gender is
not something we control. I think it's best for everyone involved if we
help people find their identity in who they actually are rather than
trying to convince them they can be whatever they want."
According to the legislation, these statements would disqualify you from public service in San Antonio.
It
is significant that the effort to exclude those of us with "bias" from
public life was formally declared in the same city where the Alamo still
stands as a memorial to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, against
all odds, in the defense of their freedom. Hopefully, we will find
enough inspiration from their story that the outcome of this war will be
different than that one.
Either way, it's no longer a Cold War. You'd better be ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment