Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------
This author is emblematic of the leftist mindset. By means of term-switching, bare assertions, misdirection, and misrepresentation of the opponents of the NDO, he is able to construct a straw man of gigantic proportions. Read on:
-----------------------------------
I am proud to be among the more than 30 Bozeman religious leaders who publicly support a Bozeman NDO (First leftist rhetorical manipulation: Make it seem like there's widespread support in the religious community by citing unnamed sympathizers with unknown positions in the community. Are they pastors? Buddhists? Sunday School teachers? Do they have any standing, credentials, or history? Who exactly are these people and why should we honor them?)
because our (Note use of feel-good inclusive.) highest religious and ethical principles call for human dignity and justice for all. (And why should we value the rabbi's religious principles above others? I thought the problem was that his opponents are trying to impose their religion. Is there some particular reason that the City of Bozeman should compel his religious values over the religious values of others?)
The most repeated command in the Hebrew Bible demands we not oppress others because we know what that feels like, having been oppressed in Egypt. (Because there is evidence of widespread oppression that rivals biblical accounts? This is just silly. But can we ask, since the esteemed rabbi apparently believes Scripture and is in fact treating it authoritatively, what does the he do with Leviticus 18?)
Jesus describes loving God and loving one’s neighbor as the two great commandments. (Um, yeah. A rabbi, who does not believe Jesus is the Messiah or that the N.T. is valid, is now telling us all what Jesus really meant. And of course we know that Jesus made no other commands, right?
So perhaps the rabbi could explain to us Jesus' words in Mt. 15:19-20: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality [porneia, "illicit sexual activity"], theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man `unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him `unclean’." Note that Jesus is refuting the Jewish teachers of the law by telling them that certain things they do and think are really what make them unclean. And I'm sure the rabbi understands the concept of ceremonial cleanliness?
We must therefore ask, if the rabbi views Jesus' words as authoritative, does he agree with Jesus that sexual immorality makes a person unclean?)
Directives to love and act justly towards others fill the sacred texts of all religious traditions. You don’t have to be a religious person to identify with Micah’s call “to act justly, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” (Now the rabbi appeals to "all religious traditions," as if his particular interpretation of justice and love are universal religious precepts, indeed, precepts that even the irreligious can identify with and that all of us should kowtow to. One must then assume there is a noteworthy amount of religious evidence in support of a particular form of sexual behavior. Further, even the irreligious should have no objection to his version of morality.)
Despite this widespread religious support of the NDO, (Which he has not established as true.)
a few Bozeman clergy oppose it, ("Few." Another leftist technique is to make the opposition out to be outliers.) saying that “freedom of religion” gives the right to exclude GLBT persons from businesses and employment open to the public. (Here we find a misrepresentation of the opposition. The rabbi presents this as the universal assertion of those who oppose the NDO, which is not possible for him to know. Indeed, he certainly doesn't know this, because I doubt anyone has claimed a such a "right to exclude." In fact, the assertion is preposterous, intentionally so, in order to paint these haters as extreme.
Further, he employs yet another leftist trope, that businesses are different than private individuals. It's an artificial distinction, that somehow the actions of businesses are a matter of interest and intervention of government while private matters are not. From that descends the idea that a customer of a business has a preeminent right to access a business' services, in subjugation of the business owner's right to choose his customers; that is, to freely associate. Yet for some reason a business owner can, without accusations of discrimination being leveled at him, set other access conditions, such as "no shoes, no shirt, no service," also a highly discriminatory activity.
But let's get to the real point. What business owner quizzes customers about their life choices as a condition of transacting business? Probably none, because polite people don't inquire of a person's sexual activities. And polite people don't make an issue of their sexuality.
The blade swings both ways. Can we ask, would the rabbi support the right of a neo-Nazi to force a baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it? Or how about a gay sign maker being forced to make a "marriage = one man, one woman banner? Would the rabbi have any objection to a pro-choice restaurant owner being forced to host a pro-life meeting?)
They say that they should be allowed to live out their religious values.
I agree that we should all live out our deep convictions in our everyday affairs. The problem is that the rest of us are also entitled to live out our religion in our everyday affairs. My and many others’ religious freedom demands that we live in a city where our primary religious values – the just treatment of all those created in the Divine image -- are upheld. (In other words, religious values differ, and this is a matter for government to legislate "primary religious values," presumably, the author's.
He kind of stumbles into the meat of the issue. How do we reconcile conflicts like this? The problem is the idea that government should step in at all. When a business owner chooses, based on his own preferences, who he will do business with, what rights has he violated? If someone declines to associate with someone else, giving any reason or no reason, what rights have been violated? The crux of the matter is, do people have a right to force others into transactions whether or not the other party is willing?
This is a crucial question, because business transactions by definition involve willing parties, the exchange of value, and a fair representation of the aspects of the transaction. If the NDO is passed, these previously private transactions become a matter for government to decide, which means they are no longer voluntary. In other words, the activity of private people engaging in their daily lives is now a matter of government interest, and no longer involves mutual consent.
The rabbi is correct about one thing, however. We should all be able to embrace the teachings of our religion as we understand it, but apparently there is an exception when it violates the rabbi's own understanding of the teachings of various religions. And in his view that the government must be brought to bear to enforce this understanding, because the average person is clearly not able to make his own decisions and choose his own associations.)
As Ezekiel teaches, a city where basic justice is absent cannot survive. (The rabbi appeals once again to Scripture, as if his view of Scripture must be enforced by government edict.)
