Social Cleansing

“If you require force to promote your ideal, there is something wrong with your ideal.”

J.S.B. Morse

What delusion of religion finds value in the forcible conversion of it’s conquered foes under threat of death? What system of morality sees virtue in the gruesome destruction of any with whom they disagree? What bankruptcy of reason requires promises of murder, pillage, and imprisonment to win its converts; or to cleanse the land of those who disagree? It has unfortunately become the way of the world to find satisfaction in coercion instead of convincing, subjection rather than proselytism, and conquest over conversation. Think like we do, or die.

Indiana recently started a firestorm of controversy in passing a law ostensibly reaffirming religious liberty. The law, which mirrors both federal law and similar laws in several other states, would have been generally innocuous in actual practice, but was interpreted as an affront to gay rights activists as enabling merchants to withhold services from populations the activists advocate for. Joined by pandering politicians, the protest ironically condemned the withholding of commerce from those with whom you disagree, by withholding commerce from those with whom they disagreed, and from several million other private citizens who were unfortunate enough to live in the offending state; collateral damage.

Commerce at it’s heart should be generally free of moral judgements; after all, eliminating major portions of your potential market would seem to be bad for business. If Christians refuse to sell to sinners, they restrict themselves to an impossibly small niche. Just the same, there are probably times in many businesses where a request goes beyond what is normal commerce and is a violation of conscience. In discussions so charged with emotion, it is good to shift the focus to parallel situations so as not to be blinded by our bias. If a Mormon carpenter is asked to build a set of stairs for someone who he knows drinks alcohol, it would seem unreasonable for him to decline on the basis of this potential customer’s perceived sin. If he is asked to build a bar in his basement, one might be more understanding if he refused. Further, if the request was for the carpenter to build a nightclub, with bar, stripper poles, and rooms for private lap dances… well, one can understand how participation in that would offend his Mormon faith. But let’s remove the religious component. What if a conservative republican asked his liberal neighbor, a sign maker, to make him some signs for his garage sale. What moral basis would he have to withhold such a service from his neighbor with whom he disagrees? But if that same neighbor decided to run for congress, one could more easily understand why his neighbor might choose to steer him elsewhere for his campaign signs. And if the neighbor required a banner that condemned heartfelt political convictions of the liberal sign maker, who would deny him the right to decline?

A few isolated merchants who elect not to participate in what they consider a desecration does not come near to equating to the pervasive discrimination blacks faced before the civil rights movement. If I wanted a bar built, I would probably not even ask the Mormon carpenter, though I disagree with his stance on alcohol. If I needed a Tea-Party banner, I would likely not seek out the liberal sign maker, though I object to his left leaning ideology; there are plenty of other sign makers. But then, I’m not looking to start a war. Most of the controversial cases we have heard about are the result of businesses being sought out to start a fight. The Memories Pizza shop that was the center of controversy in Indiana, or the Liberty Ridge Farms locally were both Christian organizations that voiced reticence to participate in weddings that violated their religious beliefs. It strains credibility to suppose that they were not intentionally chosen as targets. Christians make great targets; what with that whole “turning the other cheek” thing for the strong ones, and “turning the other direction” for the weak ones. Notice few activists seem to target Muslim businesses for boycott or criticism. They don’t want that war.

It is the wont of progressives to declare victory when the debate has only begun. They prefer a soliloquy to a conversation, spouting off to discourse; they are all for the sharing of ideas, as long as it is their ideas. To silence opponents with reasoned argument is to them no better than to silence them with ridicule; the important thing is that they are silenced. Culture to them is a war, and in war you don’t coexist with your enemy, you destroy them; you don’t listen to them, you kill them without concern or mercy. And because they don’t listen, they don’t know us. They suppose us to be something we are not. They believe their opposition to be few, when they are many. They point to the bigots and fools to discredit the thinkers and the devout. There is no consensus yet on this subject, and reason has unfortunately taken a back seat to bomb throwers. We have FaceBook campaigns to punish an entire state because some disagree with possible ramifications of a law. We have governors of other states (some even with similar laws!) starting commerce wars with other states. We have companies like Angie’s List pulling out of plans to expand in Indiana, and religious groups declaring war on Angie’s List to retaliate. We have a pizza shop shut down over a hypothetical gay wedding, that they hypothetically would refrain from catering, though the pizza shop actually doesn’t cater any weddings. They received so many harassing phone calls and threats of violence (a high school teacher even tweeted that she was looking for help to burn the place down), that they could no longer stay open for business. Then, on the other side, supporters almost made the pizza shop owners millionaires overnight in a funding campaign that raised over $800,000. This is not consensus.

IMHO: Using your religion as a hammer to punish sinners hardly seems to be what Jesus would do, he who consorted with harlots and tax collectors. In our businesses we should do our best to serve all without discrimination, and to reach out even to those we have serious disagreements with. Divisions are only exacerbated when we attempt to force people to agree with us by use of boycotts, withholding services, or other coercive tactics. Too often, we give up hope for our fellow citizens, pronounce them cretins, and declare war on them. But war is seldom the path to peace, and we are fast becoming a nation of battling factions. It tears us apart. Instead of a nation of diverse brethren who can agree to disagree, we are compelled to change what we believe under threat of force.

Indiana’s law has been effectively gutted, and Arkansas has pretty much followed suit. The boycotts, the shaming, and the threats have been successful. No hearts or minds have been changed, any more than ISIS has changed anyone’s religion. They acquiesce to your demands because they fear you, because you forced them to. Maybe that’s enough for you. There’s something wrong with that.