You Yell Shark

I can't help it. Guess I had another blog in me concerning the religious freedom anti-gay discrimination debate. I kind of get fired up about deliberate misrepresentations. It isn't just the lack of honesty, it's the total lack of justice. It's a lack of fair play, it's cheating. I just can't stand cheating. Winners never cheat and cheaters never win.  Not to mention the bully tactics that are being employed. 

"I don't think you appreciate the gut reaction people have to these things, Martin, It's all psychological. You yell 'Barracuda,' everybody says 'Huh? What?" You yell 'Shark' we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July." Jaws 1975

You yell "stop religious freedom" nobody is going to listen to you. You yell "anti-gay discrimination" and you've got yourself a panic on the Fourth of July...or at least a bandwagon that everybody is going to jump onto without question. It's the gut reaction that you're looking for and a psychological head game. Only this time it isn't a shark, it isn't a barracuda, it's just a cardboard fin. And because we are so busy chasing down the cardboard fin, we totally are not paying attention to the real shark chewing off legs over in the pond. The use of anti-gay discrimination in this context is a cardboard fin. A sham shark. 

The sham argument in logic is called a Straw Man. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores the actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. It goes exactly like this: 

"We want to make a law to protect religious freedom."

"Why would you want to discriminate against gays like that." 

What they do is attempt to rebuild a misrepresentation of your position out of straw so that it will be easier to knock down.They then attack that version rather than the actual position.  In this case people have simply ignored the actual law and its purpose and have substituted a distorted. exaggerated misrepresentation of that law. You aren't going to be able to dispute religious freedom unless you want to take on the Bill of Rights and what this country was founded on. Instead you distort, exaggerate and misrepresent a connection and association with discrimination. Then you yell shark and watch the panic ensue. Except that it's a man made of straw. A fin made of cardboard. The problem with this is that for a straw man to be successful, for a cardboard fin to cause hysteria it requires, in fact it is betting on, that the audience is ignorant and uninformed. Further investigation eventually exposes that man of straw, that cardboard fin for what it is, 

The hysteria is not confined to discrimination alone. In one of the discussions I had recently the possibility of "religious groups" forming to circumvent the law was presented. As well as ISIS being able to get a foothold in Indiana under religious exemptions. This law according to their argument would result in absolute anarchy in the state of Indiana. There's more than corn in Indiana, I guess, but those arguments are nothing but corn. It does go to show how far people are willing to go to convince us that cardboard fin is really a shark. Have false "religious groups" formed in other RFRA states to circumvent the law? Does ISIS have a foothold in all of the other RFRA states? Anarchy, however, is what we are seeing right now in which mob rule and bully tactics are attempting to regulate society.

This law upholds and protects not one but two of our essential rights. The right to religious freedom and the right to petition for the redress of grievances. Religious freedom is one of the basic rights that our country upholds. It is in fact a pillar that supports all of society. Each and every freedom in the Bill of Rights is in fact endangered by this mob rule. Freedom of speech has been curtailed often labeled as aggression and hateful. When freedom of speech falls freedom of the press falls with it. We cannot always peaceably assemble, ask those who have been arrested for peaceably assembling outside of an abortion clinic. And with the protests of this law the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances is also in question. When these pillars fall other rights and freedoms will domino as well. Soon the very protections against discrimination that the LGBT community seeks will fall. For there will be no conscience to desire it, no voice to insist on it, no petition to ask for it and no assemblies to stand for it.  In point of fact the very methods that are being used to force a protection from discrimination are instead the very things that will guarantee that such protections no longer exist. It is called biting off your nose to spite your face. Or letting the real shark in the pond devour you limb from limb as you call attention to the cardboard fin.

The fact is this is going to blow over. People are going to do business with Indiana for the same bottom line reasons they did business with them before. All the twitter conversations will move on to the next cause celebre. The dust will settle. At that time the truth will emerge as people see that the RFRA did not bring about all of the dire things they predicted. The thing is, like the boy who cried wolf you lose credibility and sooner or later people no longer listen. Same thing when you yell shark and it's only a cardboard fin. And each time you create a public hysteria and the public finds out there really was nothing to be hysterical about you lose their trust. When you cheat after awhile nobody roots for you. In the end, when the dust settles, people will see the reality of the bullies and the cheats who were willing to risk the rights of everyone else in their state, who were ready and willing to encourage the financial ruin of their state to accomplish their ends. Who were willing to allow the shark to devour us all. They may have, in fact, "jumped the shark" with this one revealing a desperate attempt to gain support for what is not viable. The thing about jumping the shark is that it usually signals the beginning of the end.

The LGBT community wants to become a protected class. It can't be done this way. It can't come through a cheat that endangers the very protections that they seek. It can't be done by becoming a bully and forcing their protection by the loss of other protections. Sowing anarchy will not reap a protected society.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. Gal 6:7

When they sow the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind, Hosea 8:7 

He who upsets his household inherits the wind Pr. 22:29

The use of these methods can bring nothing but destruction and an empty inheritance. When you deliberately yell shark to gain attention, to get the gut reaction and the psychological advantage you will, indeed, create a panic on the Fourth of July. But when that shark is only a cardboard fin sooner or later that is going to reveal itself. And sooner or later everyone will realize that by doing so you left us all totally unprotected from the real shark in the pond.

