You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
When a devout Muslim taxi driver refuses to take you where you want to go because you have luggage containing alcohol, the only appropriate response is, "shut up and drive."
Such a situation recently occurred at the Minneapolis International airport, with the driver transforming his cab into a mini-caliphate. Following this incident, in the same city, a Christian bus driver demanded that she only drive busses without ads for the GLBT magazine Lavender that read: "Unleash Your Inner Gay." Initially, the Metro Transit acquiesced to the absurd request, but soon reversed course and said that they were "not persuaded that advertising, per se, infringes on religious practices."
We have also seen busybody pharmacists who think they can interfere with the private doctor/patient relationship by refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions. These puffed-up pill dispensers call this a "conscience clause." Yet, no one forced these nosey nabobs to ingest the pills, thus not violating their personal beliefs.
The taxi driver, pharmacists and bus driver are essentially arguing that when in their presence, the public must submit to their beliefs. They also assert that their personal religious liberty is impinged upon if they cannot impose their will on others. This line of thinking is oppressive, incoherent and dangerous to the cohesion and unity of this nation.
Our duty as American citizens is to support the right for people to believe whatever they want. If they want to pray to aliens that is their right, just as it is the right of a person to have no belief at all. What these spiritual supremacists want to do, however, is go a step further and compel others to respect or give deference to their faith.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in America. Why am I obligated to become a temporary Muslim for the ten minutes it takes to drive me home? The ideas of "minding ones own business" and "live and let live" have served our country well. The further we get away from these enduring principles, the more strife and discontent we will confront.
Here's the deal: if a cabbie doesn't like booze, don’t drink. If a Christian fundamentalist doesn't want to drive a bus with gay ads, quit and drive a church bus. If a pharmacist has a problem with dispensing contraception or Plan B, don't use the products. If an Orthodox Jew doesn't like bacon, instead of seeking to close down the deli, order lox from the Kosher restaurant next door. If you are against gay marriage, don't have one.
If your beliefs are so austere and uncompromising that normal interaction with the public is considered a contaminant, then get a job with a religious institution. There are plenty of churches or mosques that need health providers or bus drivers. But don't expect the public to do flash conversions each time they need your services.
The long-term key to societal harmony is embracing the concept of "private faith," which allows an individual to pursue personal virtue, without forcing compulsory beliefs on others. Many of the world's most intractable problems stem directly from "communal faith," in which individual liberty is trampled in the name of cultural values that can only exist if propped up by a fist. This version of faith is coercive as it is corrosive, wickedly dangerous and always volatile to a nation's stability.
Communal faith breaks the social contract that binds us together and pits one group against another. It is anti-American and should not be confused with legitimate claims of religious liberty. If a person can pray where he wants and to whom he wants, than such theological freedom has been achieved. To move beyond this basic definition invites friction and even the calamitous wars that infect other parts of the world.
While those who subscribe to communal religion fancy themselves pious, they often strike me as having the least faith among us. Their belief systems appear so fragile that unless they create a monolithic universe of like-minded clones, their ideas crumble.
Common courtesy and respect for the beliefs of others does not require disrespecting our own beliefs and principles to make fanatics comfortable. If we shrink from our duty as Americans and appease zealots in busses and cabs, they may take us to our destination, but it will, in the end, put this nation way off course.
13 Comments:
Truly excellent analysis. I have noticed these things about the fundamentalist types as well. As much as they claim to be people of faith, their faith does indeed seem to quake and shiver rather easily, even when lightly challenged. And what kind of "faith" is shaken by an advertisement? This is about psychological DENIAL. Fundamentalists are often unable to face and deal with the real world as it actually exists apart from their religious fables. Hence, sticking ones head in the sand becomes par for the course.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/24/2006 4:29 PM
I fear it may already be too late to prevent religious tyranny from taking hold, Wayne. Religious Right Wing presidents, governors and legislators have been in control long enough to fill our nation's courts with their ideological flunkies. Some of these judges are just rubbing their hands together, waiting for incidents like the ones you described to be litigated. They'll twist the law into a pretzel ruling in favor of religious bigots. Sooner or later, we're going to see a rash of theocratic rulings land on the books, and some of them will come via the Supreme Court, courtesy of Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia. It's going to get worse before it gets better. Democrats may take Congress this November, but can they keep it? Will they act to stop the onslaught of "faith-based initiatives" or will they be too scared? What about "700 Club" Democrats? And what about all the Republican-dominated state legislatures?
