Faith-ism

The other day Elizabeth Warren delighted liberals with her response to a hypothetical question by somebody opposed on religious grounds to the Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples had the same rights to marry that opposite-sex couples do. “I’m old-fashioned,” the putative questioner claims, “and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

First off, stop for a minute and consider this curiosity of American discourse. We use the word “faith” as a short-hand stand-in for “dogma espoused by the religious organization I am affiliated with.” It’s not the person’s belief (faith) that Christ died to take away the sins we have allegedly inherited from Adam and Eve that is at stake here, but the right of people to ascribe to a notion not supported by evidence and then claim because it’s a religious notion they somehow have the right, nay the duty, to insist the rest of us are bound by that notion, as well.  Even if the claimant’s fellow church-members do not share their view. Hopefully the days of the special status of religious believers over non-believers are coming to an end.

Warren went straight to the heart of things. Our ultimate legal authority in America is the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and most assuredly not by one of the many conflicting voices within the larger Christian or other religious communities. Warren’s response quite correctly acknowledged the individual’s right to determine for themself who they might marry. Assuming it’s a man speaking, she said, “Then just marry one woman - I’m cool with that!”

A few days later, The Washington Post’s deputy editorial page editor, Ruth Marcus, took issue with Warren for being too flippant. We need to show more tolerance of religious beliefs, Ms. Marcus said, evidently failing to realize that a person’s opinions are not the same thing as the person themself, an astonishing error for somebody in Ms. Marcus’s position to make.

Warren did respect the questioner. “Then just marry one woman,” says as much. It’s the same thing as saying, “Go ahead and exercise your rights as a citizen. I will not oppose that.” What she did not respect is the opinion that lesbians and gays’ legal rights should not stand. Nor should she. We have all sorts of wretched opinions held by Americans, that black people should only be allowed to live in certain neighborhoods, that the children of people seeking asylum in this country should be taken from them and put in foster homes, that if you’re rich it means you have worked hard and if you’re poor it means that you haven’t, that global warming is a plot devised by the Chinese, that the world is only 6000 years old, that the moon landing was faked by the government, and on and on. There is no reason on earth an absurd opinion should be shown respect. An opinion that reflects cruel intentions even less so. Warren was well within her rights to poke fun at the question by adding to “just marry one woman” - “if he can find one!”

In my view, civility beats incivility and kindness is way too often underrated as a value. I’m not advocating slapping the label “idiot” on everybody whenever they demonstrate what fools we mortals can be. But I also think progressive-thinking people like Ms. Marcus need to stop bending over backwards to give any poppycock notion credence simply because it can slip into the discussion under the cloak of religion. Religious nonsense is still nonsense. And history is full of evidence that some of the worst idiocy - and cruelty - ever conceived has included religious claims. Rather than give them a lifetime of free passes, we’d do better to stop them at the gate and check for weapons.

No need to look very far for examples. Never mind the religious wars, the Spanish Inquisition or Martin Luther’s urging we burn Jewish homes to the ground. Look to Salt Lake City where just the other day the Mormon Church went back on its word and is now opposing the ban Utah put in place on what the church calls “conversion therapy,” a form of psychological torture which, according to the Trevor Project, nearly three quarters of a million young gay people have been subjected to. Once gays had to endure electric shocks when feeling sexual attraction to others of the same sex. Advocates of conversion therapy will see the glass as half full and tell you we’ve left such barbaric practices behind. But just as segregation is progress when seen against slavery, conversion therapy is an insult to decency that must be stood up to. Arguing its advocates must be allowed to continue because what they advocate stems from their “faith” makes us all enablers.

No, Ms. Marcus. Some ideas must be actively opposed. Not all opinions are of equal value.

Bless you for your faith in the human race, in the belief that people can be talked around if you just take the time to engage with them. I take it that’s where you’re coming from. I trust you had the kind of 3 a.m. discussions I did back in your college dorm or wherever you first debated whether Gandhi’s non-violent approach would have worked with Hitler or Stalin or the Pol Pot Regime. I’m all for debate and persuasion when that avenue is open to us. But I’m not open to the notion that there is something about religion that entitles it to special favors.