Hatin' In Indiana

I know that I wrote about this yesterday but I have continued to watch the public reactions, the petitions, the tweets and comments from celebrities. I am wondering how many people actually read the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act or how many just followed a headline like a lemming off a cliff? How many people let the spin just spin their head right round and out of control?

I do know that there are about 85,000 people who have put their names to a petition to recall the governor without bothering to find out that you can’t recall the governor in Indiana. Without finding out, as well, that even if you could you would probably have to have physical petitions with physical signatures to do so. I guess it doesn’t matter how ignorant you may look when you are letting the world know how upset you are

Ashton Kutcher, Reggie Miller, Miley Cyrus, Montel Williams et al did you actually read the darn thing or did you just jump on a band wagon because there was one? Hillary Clinton definitely should know better. But then twitter is not known for being a platform for the most astute and intelligent members of our society.

This is absolutely nothing in that law that gives the slightest indication that religious freedoms can be used as an excuse to discriminate. There is also nothing in that law to indicate that religious freedom was to be given a place of such absolute primacy that it trumped the rights of others.

But there were the headlines that said the bill was “anti-gay”. Rather than being outraged at such biased and manipulative duplicity, many will not even bother to learn the truth. Some will even remain deliberately ignorant. 

"I just can't account for the hostility that's been directed at our state." said Governor Pence. "I've been taken a back by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill"

So who’s hatin’ who here.

Who has gathered the virtual lynch mob? Who has whipped up the emotions of others with misinformation and why would they want to?

"Despite the irresponsible headlines that have appeared in the national media, this law is not about discrimination," said Governor Pence, "If it was, I would have vetoed it."

People of religion have many more concerns than whether or not we don’t want to sell cookies to somebody.  That is an extremely simplistic evaluation of why we might want religious freedom to be protected. And quite frankly, it is the least of our worries. Regardless of rhetoric and reports nobody was wishin' and hopin' and waitin' for the day they passed a law that would give them a blank check for discrimination. It is a ridiculous notion unworthy of intelligent consideration.

As I read many of the articles, commentaries and comments I came across this phrase describing the RFRA “it will keep the government from compelling people to provide services they find objectionable on religious grounds.”  There it was, the word compel.  To force, induce, require, coerce, twist someone’s arm, to bring about by the use of force or pressure. It will keep the government from forcing people. This is not about discrimination. It is not about wedding cakes and photographers. It is about force. It is being afraid that when religious freedoms are protected they have somehow lost an ability to take by force.

They are afraid that they may have lost the ability to force the removal of religious symbols from memorials. They are afraid that they have lost the ability to force the removal of any kind of public prayer. They are afraid they have lost the ability to force compliance to abortion. They are afraid they have lost the ability to force the silencing of conscience. They are afraid they may have lost the ability to force the removal of religious influence of any kind. They are afraid they have lost the ability to act out their own religious prejudices by force.

So they created a boogie man of discrimination to hide behind. And people who never bother to seek the truth blindly fell in line.

I ask again. Who is hatin’ on who here?

Some food for thought. For what it’s worth

19th Nervous Breakdown

You better stop, look around,

Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes

Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown

This song, of course, is the Rolling Stones from 1966. It is the song that keeps coming to my mind when reading the utter insanity that has surrounded the Religious Freedom bill that was signed into law by Governor Mike Pence of Indiana today. It seems that the LGBT community and those who support them are seeing this as putting them under the thumb of discrimination. It seems that they are afraid that this opens the door wide so that they can't get no satisfaction from certain businesses and will be told you can't always get what you want. They are certainly trying to paint it black as they can. It also seems that very soon we can expect to see signs, signs everywhere are signs blocking out the scenery and breakin' our minds and denying services to those in the LGBT community.

Forgive my cheekiness but I tend to get that way when it seems to me that things may be being blown out of proportion just a tad. Let's take a few deep breaths here. simmer down a bit. I very much doubt the dire predictions will come to pass. Why? Because protecting citizens from the type of discrimination that is being described is of compelling interest to the State. Furtherance of compelling governmental interest is a criteria that has been written into this law. There are about 30 other states that have enacted freedom of religion protections. A majority of the country by the way. Can anyone give me instances and statistics that what people fear has happened in any of those other states? Or that they have happened at a Federal level in the 20 years since the Federal RFRA was put into place? Can you give me the statistics of the loss of revenue and jobs because businesses have pulled out in protest?  Can you show me the evidence of an onslaught of LGBT discrimination from businesses as a direct result of similar laws in the other states? Can you show the pictures of the signs that went up in shop windows? I think not. Because if people could have shown that evidence they would have. Instead they are merely trying to shout this law down with opinion and fear. Religious freedom laws have not legitimized discrimination nor undermined discrimination laws in other states that have enacted an RFRA.

