Saturday, November 08, 2008
More Thoughts on Democracy and the Treatment of Minorities
Yes, it's late, but I have a very busy weekend ahead of me and don't know when I'll get around to posting again, so I figured I might as well go ahead and put down some stuff that's been on my mind recently. It's 2 AM, so I probably won't be as coherent as I'd like, but at least it's something.
Here are some random thoughts related to minorities and American democracy:
1) We may have the first black president elect, but that doesn't mean white people like it. Statistically speaking, I'm not aware of any major black political candidate in U.S. history who has won their election and gotten the majority of the white vote. Obama is no different. Statistical breakdowns of the election indicate that the only white demographic to vote for Obama in the majority are those aged 18-29. The majority of all other segments of older whites voted McCain. Also, males were more likely to vote McCain than females. However, Obama gained an overwhelming 95% of the African-American vote, and other racial minorities (Hispanic, Asian, etc.) voted for him over McCain at approximately a 2:1 ratio. While CNN might be throwing around terms like "post-racial America", I think it's pretty obvious there is still clear racial division in this country whether we want to recognize it or not.
2) In a democracy, the majority does not get to make decisions that disenfranchise the minority. There is a common misconception that in a democracy, if the majority of people want a law to pass, then this automatically means it should be passed. While this is usually the case, it's not always so, particularly when it comes to civil rights. If something is a right, it doesn't matter how many people don't like it, it shouldn't be denied.
So, in thinking about the recent controversy around Proposition 8: is gay marriage a constitutional right? Back in May, the California Supreme Court said it is. But now, because a slight majority apparently voted for Proposition 8, that decision is being back-tracked. To use an analogy: imagine if Jim Crow laws had been re-instituted because a majority preferred them. But no, that's not how things work. Once the Supreme Court declared that blacks being able to use the same facilities as whites was a constitutional right, it didn't matter that the vast majority of people in the deep South were vehement racists who adamantly opposed the ruling. A right's a right is a right.
Now, I realize that there is a difference between federal court decision and state court decisions. I don't mean to imply that a state's ability to hold a vote and abolish a ruling it previously held is unconstitutional - that's not the case. I only bring it up to make the following point:
1) Gay marriage/Civil unions, while it might be "morally wrong" or "gray" for some people, seems to me to be a constitutional right for several reasons.
2) Simply because the majority of people deem something to be wrong does not mean it shouldn't be allowed.
I have yet to see any compelling argument against gay marriage that is not directly or indirectly religious in nature. Should religious views not be taken into account when making legal decisions in a secular democracy? I think they should. However, they cannot be the only factor. Firstly, because religion can be used to justify pretty much anything (eg. slavery, sexism, etc.) and secondly, because to pass laws solely on a religious basis is a violation of the separation of church and state. This makes it unconstitutional.
"The Bible says homosexuality is wrong" is not a justifiable argument for why civil unions for homosexuals should not be legalized. At least, not in the United States. That's a perfectly acceptable reason if one lives in a Judeo-Christian (or more specifically, a literalistic and fundamentalist Judeo-Christian) theocracy. But that's not acceptable in a secular democracy like ours in which no religious preference (or lack thereof) is allowed more legitimacy than another.
When dealing with issues like this in a secular democracy, several questions have to be asked. Among these are:
1) Does this harm anyone involved in a tangible way?
2) Does this harm anyone else in a tangible way?
3) Is this an issue of equality, and if so are there legitimate reasons not related specifically to personal morality that justify unequal treatment?
4) Does denying this harm the individuals directly involved in a tangible way?
To answer these questions in relation to gay marriage:
1) No. Allowing gay people to legally marry does not harm them. Sometimes I hear people argue that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, it's only a matter of time before marriage is redefined to include things like bestiality and pedophilia. This is the main difference between them. Homosexuality is practiced privately between two consenting adult humans. As pedophilia and bestiality do not allow for consent, they can't be legalized.
