The Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Contradiction

Rob Tisinai

April 23rd, 2012

Our anti-gay opponents scatter arguments like lawn seed, tossing them out by the handful and seeing which take root, with little concern for what’s actually true. That’s why the movement is such an intellectual tangle. This is part of a series pointing out the contradictions you trip over when you step back and pay attention to their whole big field of weeds.

Contradiction 4: We must destroy liberty in order to save it.

This plant branches in two directions.

Branch 1:

Everywhere they look, our opponents see threats to religious freedom. But I’m forced to wonder — are they championing the principle of liberty, or just protecting their anti-gay animus? They seem to exalt their own freedom while destroying it for others. Hence our fourth contradiction:

  • Repealing DADT is a threat to the religious freedom of military chaplains.
  • The government should not allow military chaplains to perform same-sex wedddings.

The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell scared the hell out of some chaplains. (And of course NOM exploited the fear, defrauding its donors of money by claiming — falsely — that a new set of guidelines would force military chaplains to perform same-sex weddings.)  So how did the anti-gays respond? Rep. Todd Akin, along with the usual rag-tags, tried to amend the National Defense Authorization Act to outlaw chaplains from officiating at same-sex weddings, stripping them of the right to follow their own conscience.

That amendment failed. And who knows: Maybe those folks weren’t concerned with religious freedom anyway (though I’d to hear them say it on the record). But then how do you explain the Orwellian Military Religious Freedom Protection Act?

The bill starts by affirming each chaplain’s “right of conscience” when it comes to same-sex relationships. Lovely, fine, that’s in accord with the bill’s name. Then we get to the last bit, the freedom-robbing, anti-gay sweet spot:

A military installation or other property owned, rented, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense shall not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.

Ah. So chaplains can’t use their offices, or their chapels, or even their homes (if owned by the military) to conduct a religious service in accord with their own rights of conscience. They can’t even perform a “marriage-like ceremony” that isn’t actually marriage! You might want to argue that the government should forbid that. You might even want to make sure the government does forbid that. But then please, don’t call your law the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act.

Unless…

Branch 2:

Unless your concept of freedom is novel and strange. For instance, here’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan speaking against marriage equality:

We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought.

Ignore the straw man leading that sentence (entering a and legal binding marriage contract is the opposite of seeking the license to do whatever you want). Look rather at the second half: freedom as the liberty to do what we ought. By this strange and tautological definition, every tyranny can call itself free; every tyrant can say he gives his subjects the liberty to do what they ought. This definition is even more chilling from the mouth of a man with narrow and specific ideas about what you ought. And it’s far from the American ideal of freedom, where you can follow your own conscience as long as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

It gets scarier. We see this same strange concept of freedom from the man who almost won the Republican presidential nomination, the man who is the presumptive Republican front-runner for 2016, Rick Santorum:

That is what when [the Founders] talked about the ‘pursuit of happiness.’ If you go back and read the definition in Webster at the time of the Declaration, or certainly thereafter, what ‘happiness’ was defined as doing good. Doing good, doing what is moral. So the pursuit of something ordered and morally good is what our Founders were saying. Which is in other words living your life consistent – taking those rights and living them consistent with God’s law. That was the goal and the aim of America.

Funny: Webster published his first dictionary 52 years after the Declaration of Independence, and even then, his definition of happiness was neither as narrow nor as limited as Santorum would have you believe:

The agreeable sensations which spring from the enjoyment of good; that state of a being in which his desires are gratified, by the enjoyment of pleasure without pain; felicity; but happiness usually expresses less than felicity, and felicity less than bliss. Happiness is comparative. To a person distressed with pain, relief from that pain affords happiness; in other cases we give the name happiness to positive pleasure or an excitement of agreeable sensations. Happiness therefore admits of indefinite degrees of increase in enjoyment, or gratification of desires. Perfect happiness, or pleasure unalloyed with pain, is not attainable in this life.

Of course, we don’t expect the truth from Rick Santorum. That makes it no less frightening. He promises a world in which freedom means the ability to act in accordance with Santorum’s notion of God’s law.

Santorum and Dolan and other radical (yet mainstream) social conservatives converge on this point: The government must destroy the freedom to live according to your own conscience in order to save your freedom to live according to theirs.

This second branch, to me, is scarier than the first.

Lightning Baltimore

April 24th, 2012

To misquote Kris Kristofferson, to the tune of “Me and Bobby McGee:”

Freedom’s just another word for
You’ll live by my rules

I’ve heard this bizarre definition of “freedom” before on Christian talk radio, in the context of the freedoms of married women. Essentially, “true freedom” is voluntarily living within a rigid set of rules.

Scary stuff, indeed.

Hunter

April 24th, 2012

I’m always amazed (well, appalled, actually) at the ability of the fringes to turn reality on its head. The sad part is, there are people who actually believe this (although I’m not sure I credit the sincerity of belief on the part of the “will bash for cash” crowd).

It’s a combination of Orwell and Lewis Carroll on something hallucinogenic. Good dissection, as always.

Snowman

April 24th, 2012

What about those millions of people who have a different idea of “what we ought” consists of; such as that we ought not to force our ways on others and even as believers it is our job to testify by the way we live our lves. It is not our job to force, to manipulate, or to persuade. Those actions are the way the devil does things, not how Jesus did them.

That was what I was taught when I was growing up, Christians were supposed to be the example, or the light on to the world as it were.

I’m not a Christian anymore, but I still see things that way. If you can’t be an example that people want to follow you’re not doing it right.

Priya Lynn

April 24th, 2012

Those guys are f***ed up.

Regan DuCasse

April 24th, 2012

It’s easy to see why most cultures have a variation of one of Christ’s very dictums.
Treating another as you’d be treated can settle a lot of moral dilemmas. It’s a foundation on which the most morally ethical behaviors are based.
It’s from where the most trustworthy decisions can be made.

Not always an easy path, but more often than not, the right one.

There are admonishments that are universal about being two faced, cowardly and a liar. And knowing when you are, and reversing and begging pardon when such actions do damage to another.

I’m not even Christian and I know that. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know what a Christian, is charged to do.
Wearing their religion on their sleeve gets attention.
I guess they forget that actual good deeds is part of that too.
How convenient.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.