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
10/24/2006 4:49 PM
Excellent, excellent! This article should be read and understood by everyone. Especially those who most need it (like the concept would actually sink in???)
posted by Anonymous, at
10/24/2006 4:52 PM
In NYC at least, the hack license (which grants entry into a legally restricted rate-regulated cartel) comes with the stipulation that you agree to take anyone anywhere in the five boroughs.
Pharmacists are also licensed members of a supply-restricted cartel. So the same argument applies.
The bus company was a public (i.e., government entity), and the driver was not discriminated against for being straight, but for being a bigot -- which is fine in my book.
Private businesses should certainly be able to express their views, as ignorant and hateful as they may be, as they see fit. The indignation of your three examples derives from the fact that they are NOT strictly private businesses.
I'm curious: Does your "shut up and drive" worldview extend to, say, pub owners and smoking bans -- "shut up and give me a beer"?
Or should owners of private property be allowed to use that property as they see fit, including as a tavern that permits smoking?
In any case, I try to avoid expressions like "the cohesion and unity of this nation." It's too close to the gobbledygook the social conservatives spew.
posted by KipEsquire, at
10/24/2006 4:53 PM
Until we invent a cigarette that does not kill the people surrounding the smoker, cigy bans are just fine. Your right to smoke ends where your smoke hits my nose.
Communal faith should not separate. If one is truly committed to faith - then we should be able to live in this world together without imposing our beliefs on someone else. Faith is a personal issue not one of condemnation, ridicule, social castration, or social systems.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/24/2006 6:01 PM
Totally agree with you, Wayne. Its bad enough that we have an oppressive government of our own that allows religious extremist views to influence the outcome of state and federal policy to deny us equality. Some of the damage is going to take decades to fix and if the democrats don't take it seriously, then we're in far deeper trouble than we think.
I think what is really interesting about the push for so-called "conscience clauses" is that they truly create a frightening slippery slope. According to this line of thinking, Catholic hospitals can refuse to recognize the otherwise legal marriages of adulterers - people like Newt Gingrich or Libby Dole or John Kerry, who have been remmaried after a civil divorce. In fact, since most "evangelical" religions are considered non-Christian cults by the Catholic Church, those same institutions could refuse to recognize the marriages and/or paternity of anyone who practices those beliefs (e.g., George Bush and his mudering concubine, Laura Welch).
Wonder how loudly the fundies would scream when that happened?
posted by Anonymous, at
10/25/2006 10:46 AM
There is a line that should not be crossed when it comes to religious liberties.
Look what we have here: -Evangelical pharmacists who refuse to fill out prescriptions for contraception and "AIDS cocktails".
-Muslim cabbies in the Twin Cities area who refuse to give service to those carrying booze.
-Also in the Twin Cities, a Christian bus driver refuses to drive buses with a certain ad for a gay magazine.
-Even though it's a private business, a Christian landscaping company in Houston refuses to serve gay clients. I predict they will lose business because of their bigotry.
What is next? -An "Islamic" terrorist would cite a violation of religious liberties because he was stopped by NSA personnel for attempting to bring explosives on an airplane.
-A fundamental Mormon polygamist who does the same thing when he was caught for having more than one wife?
The indignation of your three examples derives from the fact that they are NOT strictly private businesses.
I'm curious: Does your "shut up and drive" worldview extend to, say, pub owners and smoking bans -- "shut up and give me a beer"?
Or should owners of private property be allowed to use that property as they see fit, including as a tavern that permits smoking? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond. Taverns do not allow cigarette smoking because it is against public laws. If taverns were legally allowed to make their own policies concerning cigarette smoking - free from government intervention ! - then the argument from analogy that you attempted would have been applicable.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/26/2006 10:53 AM
Mr. Besen, That is one of the best articles that I have ever read in my entire life. Exceptional.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/26/2006 10:57 AM
There have also been incidents here in Minneapolis of Muslim cab drivers refusing to ferry gay customers and even kicking them out of their cab when the driver realizes that his passengers gay.
What gets me is that these people are so uncertain in their faith, that it seems any threat to it would bring it crashing down. It's the same logic as to why the biggest homophobes are often the most overcompensating closet cases. If you were confident in yourself and your beliefs, you would not feel the urge to force them upon others, but would be content to live your life minding your own business, content in your solid beliefs.
A final note: Lavendar Magazine is considering all possible options should their ads somehow end up pulled from Metro Transit buses. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a crime in Minnesota.
