Would the real bigots please stand up!

Standard

Politicians aren’t supposed to say what’s really on their mind.  People are annoyed by the carefully worded statements of career politicians. Many claim they want something more genuine and real. Yet, if we have no grace for honesty that we disagree with, can we blame politicians for their lawyer language?

I like honesty. No, not that of a nasty, intentionally inflammatory or unnecessarily disrespectful kind either. I like honesty that doesn’t take into account political expediency.  Honesty like when Ben Carson said he “would not advocate” for a hypothetical Muslim candidate that did not support the US Constitution and whose faith was inconsistent with American values.

Of course this became an opportunity to label Carson as a bigot and Islamophobe.  Both Republican and Democrat competitors alike condemned his honesty and some (ironically) think this disqualifies him to run for President.  Carson’s political adversaries delight in taking his comments out of context and yet many should agree with him if they were honest.

As another blogger has pointed out already, many moderate Muslims would not vote (or advocate for) a Muslim candidate who supported the brutal application of Shari’a law.  I am doubtful, very doubtful, that most of those lambasting the conservative physician would advocate for the oppression of women or death penalty for homosexuality.

In fairness to my Muslim friends, interpretations of the Qur’an do vary and the brand of Islam fueling terrorism represents them about as much as Westboro Baptist represents the mainstream of Christianity.  It would’ve been helpful had Carson been more specific about what kind of Muslim he would not advocate for rather than leave that to interpretation.

However, if it is not bigoted or Christo-phobic to tell Kim Davis to step down or advocate against candidates who want Creationism taught, why is what Carson actually said so inexcusably wrong?

I, as a Christian, would not advocate for a Christian who believes that the law of Moses should be enforced by the government.  There are some Bible-believing people who are convinced that both the Old and New Testament should be considered equally, their theological perspective is called Theonomy, and I would not advocate for their political ambitions.  Am I an anti-religious bigot?

Do I need to advocate for the Pope to escape an accusation of being an anti-Catholic bigot? 

Is hate for Mormons the reason some refused to vote for Mitt Romney’s conservative (religiously influenced) values?

Is it wrong that an atheist believer in gun control to say they would not support a Christian NRA member?

No, no, and no, who we advocate for or against is our own choice, we are free to our own opinions and there’s nothing wrong with being honest about what we believe.  Sure, it might not be the smart political move to say everything we think out loud.  But, for all you who complain about dishonest politicians, maybe we should stop punishing the decent and honest ones?

This outrage over Carson’s comments seems more than a little bit disingenuous and is logically inconsistent at very least.  He didn’t say Muslims should not be permitted to run for political office.  He didn’t say they should be stopped from voting their conscience.  What he said is he would not advocate for a Muslim of a particular interpretation of that religion.

In conclusion, I would take Ben Carson over a man or woman who lies and says what people want to hear.  I don’t agree with him in all areas, yet I do know where he stands and that’s refreshing.  I am doubtful that many Americans (including Muslims) disagree with his actual stance.

Advertisements

The Customer Is (not) Always Right

Standard

Colorado courts are inconsistent.  Either it is discrimination for a baker to refuse to provide a product that goes against their own moral conscience or it is not.  The courts have ruled two different ways and this seems to reflect the mixed logic (aka hypocrisy) of the general public.

Last year Masterpiece Cakeshop was effectively sued out of the cake making business for refusing to make a cake that was morally offensive to them.  But last week the courts ruled in favor of a bakery that refused a religious customer who wished for a cake to celebrate his own views that offended them.  In both cases an intolerant customer and an intolerant business person clash over services, but only one was ruled as discrimination.

The Right To Moral Conscience

It should not become a lawsuit if a Red Sox fan refuses to bake a “I love Yankees” cake. It not discrimination against a person to refuse to make anything but pro-Boston cakes.

It is not discrimination against a person to refuse to endorse a personally offending message.  A gay placard maker should have every right to turn away Westboro Baptist if they ask for a “God loves Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson” sign.  An atheist book printer should not be legally pressured into printing Bibles or other Christian literature either.

The idea that a business must provide any service that a customer demands is absurd.  It would be plain ignorant for me to go into a Jewish or Muslim restaurant and tell them they must serve me pork.  It would be even more ridiculous if I were to take them to court accusing them of discrimination against me.  But that is essentially what is happening in these various cases.

True Love and Tolerance is Respectful

Tolerance needs to be a two-way street. If we do not wish to be forced to do things against our own moral conscience, then we should be tolerant of those who refuse to go against their own moral conscience and not force them.

Another blogger, a religious business owner who abstains from drinking alcohol, shared a story about how they dealt with a brewer that wanted their services.  The conflict between desired services and moral conscience was solved amicably without legal fees and any unnecessary drama.  That is the model of tolerance more people should copy.

I believe everyone has a right to their own views (offensive, unpopular or otherwise) and should have freedom to share them.  That, however, does not mean anyone has the right to force another person to violate their own moral conscience.  Love and tolerance means respecting those who disagree with us enough to not force them against their will.

“Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.” (Luke 6:31-33 NIV)

Those are some words that apply equally to all people. If you are against intolerance don’t be intolerant. If you love greater then love enough to not offend those who offend you. Love by the example you want others to follow and not by force of law.