2) No. If your gay neighbors get married, this does not harm you and your family in any significant way. Nor does it contribute to the breakdown of "marriage" in any way, since marriage is a fluid and dynamic concept that evolves over time and has no specific definition in regards to who may engage it in, biblical or otherwise. And furthermore: if heterosexuals are going to claim that marriage is an important, God-defined concept, they might want to start treating it like that's the case and get the divorce rate below 50%. It's hard to take the idea that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman seriously when you yourselves don't treat it that way.
3) Yes, it's an issue of equality, since homosexuals as human beings are no different from heterosexuals in any legitimate way. Scientific studies indicate that sexual orientation (both heterosexuality, homosexuality and everything in between) is not a choice, but rather that it results from a combination of unchangeable genetic and environmental factors. To say that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals is to imply that somehow they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals, and therefore unequal. There is no legitimate justification for this that isn't rooted in personal religious and moral opinion.
4) Yes, denying homosexuals the right to legally marry harms them in a tangible way, since it means they do not have access to the same economic, emotional, psychological and personal benefits that come with being married. This contributes to the perception that they are somehow "inferior" human beings under the law. This, to be blunt, is morally wrong.
I can fully understand why people do not want homosexuals to be viewed as "married" in a religious sense. However, this is very different from allowing them to be married in a civil and legal sense. Churches will still be allowed to refuse homosexuals from getting married in their church, for example. The issue of gay marriage is not about morality. It's about equality under the law.
To reiterate: the only reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry under the law are inherently religious in nature. To enforce them, therefore, is to violate the separation of church and state and the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits laws from being passed that explicitly promote a religious preference.
Gay marriage will be legalized eventually for this very reason. There is no stopping it. It's going to happen. For gay marriage not to be allowed under the law is an example of a situation in which the tyranny of the majority is allowed to persist, even though it has no secular or legal basis.
3) Atheists are human beings, too. The national coverage by CNN of the controversy over the "Godless" ad, as well as Kay Hagan's response ad, sickens me. Why? Because they subliminally imply that to not believe in God somehow makes you less of a human being, or less moral, than someone who does. Take a look at this video of CNN coverage:
Notice in the ad how Hagan has to explicitly point out several times that she believes in God and is a "fellow Christian." It's as if not to do so might leave room for doubt, and God forbid people think she's an atheist! Those people are awful and clearly not fit for office!
Also notice how the woman on the panel implies the main reason all people should be treated equally, including atheists, is so they can be converted. If you're not offended by that, imagine if atheists were in the majority and this woman just said Christians should only be treated equally so they could be "de-converted."
And then comes the question as to whether or not she should associate with atheists, and the response is, "Well these are active atheists." In other words: atheists are fine as long as they don't try to uphold separation of church and state (isn't that Constitution thing annoying?) and interfere with the majority. Just shut up and don't try to be involved in the political process.
Why is it that in a country so concerned about equality and political correctness, it's still acceptable and politically correct to assume that atheists are inferior and immoral individuals?
Check out this fascinating article about the relationship between theism, atheism, morality and happiness. It includes links to several different studies done on such issues.
Here are the facts:
1) Atheists are human beings.
2) Atheists are exactly the same as theists except for one thing: when asked whether or not they believe in a god, they reply, "No." To paraphrase a popular quote: Most theists reject the existence of some gods. Atheists just reject one more.
3) Atheists are neither more nor less immoral than theists.
But for some reason, many Christians seem downright afraid of them. Why?
Take a look at this YouTube video, in which an outspoken atheist outlines why she feels atheists should take an active stand against religion.
It should be noted that I don't agree with everything she says. However, there are some things she is definitely right about, particularly how religion is often immoral and how atheists are unfairly discriminated against.
Within hours of this video being posted, the backlash started. People were extremely upset and wrote in scathing remarks and complaints. It wasn't long until she was temporarily suspended from YouTube. Just for being an outspoken atheist expressing her views! Way to prove her point there, guys...
As Christians, we need to ask ourselves:
1) Do we honestly believe that all men and women are created equal, and should be treated as such?
2) Are we so insecure that we will automatically reject a person's opinions if they don't hold our religious beliefs, or will even fight to prohibit these views from being expressed?
3) What do these kinds of attitudes and actions say to the rest of the world? Are they consistent with the Constitution and the idea of a secular democracy? What about the teachings of Jesus?
