Monday, April 13, 2015

Pondering the Repeal Election

This essay on the recent repeal vote on Springfield city ordinance 6141 was published in the Springfield News-Leader on April 13, 2015.
 
In the days and weeks leading up to the repeal election I was surprised and disappointed at certain voices publically raised in behalf of the repeal: a bishop, a mega-church pastor, a leader of an international religious denomination, as well as numerous pastors of local churches.  These religious leaders urged their memberships to vote to repeal city ordinance 6141, which extended anti-discrimination protection to lesbians, gays, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens in the city of Springfield with regard to housing, employment, and public accommodation.  They succeeded in convincing many of us that the election was about religious freedom rather than simple fairness.
The ostensible reason for their descent into hard-knuckle political activism was to protect religious liberty.  What that means in practical street language is that business owners who shared what was touted as the biblical view of marriage (one woman to one man) would not have to participate in LGBT marriages (i.e., by providing flowers, food, clothing, and/or facilities, etc. for the ceremony).  In other words, they argued that their religious views be accepted as legal justification to deny service to those citizens who did not share their religious views.
The fact that certain business owners, with the vocal approval of certain religious leaders of Springfield, apparently intend in the future to deny service to LGBT citizens was justification for affirming city ordinance 6141.
We live in a representative democracy in a secular state, where we elect our representatives who in turn make our laws, which seek to allow the greatest amount of personal liberty to the largest number possible (that is the ideal at least); we do not live in a theocracy, where religion mandates how we should conduct our lives (as would be the case, for example, in an Islamic state, or a Christian state).  Our system of government is secular (in spite of certain "Christian" trappings), and no particular religion, even though it represents the majority, should be permitted to impose its religious views on citizens who do not share those views.
The idea that "my" religious ideas can be used as a justification for causing harm to others is insidious, for it implies that religious ideas are more important than the civil rights of all citizens in a secular state.  Perhaps they truly believe this, but, if consistently applied, it will eventually turn a secular state into a theocratic state.
The public voices of the religious leaders were less than candid with their various constituencies by suggesting that the Bible reflects one particular concept of marriage, for the Bible reflects a range of ideas on the relationships between men and women—something they should have known.  What was noticeably lacking in their common opposition to city ordinance 6141, however, was a lack of compassion for the situation faced by the LGBT community, one of the "least of these" (Matthew 25:45) in contemporary society.  Perhaps that was their greatest leadership failure on this issue (Mark 12:29-31).
 
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

8 comments:

Anonymous said...


So how did the vote turn out?

Charles Hedrick said...

Sorry about that! City Ordinance 6141 was repealed by the voters of Springfield.
Charlie

Anonymous said...

I think that the basic principle is this: if one publicizes a service to the public, under the laws of the land, then all members of that public have a right to ask for and receive the service.

Are there any exceptions? Perhaps a few: e.g., regarding the LGBT community, if a counselor or psychotherapist openly says that he/she is unable to empathize with various actions of such persons, then it would be best for that to be said up front and a referral made elsewhere. Also, if I were an LGBT person searching for a sitter for my child, I would want to reserve the right to say no to anyone who couldn't identify with and support this non-traditional family.

Most of the fault lies in the way we are taught to think in either/or absolute categories, rather than across the spectrum from one end to the other.

If business owners were actually honest about their own prejudice against fairness, rather than calling upon justification from God, they would put a sign in their window, something like, 'we do not wish to serve the LGBT folks," which I'm sure would drive most LGBT away, and many others, as well, but would still recognize that if an LGBT couple insisted, the services would have to be offered.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Jim,
The quote you asked about is: "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

Unfortunately we cannot make the correction, so you will need to make the correction yourself and resubmit the comment.
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie,
Perhaps the vote to repeal city ordinance 6141 was due to lack of interest by most Springfield residents who did not participate in the voting. Perhaps Springfield residents do not perceive the points you made in the essay about the principles of a representative democracy in a secular state. Perhaps they do not even perceive they live in a secular state, thinking they live in a Christian one, i.e. the U.S. government and it's laws are bound by Christian principles as they interpret from the Bible. In any event, a small consolation to the Springfield LGBT community might be an idea you have mentioned in a previous essay that "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice".

Jim

Charles Hedrick said...

Good Morning Jim!
All of the things you mention are certainly possible. I think the LGBT community is taking some consolation that the vote was as close as it was.
But I am not sure how you are using the quote. In short I am not sure what you mean by the moral universe. If you mean human beings, we few on this blue and white planet scarcely merit the term "universe." If you mean the actual physical universe, moral would seem to be the wrong word for it. I do note, however, that some philosophers consider the universe to possess consciousness (Jim Holt, Why does the world exist? [2012], thanks to whoever recommended the book to me). Is that what you have in mind? For my part neither the physical universe nor the sum total of the human community merit the term moral. The physical universe is amoral and the human community has a very checkered past, leading me to think that it will ever always take the high moral road in every circumstance.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie, I do not agree that "the sum total of the human community" and "the actual physical universe" can be considered as separate entities. Humanity is an integral part of the physical universe, and we are only aware of the universe through our own consciousness. I'll quote Walter Wink again from The Human Being (2002): "We need to think of ourselves as the universe reflecting upon itself." (See his analysis of Feurbach's .ideas on God as humanity's representation of itself.) I see the moral arc of the universe as an arc that humanity creates, an arc that is always unfulfilled and disappointing in its partial fulfillment. Historically, it appears that the moral arc of any given goal or ideal is periodically fueled by the lives of heroic figures.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
Thanks for pushing back. I partially agree with you. Humans are star-stuff (i.e., matter) possessing consciousness. That is to say, we are aware of ourselves and the universe about us. And to some degree we can even shape the universe immediately about us in some of its particulars. I don't, however, see any signs of consciousness in the general material stuff of the universe (i.e., rocks, sand, grapevine, weeds, trees, etc.). Nor do I see any sign of a material meta consciousness that could gather what bits of consciousness there might be throughout the material universe and so gently curve all matter (inert stuff and consciousness stuff) in a particular direction. In order to think that the universe (inert and conscious) bends in a moral way toward justice requires a belief in a meta selector (God?), it seems to me. Without faith in God I don't see how one could think there is a moral arc to the universe. And when you put God in the director's chair, the bending of the universe toward justice becomes a confession of faith rather than a natural datum built into the shape of the universe.
Cordially,
Charlie