Discrimination

Discrimination.

This is a word with dual meaning. When a specific intent is applied to it, it can mean “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people” but in a scientific and logical sense, it only means “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another”.

Can any person who believes in any sort of personal or moral code not be discriminatory?

In my opinion, I do not think they can. I also do not think the second iteration of the word’s meaning necessary implies the first is in play. People can make choices (to understand the difference between one thing and another) without having unjust or nefarious motives. This is an important distinction as “discrimination” is as misused today as is the word “racism”.

It seems to stand to reason if you believe in anything, you MUST make choices to do or not to do, to associate or not to associate and to support or not to support to remain true to your beliefs, even if those beliefs are not currently regarded as in vogue by the aficionados of popular culture. Just because “everybody is doing it” does not make something right, it only means that it is popular.

I look at how many churches are trying to move away from God’s law as part and parcel of popularity winning over principle. Gay “rights” is one of the primary drivers in this move. On a personal level, I happen to believe that homosexuality is a biblical sin, but I also believe that Christians are commanded to hate the sin but to love the sinner. I won’t crusade of try to force my personal beliefs on anyone – if one hears what I believe is the Word of God and chooses to ignore it – that is on them, not me.

Consistent with my lack of desire to force my beliefs on anyone, on a political level, I lean libertarian and believe that it is none of my business what another person does as long as they don’t impinge on my rights to the same.

This is why, at least for me, Christians being forced to perform services (not just cakes or photos for gay weddings but providing contraception and others) by force of law that run counter to their beliefs…and being accused of discrimination (of the first connotation) in the process is flatly wrong.

The invocation of the word “Christian” conjures up the mental image of an organized religion. Even though the term “religion” is defined as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”, it is also defined as “a particular system of faith and worship” and “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance”. Using this definition, the secular effort to mainstream GLBT behaviors is a de facto religion.

This is an important distinction as the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” but Congress is, in fact, legislating a secular religion by prohibiting the discrimination (choices) by religious people necessary to remain faithful to their beliefs.

Some will say that my stance would legitimize racism, bigotry and would result in a lack of social cohesion. Perhaps it would come as a surprise to them that I actually agree – because I cannot find the elimination of racism, bigotry or a mandate for social cohesion in the Constitution. I only find a mandate for government to protect the environment where all people can do, believe and be whatever they want to be, even if that is a racist, a bigot or anti-social.

I must be clear that I do believe elimination of these things are important to the existence of a just society – I just believe it is society’s role to do so, that this is not a goal of government. Government cannot legally eliminate undesirable or illegitimate social behaviors without compromising those that are desirable and legitimate.

If you have a right to do something, I have an obligation not to interfere with that right – but that is a double edged sword because it is incumbent on you not to interfere in my rights. So you can go and be GLBT, communist, a hipster, a Grand Kleagle of the KKK (if you are a Democrat, you can be all of those) and expect me to defend your right to do so – just do not expect my support to extend to validation of your behaviors by legally mandating acceptance or celebrating you as you practice them.

In these matters, I choose to discriminate. To stay true to my own morality, I must do so – and that should never be made illegal.

2 thoughts on “Discrimination

  1. I like your post !!

    But consider your words here:
    ” I won’t crusade of try to force my personal beliefs on anyone – if one hears what I believe is the Word of God and chooses to ignore it – that is on them, not me.

    Consistent with my lack of desire to force my beliefs on anyone, on a political level, I lean libertarian and believe that it is none of my business what another person does as long as they don’t impinge on my rights to the same. ”

    And here : “…. but Congress is, in fact, legislating a secular religion by prohibiting the discrimination (choices) by religious people necessary to remain faithful to their beliefs.”

    Seems to me these Fellas Are getting ready to do by force what you say in your Second quote because they DON’T believe in your FIRST quote !!!

    http://www.infowars.com/video-shows-troops-training-to-intern-citizens-in-fort-lauderdale/

  2. The right to discriminate and even to be a bigot is a natural right. It is an act of free will that causes no real harm to another person. This does not mean it does not insult them, or hurt their feelings, but neither do we have a natural right to be free from offense. So this whole argument — as applied to individuals — is a trampling of individual rights.

    The only place we rightly need to concern ourselves with discrimination is when it becomes a matter of law. In that case, when the government favors one group over another, real harm is done as it violates the Social Contract to turn a person’s own government against them.

    That said, it happens to be a fact that the discrimination we should guard against here is on the part of the people seeking to use the government to force people to act against their will. Once we accept this sort of thing, we become lawless. Unfortunately, I would submit to you that we have already passed that point — long ago. 😦

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s