To me, a city that permits discrimination in the public square is one where I could not conscientiously reside, denying my “freedom of religion.” (He now leaps to the conclusion that the city is permitting discrimination, which presumes that there is discrimination, that discrimination is automatically bad, and that it is a matter for the city to remedy. And amazingly, that violates his religious freedom! None of this follows from what the rabbi has presented to us thus far.)
Apart from these religious conflicts, (Hmm, so now they're religious conflicts? On what basis, then, does government have the authority to resolve religious conflicts?)
Bozeman is home to many with varied religious and non-religious values, all of whom are entitled to respect. (Upon what basis does he make this assertion? Are all values created equal? He clearly does not believe this, because he has already told us that his values ought to prevail over others and ought to be adopted by the city. Those who have values that differ from his are clearly disdained. So he's not even telling us the truth.)
While I respect the religious freedom of the NDO opponents to discriminate in their homes, churches, and small private clubs, one set of religious/ethical values should not trump others in the public square. (Whoa, I need to get my head to stop spinning. Having spent the bulk of his editorial explaining why some religious values need to be violated in favor of upholding others, the rabbi now informs us that inferior values cannot be expressed in businesses but can be in other venues. Wha?
Why is it ok to do the eeeevil things he decries in "small private clubs," but not in large ones? Why should a homeowner be allowed to not hire a gay nanny? Why should the public expression of religion by legislated, but not religious expression when contained in church? Indeed, why should discrimination be allowed anywhere?
But the real question is, how long will discrimination be allowed in the venues he currently is excepting? Really, is there anything to suggest that the LGBT lobby has ever been satisfied with their gains? Does anyone really think that they'll stop here?)
The testimony at recent City Commission meetings disclosed stories of GLBT residents who have been injured by the judgments of some who claim to know God’s will. (Here come the sob stories.)
I was touched by the testimony of Rev. Greg Smith, a gay minister and mental health counselor, who as a teenager attempted suicide because he had experienced the discrimination the NDO opponents seek to perpetuate. (Not to impugn the integrity of the Reverend, but why should we trust his motivation, recollection, or his presentation of what actually happened to him? Why does he have automatic veracity?)
I recalled my mother’s story, who as a teen was scarred by signs on Miami hotels saying, “No Jews or Dogs Allowed,” signs put there in the name of religious freedom. (Another clever twist of phrase. There is no evidence that these signs were put there in the name of religious freedom. I frankly doubt they were, and in fact this assertion doesn't even really pass the smell test.
And we cannot ignore the rabbi's attempt to associate the persecution and deaths of millions of Jews with a group of people who identify themselves primarily by whom they have sex with. This of course is absurd.)
The businessmen who refused to serve African-Americans in the 1960s also did so under the banner of freedom. (No they did not. There is no principle of freedom involved here. In fact, it was the law that forced businesses to do these things whether they wanted to or not. And once again we have the rabbi attempting to associate LGBTs with horrible persecution, this time of blacks.)
Ecclesiastes reminds us that “there is nothing new under the sun;” so there will always be some who claim that their “freedom” entitles them to efface human dignity and injure others. (He has yet to offer evidence of this ever happening in the name of "freedom." Total nonsense.) True religious freedom, however, is tied to courage and responsibility.
Some say Bozeman doesn’t need an NDO because we don’t have discrimination here. After hearing the insistence of some on the “freedom” to discriminate, I am more convinced than ever that we need an NDO. (Having successfully misframed the issue as the "freedom" to discriminate, he now leaps to the next non-sequitur, that the law will in fact somehow eradicate discrimination. He has not established any of this.)
Bozeman values diversity and tolerance, (Bozeman does no such thing. Bozeman is not a person with values. People have values, and people value a variety of things. There is no entity called Bozeman with uniform views, morals, or preferences. The rabbi once again is attempting to establish a false consensus, an "us vs. them," where "us" is much more caring and reasonable than "them" evil and misguided religionists who supposeldy believe in a the right to discriminate. See how the technique works?)
and we should be proud to openly declare these as our values. (Once again, his superior values.)
The failure to do so would send the wrong message. Five years ago, a few neo-Nazis protested here and more than 1,000 marched in response, bearing signs that read “Hate-Free Bozeman.” This year, the Westboro Baptist Church came with their message of intolerance, and hundreds turned out to celebrate diversity and tolerance. (Did the city pass a law about either of these events?)
It is not only great skiing that makes Bozeman a great place to live, but it is the core values we overwhelmingly embrace, in support of human dignity, diversity, and justice. (There's that false consensus of "we." "We" simply means government, which the rabbi wants to enforce his particular version of values.)
My greatest hope is that nobody will ever use the Bozeman NDO. (Why?) It will then have served its purpose by deterring bad conduct. (Actually, by coercing people into silence and submission to his values. But you can be sure that the law will not modify a single heart.)
More important, it will put Bozeman on record as a city where we value diversity and justice for all. (This is telling. Really, we don't know if there is a problem as he describes it. The real reason this is being advocated is symbolism. We can all join together as this great multitude of peace-loving utopians because we have done this great and noble thing.
Yes, we have passed a law that prevents people from disagreeing with us. Soon we will be able to march into peoples' living rooms looking for unapproved materials. There will come a day that churches will have to submit sermon material to the government for approval. Take heart, comrades! the glorious days of tolerance and love will soon be upon us!)
Ed Stafman is the rabbi at Congregation Beth Shalom in Bozeman.
No comments:
Post a Comment