Then there are the concepts of people wanting to have sex without babies (abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc), and others wanting babies without sex (IVF), and then are people who are having sex with no chance of ever having babies (homosexuals). It seems that the folks who are having sex in order to have children are looked at as the bizarre oddity circus freak nowadays.
And then we come to religion. Some want to eliminate it entirely from the public square. And by "it", I mean Christianity. There have been lawsuits to have the words "under God" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. No crosses in cemeteries on federal land. Take "In God we trust" off of our currency.
But the culture, being crazy and schizophrenic, is also demanding the right to express religious beliefs (as long as it's not Christianity, of course). Since the beginning of November, there have been several stories where religious beliefs have made the news. You've got the story of the Massachusetts man who was fired because he told a fellow employee (who didn't work with him, but was visiting from another location) he thought her upcoming same-sex marriage was wrong. He said she was hounding him throughout the day about her so-called marriage, practically goading him into a response, and when he finally did respond, she filed a harassment suit.
Then there was the story from the Telegraph UK, where a man's climate change beliefs was afforded 'religious belief' legal standing from a judge. The man claimed he was fired because of his environmentalist beliefs. Actually, this might be a good thing, because if global warming is legally treated as a religion, then it cannot be science - scientists, atheists and the like always tell us that religion and science are incompatible. So, thanks judge!
And finally, there's this story from today's Telegraph.uk.co: Police Worker Fired for Backing Psychic Investigations, Claims Religious Discrimination.
Alan Power, who has been a member of a Spiritualist church for 30 years, argues that his belief in the power of mediums should be placed on a par with more mainstream religious and philosophical convictions.
He has already secured a legal ruling that his principles are covered by laws designed to prevent religious discrimination in the workplace, and is now seeking to prove that they were the reason for his dismissal.
Mr Power's case follows a landmark ruling last month that environmental views should be considered equivalent to religious and philosophical beliefs, following a legal challenge by a green executive at a property firm.
At a tribunal in London, Mr Power will claim that Greater Manchester Police broke the law by sacking him for believing that mediums should be consulted in criminal investigations.
In an initial judgement seen by The Independent, Judge Peter Russell said that the case had merit because his Spiritualist views "have sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance" to be covered by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
The judge wrote: "I am satisfied that the claimant's beliefs that there is life after death and that the dead can be contacted through mediums are worthy of respect in a democratic society."
While I agree that a person's beliefs ought to be respected, and that discrimination ought to be discouraged, at what point does this become even sillier than it is now? If all religious beliefs have equal standing before the law, then what happens when one person's religious beliefs come in conflict with another person's? Which gets preference? (The Massachusetts story pretty much answers that). And what happens when one's beliefs come into conflict with the law? What then?
Of course, if someone's religious beliefs call for the murder of innocent people, and they act on it, there is a legal structure and precedent. For instance, Nidal Hasan should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if he claims his religious beliefs were the motivation for the shootings. IMO, he should be executed as a war criminal, but that's beside the point. Similarly, bigamy laws supercede Mormon teaching of permitting multiple wives.
So evidently, these rulings seem to be limited to just the workplace. But is the law being equally applied? In England, there were several stories over the past year of a couple nurses getting fired or suspended for asking patients if they would like to pray together. Were they reinstated? Were they allowed to return to work? I don't know.
One of my customers has a significant number of Muslim employees. They have designated several spots in their building as prayer rooms. They installed special foot washing stations in the rest rooms. That's all well and good - so how about a chapel for the Christians?
What if a person's beliefs requires the sacrifice of a chicken at noon on the third Wednesday of each month? Who's to say that isn't a valid religious belief? Would an employer be expected to fulfill that request so as to avoid a religious discrimination suit?
If Christians are expected to check their beliefs at the door when they show up for work, then so should everyone else. The psychic cop can summon the dead on his own time. The True Green Believer can impose his environmental tenets on his family, but leave them out of the office. The lady 'marrying' her girlfriend? She should keep it to herself - religion is supposed to be private and personal, right?
These stories are just the latest examples of attitudes towards "Christian privilege". Believers in Christ have been at the top long enough - we've had all the advantages, the preferential treatment, the best seats in the house. Apparently, it's time for us to be brought down to size. Christianity is no better than any other belief system, I guess. Raelians, environmentalists, psychics - shoot, they're all equal, right? Living in a pluralistic society must mean that every belief system must be accepted...except for Christianity. Like GK Chesterton once said: "These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own."
Well, when these fringe beliefs and superstitious fads start setting up hospitals, opening schools for underprivileged children, when they send missionaries to the indigent, when they perform selfless acts of charity to the poor, when they display a consistent ethic of defending life, when they stand up to evil, when they save an entire civilization, perhaps they'll have some merit. But until then, their "religious beliefs" betray an immaturity that demands acceptance from all, and shows none towards all.
