----------------------------
MLK is a useful and frequently invoked symbol for the Left, but only by misrepresenting him with out-of-context snippets can they get him to conform to their dysfunctional world view. Here is another such attempt:
----------------------------
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote that laws which uplift the human personality are good laws, while laws which degrade human personality are unjust. (It only takes one sentence for Mr. Kirchhoff to wander into fantasyland. Here is MLK's full quote: "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." So the appropriation of this quote from its context turns MLK's beliefs 180 degrees. MLK believed that laws must conform to morality, that is, God's law. Mr. Kirchoff completely reverses this.)
His insights apply to us today in Bozeman, as the city commission contemplates adopting an anti-discrimination ordinance that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) persons from prejudice when they seek employment and housing.
The spirit of such an anti-discrimination ordinance is perfectly in keeping with Dr. King’s spirit of just laws. (As we have just seen, this is a complete misrepresentation of MLK.)
The ordinance would uplift the personality of a class of individuals who have suffered and continue to suffer degrading treatment from others in our society.
Opposition to the ordinance has come from a minority of religious objectors in our community (Notice the attempt to marginalize the opposition.)
Opposition to the ordinance has come from a minority of religious objectors in our community (Notice the attempt to marginalize the opposition.)
who state repeatedly that their churches and church-sponsored institutions should be exempt from the ordinance because their religious beliefs put them at odds with LGBT individuals, with whom they would rather not mix. (Several misrepresentations in this single statement.
- Not all who object are religious.
- Not all believe that this issue is about having exempt organizations. Most don't want the law at all, and that doesn't restrict their opinion to "churches and church-sponsored organizations."
- Their beliefs do not "put them at odds with LGBT individuals." It is LGBTs who put themselves at odds with them.
- There is no one who has suggested anything about who they want or do not want to mix with.)
They claim the ordinance would rob them of their constitutionally protected freedom to practice religion. They repeat this claim over and over, which is surprising, since it is groundless and totally unsupported by the Constitution. (We are about to find out why Mr. Kirchoff thinks the Constitution is at odds with these objectors. Brace yourself.)
The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause protects the right to choose and to practice one’s religion – and yet, importantly, it does not provide any religious group the right to impose a doctrine or practice on other persons. (The First Amendment doesn't provide anybody anything, whether it be a religious group or a religious person. The First Amendment tells GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do.)
The Constitution guarantees that we are free to believe what we want, pray as we will, attend worship where we choose, and read whatever books we are inspired by – in other words, worship freely. (Mr. Kirchoff giveth, then taketh away. He makes this unequivocal and true statement and then backs right out of it in the next sentence.)
Freedom of religion does not grant religious people a privilege to discriminate. (So according to Mr. Kirchoff, we are completely free, except where he says we are not. And notice that Mr. Kirchoff repeats his error. We are not "granted" anything. The people are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. The Constitution restricts GOVERNMENT.)
The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause protects the right to choose and to practice one’s religion – and yet, importantly, it does not provide any religious group the right to impose a doctrine or practice on other persons. (The First Amendment doesn't provide anybody anything, whether it be a religious group or a religious person. The First Amendment tells GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do.)
The Constitution guarantees that we are free to believe what we want, pray as we will, attend worship where we choose, and read whatever books we are inspired by – in other words, worship freely. (Mr. Kirchoff giveth, then taketh away. He makes this unequivocal and true statement and then backs right out of it in the next sentence.)
Freedom of religion does not grant religious people a privilege to discriminate. (So according to Mr. Kirchoff, we are completely free, except where he says we are not. And notice that Mr. Kirchoff repeats his error. We are not "granted" anything. The people are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. The Constitution restricts GOVERNMENT.)
This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. (But as we have seen, it isn't obvious, and in fact does violence to the Constitution and MLK.)
But I hope it is repeated enough times that it will sink in where it needs to! (Indeed, the falsehoods and misrepresentations of the Left are repeated endlessly, to the point that many people believe that the Constitution prevents people from practicing their religion as they see fit.
As is clear to see, Mr. Kirchoff's letter completely misses, and spectacularly so. And this man is a former mayor of Bozeman. Kinda scary, eh?)
As is clear to see, Mr. Kirchoff's letter completely misses, and spectacularly so. And this man is a former mayor of Bozeman. Kinda scary, eh?)
No comments:
Post a Comment