There was a petition circulating that calls for a recall vote to unseat Governor Pence. The problem is that Indiana does not have a statute providing for the recall of a state official. So it won't really matter how many names are on that petition it won't be able to make a difference. There is, however, another petition circulating in an attempt to institute such a statute. Time is on my side for Mike Pence however. Such a statute would require an amendment to the state constitution. This would require that the law go before two General Assemblies over two years. It is too late for this year's General Assembly which means that the law would have to go before the assemblies of 2016 and 2017. If passed it would go before the voters on the ballot in 2018 and would become law in 2019. You would then have to organize the recall vote. If Mike Pence were re-elected in the next election he would be leaving office after the two term limit in 2020. Which is just about the same time you would be able to unseat him through a recall if the amendment passed. Give or take a few months. But even after all of that we would still have the RFRA.

Opinions are being expressed that this law was totally unnecessary and therefore mainly an in your face power play after recent political losses concerning same-sex marriage. Many find it redundant to protect religious freedoms at the state level when the First Amendment already protects it and a federal RFRA is already in place. The necessity of freedom of religion protections go much further than the fact that some people don't like that two people of the same sex have decided to let's spend the night together. There was a time that freedom of religion would have been assumed due to the First Amendment. Over the past 50 years or so many of those freedoms have been slowly eroded and are no longer assumed. Freedom of religion has been reduced to the right to private practice of religion and the right to worship. Basically, you have a right to practice your religion and to worship but keep it to yourself and we can all get along. Public expressions or exercise of religious freedom are bit by bit being eliminated in a misinterpretation and misapplication of separation of church and state. Even freedom of speech rights are being eroded for the religious. To express a religious opinion, no matter how mildly or reasonably, can often be socially categorized as a hate crime. Many have said that it has always been legal to practice your religion in the United States. This narrow view of private practice vs a wider view of public expression and exercise is one of the reasons such laws have become necessary. As well as certain laws being enacted or that could be enacted that would force someone to actively participate in what is contrary to their religious beliefs. The federal RFRA only applies to actions of the federal government and does not cover the actions of state governments. This bill establishes a general legal standard on the state level for evaluating laws and governmental practices that may impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. The state must meet the "compelling interest" test in imposing burdens on the exercise of religion. Those who claim religious exemptions are also ensured the right to their day in court to establish that there is a reasonable basis for that exemption. It does not guarantee that they would win that day in court, however. Only that they have the right to say hey, you, get off of my cloud and have the opportunity to establish the reasonableness of that claim.

You shouldn't be able to discriminate. You also shouldn't be able to force someone to go against their beliefs. Nor should we want to. A business cannot refuse to serve you because of your sexual status. They can however, determine the content of their products and they might be able to refuse to participate in events that are contrary to their religious views. As long as they do not pick and choose, or target one group over another this is not discrimination. In other words, a bakery cannot put up a sign that says they will not serve LGBT people. Anyone can get their donuts, bread, cupcakes, etc and birthday cakes for their child's birthday. But the bakery might refuse to make cakes that depict something contrary to their religion. They also may be able to refuse events that are contrary to their religion. If they refuse a same sex wedding because of religious objections but they also refuse a sister wives wedding, refuse sympathy for the devil at a Satanic Temple event, refuse to cater the pro-choice rally etc. their actions in refusing a LGBT event might not be considered discrimination. They can demonstrate a consistent overall policy of maintaining religious convictions that does not target one group exclusively. By the same token a LGBT person who owns a small t-shirt business can refuse to print t-shirts that say marriage is one man one woman for a local church because the content goes against their beliefs. Or they could refuse to do the printing for a local anti-LGBT rally. Unless we are saying that they should be forced to print those t-shirts or risk being sued or fined right out of business? Would we be able to claim a religious discrimination? In this case all would say that they were only upholding their individual rights and beliefs. But when Christians do it we call it discrimination. When PETA won't hire someone as their spokesman because they privately wear fur coats, eat hamburgers and keep animals in cages we don't see anything wrong with it. PETA has a right to expect that their members and employees do not act contrary to their beliefs. But let that happen at a church concerning a question of a moral nature and all of a sudden the standard is different.

Indiana signed into law a reaffirmation of the protection of a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. You have to wonder what is going on in this country when protecting the First Amendment causes a 19th nervous breakdown. When upholding that freedom is met with frenzied, frantic, hysteria, dire predictions and deliberate associations of religion with discrimination. Without reason or reasonableness strident voices that have been easily triggered into reactionary outrage and emotion, following a lead of panic and fear are protesting the protection of a First Amendment right. Do we hear ourselves right now? Gimme Shelter.

That's my opinion. For what it's worth.


19th Nervous Breakdown,The Rolling Stones 1966
Under My Thumb, The Rolling Stones 1966
Satisfaction, The Rolling Stones 1965
You Can't Always Get What You Want, The Rolling Stones 1969
Paint It Black, The Rolling Stones 1966
Signs, Five Man Electrical Band 1970
Time Is On My Side, The Rolling Stones 1964
Let's Spend The Night Together, The Rolling Stones 1967
Get Off Of My Cloud, The Rolling Stones 1967
Sympathy For the Devil, The Rolling Stones 1968
Gimme Shelter, The Rolling Stones 1969