To sum up: Being a majority doesn't mean we're always right. And it doesn't mean we can treat minorities like crap.
Here are some random thoughts related to minorities and American democracy:
1) We may have the first black president elect, but that doesn't mean white people like it. Statistically speaking, I'm not aware of any major black political candidate in U.S. history who has won their election and gotten the majority of the white vote. Obama is no different. Statistical breakdowns of the election indicate that the only white demographic to vote for Obama in the majority are those aged 18-29. The majority of all other segments of older whites voted McCain. Also, males were more likely to vote McCain than females. However, Obama gained an overwhelming 95% of the African-American vote, and other racial minorities (Hispanic, Asian, etc.) voted for him over McCain at approximately a 2:1 ratio. While CNN might be throwing around terms like "post-racial America", I think it's pretty obvious there is still clear racial division in this country whether we want to recognize it or not.
2) In a democracy, the majority does not get to make decisions that disenfranchise the minority. There is a common misconception that in a democracy, if the majority of people want a law to pass, then this automatically means it should be passed. While this is usually the case, it's not always so, particularly when it comes to civil rights. If something is a right, it doesn't matter how many people don't like it, it shouldn't be denied.
So, in thinking about the recent controversy around Proposition 8: is gay marriage a constitutional right? Back in May, the California Supreme Court said it is. But now, because a slight majority apparently voted for Proposition 8, that decision is being back-tracked. To use an analogy: imagine if Jim Crow laws had been re-instituted because a majority preferred them. But no, that's not how things work. Once the Supreme Court declared that blacks being able to use the same facilities as whites was a constitutional right, it didn't matter that the vast majority of people in the deep South were vehement racists who adamantly opposed the ruling. A right's a right is a right.
Now, I realize that there is a difference between federal court decision and state court decisions. I don't mean to imply that a state's ability to hold a vote and abolish a ruling it previously held is unconstitutional - that's not the case. I only bring it up to make the following point:
1) Gay marriage/Civil unions, while it might be "morally wrong" or "gray" for some people, seems to me to be a constitutional right for several reasons.
2) Simply because the majority of people deem something to be wrong does not mean it shouldn't be allowed.
I have yet to see any compelling argument against gay marriage that is not directly or indirectly religious in nature. Should religious views not be taken into account when making legal decisions in a secular democracy? I think they should. However, they cannot be the only factor. Firstly, because religion can be used to justify pretty much anything (eg. slavery, sexism, etc.) and secondly, because to pass laws solely on a religious basis is a violation of the separation of church and state. This makes it unconstitutional.
"The Bible says homosexuality is wrong" is not a justifiable argument for why civil unions for homosexuals should not be legalized. At least, not in the United States. That's a perfectly acceptable reason if one lives in a Judeo-Christian (or more specifically, a literalistic and fundamentalist Judeo-Christian) theocracy. But that's not acceptable in a secular democracy like ours in which no religious preference (or lack thereof) is allowed more legitimacy than another.
When dealing with issues like this in a secular democracy, several questions have to be asked. Among these are:
1) Does this harm anyone involved in a tangible way?
2) Does this harm anyone else in a tangible way?
3) Is this an issue of equality, and if so are there legitimate reasons not related specifically to personal morality that justify unequal treatment?
4) Does denying this harm the individuals directly involved in a tangible way?
To answer these questions in relation to gay marriage:
1) No. Allowing gay people to legally marry does not harm them. Sometimes I hear people argue that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, it's only a matter of time before marriage is redefined to include things like bestiality and pedophilia. This is the main difference between them. Homosexuality is practiced privately between two consenting adult humans. As pedophilia and bestiality do not allow for consent, they can't be legalized.
2) No. If your gay neighbors get married, this does not harm you and your family in any significant way. Nor does it contribute to the breakdown of "marriage" in any way, since marriage is a fluid and dynamic concept that evolves over time and has no specific definition in regards to who may engage it in, biblical or otherwise. And furthermore: if heterosexuals are going to claim that marriage is an important, God-defined concept, they might want to start treating it like that's the case and get the divorce rate below 50%. It's hard to take the idea that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman seriously when you yourselves don't treat it that way.
