I still have my Florida driver’s license. Upon arriving in Washington decades ago, I replaced my Florida driver’s license with a Washington one. They punched a hole in my old one to render it unofficial, but they allowed me to keep it. I tucked it away in some drawer in my office. Occasionally, when I dig into that drawer, I see it and marvel at my picture from the 1980s. I even look at some of the other details.
It explicitly lists a restriction for corrective lenses, which I’ve worn since my teens. It also displays a one-letter code for ‘race’. I still distinctly remember the conversation with the person from the department of licensing when I first got my license. I asked if I may list my race on my license. Their response, “You may, but it’s optional.” That one-letter code for me was O, for ‘Oriental’.
There’s enough discussion about that word that we frown upon it. I’ll go on the record that I don’t personally find that word offensive. If I hear the word, I’ll chalk it up to ignorance over malice. That said, culture changes, and you won’t even notice crossing a particular cultural threshold. For instance, can we remember when our fascination with reality television started?
Change is hard
I get it; I have pushed back on some cultural changes. Upon hearing the term ‘Indigenous Peoples Day’, I rolled my eyes. And then I listened, he committed many atrocities; this is the person we celebrate with a national holiday. These days, when I hear about a subtle new cultural change, I listen to its backstory. Resisting change simply for the sake of resisting change is asinine.
We’ve all heard the term ‘Woke’ used to refer to excessive political correctness. What do we have against Columbus Day after all? Do we want fewer holidays? However, I’ll ask you to read that article and ponder this question: Knowing everything that we know about Christopher Columbus today, do you think a person like that warrants a celebratory day? I doubt it.
As the years pass, we observe the culture subtly changing. I observe a young couple at our favorite Italian restaurant and can’t help but celebrate. Though what haunts me is that what I celebrate, others will curse and condemn, “These two young women don’t need to rub it in their faces”. The answer is clear; if the couple were straight, would anyone object to their ‘flaunting’ their heterosexuality? I doubt it.
Are we discriminating against Christians?
I got into a conversation where they alleged that our courts discriminated against Christians. At face value, it didn’t appear that way to me, but they mentioned a case involving Christian camps in Colorado. After a quick search, I found the reference. The Colorado Department of Early Childhood established a rule that all licensed camps must allow campers in attendance access to toilets, bathroom facilities, rooms, and other spaces that align with the person’s gender identity. In other words, transgender girls must be allowed in girls’ facilities. One camp objected and asked for an exception; when denied, they filed a lawsuit.
First, the text from the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Therefore, prohibiting this camp’s ability to practice their religion freely certainly qualifies, though that’s a gross oversimplification. Nonetheless, let’s run with that idea for a bit.
Here’s the interesting question: Does denying this camp amount to discrimination against Christians? Just so that we’re using the same terms and definitions, here’s the definition that fits the sentiment:
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, sex, age, or disability
In this case, that category of people is presumably Christian.
No, this country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles
I know some will assert that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, though they are mostly Christians. If we examine the intentions of the actual founders, they make a compelling case that the United States is a non-denominational state. The founders felt strongly enough about this that they penned the first sentence of the First Amendment as: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
I understand that Christians believe that their faith is the absolute truth. I respect that; this is precisely how one practices faith. However, every faith believes that they have magically unlocked the secrets of the universe. If we examine the distribution of religions by world population, even if you identify with the largest group (Christians at 28.8%), most of the world disagrees with you (71% or more).
Thus, when anyone asserts that our country was founded on their faith, they believe:
- Their group is smarter (or more enlightened) than most of the world population.
- Their group should get preferential treatment; they are exempt from that clause of the First Amendment.
My question to these people: How do you walk through doors with that ego?
The reason Christians lose more challenges to religious freedom
Culturally, our country has been steadily moving from laws established based on irrational truisms. We abolished laws against miscegenation. We established the right for gay couples to marry. It is unfair (and illegal) to keep laws on the books for the sake of ‘traditional values’.
Change is hard; I get it. However, you can’t ever improve something if you refuse to change it. Gay couples don’t want more rights than you; they want the same rights as you. While some changes may not sit well with you, they’re designed to maximize freedom and liberties for most people. Gay couples getting married does not minimize your marriage. Kim Davis denied a gay couple a marriage license and subsequently lost her challenge. She claimed that gay marriage violated her values.
There’s a simple reason why Christians lose more challenges to religious freedom. Christians disproportionately believe that their values outweigh the rights and freedoms of others. They do not feel compelled to follow the law if it doesn’t align with their ‘traditional values’, and more often than not, the courts disagree. Members of most other faiths abide by the rules.
Many faiths practice polygamy. They can legitimately claim that disallowing plural marriage impinges upon their practicing their faith. Want another corner case? Jews believe that the start of life is at birth. Why can’t they exercise their ‘religious freedom’ and get a third-trimester abortion? To them, it’s not life yet.
How far do we take religious freedom?
To answer this question, I’ll quote Spock from one Star Trek film, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” The country decided collectively that allowing gay marriage is the direction we’re heading. Kim Davis’s discomfort in issuing marriage licenses does not outweigh the couples’ right to get married.
Our country has seen many changes. There has been opposition to:
- The right for couples of different races to marry.
- The racial integration of schools and bathrooms.
- The legalization of gay marriage.
The citizens of Little Rock, AR, opposed the integration of schools so much that they called the National Guard to preserve the peace. I imagine that there are plenty of biblical references to rationalize any bigotry that would oppose those. However, would we oppose any of those today? The bible certainly hasn’t changed since the 1950s. If we opposed racially integrated bathrooms with a biblical rationalization back in the 1950s, shouldn’t we continue to oppose them today?
Let’s go back to the case of Christian camps and the requirement for them to honor the child’s gender identity. Do we think that the transgender child will sexually assault a cisgender child? Probably not. The rationalization often heard is that ‘my daughter is uncomfortable with a transgender girl in the same bathroom’. I won’t debate that.
However, just because she’s uncomfortable doesn’t mean that she’s in danger. At different points in history, she might’ve been uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a girl who was homosexual or black. While your daughter deserves a reasonable expectation of safety, they (the lesbian or black girls) do not implicitly pose a threat to her, so it is not sensible to segregate them. Similarly, that transgender girl does not implicitly pose a threat to your daughter.
Are Christians unjustly or prejudicially targeted?
To establish discrimination, you’ll need to demonstrate that Christians were unjustly or prejudicially targeted. While I understand that many have delusions of persecution, you can’t legitimately claim that unless there’s at least some evidence. To put it bluntly, there is no such evidence.
Allow me to frame it this way: if a Jewish camp had asked for an exemption based on ‘religious freedom’ to the very same rule, do we honestly believe that the government would’ve granted them the exception? What about a Muslim camp? Is there any reason to think that if any other religion had made the same request, they would’ve gotten the exception? Were they treated differently because they’re Christian? No.
Christians may not like that they have to, putting it bluntly, obey the law, but it doesn’t mean that there’s discrimination of any kind. The Colorado government also deserves a presumption of innocence, and there’s nothing that suggests that they behaved either unjustly or prejudicially against Christians specifically.
Note: Sadly, Colorado caved and gave this camp a religious exemption.