}

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Making them understand


The video above is the latest video from Truth Wins Out, and is part of a series attempting to show people what the so-called “religious freedom” bills to legalise discrimination against LGBT people could actually do. It’s an, um, interesting approach.

The ad portrays discrimination against Christians as something that could be possible under these pro-discrimination bills, a sort of "be careful what you wish for" kind of thing. Sometimes radical right religionists claim they’d be fine with that as long as they get to discriminate against LGBT people. NO one believes they’re telling the truth when they say that, not when they already take an insignificant incident and try to pretend it’s evidence of some sort of massive “oppression” of Christians.

The so-called “upside down” approach of this ad, reversing the positions of minority/majority and oppressor/oppressed, can sometimes be effective because they can help people see things they might not otherwise notice. However, in this case, I think it’s extremely problematic: It plays right into rightwing “Christian” victim fantasies, and will no doubt be spun by them as “proof” of what gay people “really” want. I think this ad could do more harm than good.

In stark contrast is their first ad, below. “Religious Freedom Cafe“ presents a realistic scenario in which a religious café owner refuses service to a customer because of his religious beliefs. The fact that he refuses service to a Black man could be too obvious, except that it’s also more likely to help heterosexuals see the discrimination more clearly than if it was against a gay person. Moreover, these “religious freedom” bills permit discrimination against everyone, as long as it’s because of their supposedly “sincerely held religious beliefs”.



The problem is, most people won’t believe that’s true: Federal law forbids discrimination based on race, creed, colour, and a number of other factors, and most states have similar laws—even the states considering the pro-discrimination “religious freedom” bills. The casual viewer would be thinking that such existing laws would overrule pro-discrimination “religious freedom” laws. Maybe they would. Experts disagree on the immediate effect, though long term anyone using such laws to justify racial discrimination would no doubt end up in litigation designed to test the constitutionality of such laws and the discrimination they legalise.

And that’s the bigger, long-term threat: The outcome of that test case would ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court, and if a Republican wins the White House in 2016 and the party holds on to Congress, there could be a radically more extreme rightwing Court by the time a test case got to the Supreme Court, and that could ultimately result in the destruction of all anti-discrimination laws in the USA, though that prospect would gladden the hearts of the radical rightwing, for many reasons.

All of which means that it’s vital to help mainstream Americans understand how anti-American and even evil these so-called “religious freedom” license to discriminate bills really are. I personally don’t think the first ad will help very much to do that, ones more like the second one might.

Still, if any ad helps even just some mainstream Americans understand the huge threat to American civil society these bills pose, well, that’s probably helpful after all.

6 comments:

DaChieftain said...

One of the things I think I struggle with, Arthur, is understanding the scope of and demarcation between "religious freedom" versus the scope of "freedom from discrimination," as you would intend it to be.

Do you believe religions should be forced (for example) to accept homosexual members, even if their teachings state that homosexuality is a sin?

Do you believe businesses should be forced to serve homosexuals even tho' the business owner believes homosexuality to be a sin?

Which should trump? Freedom of religion, or freedom from discrimination?

rogerogreen said...

My previous response was obviously lost. Ah well. This is...annoying... http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/26/frc-president-tony-perkins-threatens-christian-uprising-if-supreme-court-legalizes-gay-marriage/

rogerogreen said...

And, of course, there's this: http://www.advocate.com/indiana/2015/03/26/immediate-examples-backlash-indianas-religious-freedom

Arthur Schenck (AmeriNZ) said...

Sigh. Sedition, at the very least.

There's a slight factual error in the article you linked to. It says:

"Perkins went on to direct Christians to engage in 21 days of prayer on
the issue, between Easter and the time when the Supreme Court hears the
marriage equality oral arguments this coming June."

What he meant to say was Tony wants people to pray between Easter and when the Supreme Court hears the oral argument on April 28. The actual RULING is expected in June. Interestingly, "21 days after Easter" is still two days short of the date that oral arguments will be heard. Just like Tony's a bit short on [fill in the blank].


I mention that for the benefit of anyone who sees these comments and follows the link, because Roger already knows that.

Arthur Schenck (AmeriNZ) said...

Yes, and the Disciples of Christ is planning on pulling its convention out of Indiana, costing the state around another $10 million in lost revenue.

Arthur Schenck (AmeriNZ) said...

Sigh. Sedition, at the very least.

There's a slight factual error in the article you linked to. It says:

"Perkins went on to direct Christians to engage in 21 days of prayer on
the issue, between Easter and the time when the Supreme Court hears the
marriage equality oral arguments this coming June."

What
he meant to say was Tony wants people to pray between Easter and when
the Supreme Court hears the oral argument on April 28. The actual RULING
is expected in June. Interestingly, "21 days after Easter" is still two
days short of the date that oral arguments will be heard. Just like
Tony's a bit short on [fill in the blank].

I mention that for the benefit of anyone who sees these comments and follows the link, because Roger already knows that.