3) Yes, it's an issue of equality, since homosexuals as human beings are no different from heterosexuals in any legitimate way. Scientific studies indicate that sexual orientation (both heterosexuality, homosexuality and everything in between) is not a choice, but rather that it results from a combination of unchangeable genetic and environmental factors. To say that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals is to imply that somehow they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals, and therefore unequal. There is no legitimate justification for this that isn't rooted in personal religious and moral opinion.
4) Yes, denying homosexuals the right to legally marry harms them in a tangible way, since it means they do not have access to the same economic, emotional, psychological and personal benefits that come with being married. This contributes to the perception that they are somehow "inferior" human beings under the law. This, to be blunt, is morally wrong.
I can fully understand why people do not want homosexuals to be viewed as "married" in a religious sense. However, this is very different from allowing them to be married in a civil and legal sense. Churches will still be allowed to refuse homosexuals from getting married in their church, for example. The issue of gay marriage is not about morality. It's about equality under the law.
To reiterate: the only reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry under the law are inherently religious in nature. To enforce them, therefore, is to violate the separation of church and state and the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits laws from being passed that explicitly promote a religious preference.
Gay marriage will be legalized eventually for this very reason. There is no stopping it. It's going to happen. For gay marriage not to be allowed under the law is an example of a situation in which the tyranny of the majority is allowed to persist, even though it has no secular or legal basis.
3) Atheists are human beings, too. The national coverage by CNN of the controversy over the "Godless" ad, as well as Kay Hagan's response ad, sickens me. Why? Because they subliminally imply that to not believe in God somehow makes you less of a human being, or less moral, than someone who does. Take a look at this video of CNN coverage:
Notice in the ad how Hagan has to explicitly point out several times that she believes in God and is a "fellow Christian." It's as if not to do so might leave room for doubt, and God forbid people think she's an atheist! Those people are awful and clearly not fit for office!
Also notice how the woman on the panel implies the main reason all people should be treated equally, including atheists, is so they can be converted. If you're not offended by that, imagine if atheists were in the majority and this woman just said Christians should only be treated equally so they could be "de-converted."
And then comes the question as to whether or not she should associate with atheists, and the response is, "Well these are active atheists." In other words: atheists are fine as long as they don't try to uphold separation of church and state (isn't that Constitution thing annoying?) and interfere with the majority. Just shut up and don't try to be involved in the political process.
Why is it that in a country so concerned about equality and political correctness, it's still acceptable and politically correct to assume that atheists are inferior and immoral individuals?
Check out this fascinating article about the relationship between theism, atheism, morality and happiness. It includes links to several different studies done on such issues.
Here are the facts:
1) Atheists are human beings.
2) Atheists are exactly the same as theists except for one thing: when asked whether or not they believe in a god, they reply, "No." To paraphrase a popular quote: Most theists reject the existence of some gods. Atheists just reject one more.
3) Atheists are neither more nor less immoral than theists.
But for some reason, many Christians seem downright afraid of them. Why?
Take a look at this YouTube video, in which an outspoken atheist outlines why she feels atheists should take an active stand against religion.
It should be noted that I don't agree with everything she says. However, there are some things she is definitely right about, particularly how religion is often immoral and how atheists are unfairly discriminated against.
Within hours of this video being posted, the backlash started. People were extremely upset and wrote in scathing remarks and complaints. It wasn't long until she was temporarily suspended from YouTube. Just for being an outspoken atheist expressing her views! Way to prove her point there, guys...
As Christians, we need to ask ourselves:
1) Do we honestly believe that all men and women are created equal, and should be treated as such?
2) Are we so insecure that we will automatically reject a person's opinions if they don't hold our religious beliefs, or will even fight to prohibit these views from being expressed?
3) What do these kinds of attitudes and actions say to the rest of the world? Are they consistent with the Constitution and the idea of a secular democracy? What about the teachings of Jesus?
To sum up: Being a majority doesn't mean we're always right. And it doesn't mean we can treat minorities like crap.
# posted by Andrew Johnson : 11/08/2008 01:49:00 AM 
