Religious Freedom for Devout Evangelicals Only

Religious Freedom for the Most Vulnerable Devout Evangelicals

I’m a concerned American citizen, fearing my future. The looming possibility of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz being President is one, but the most important affects me greatly as a person having a right to liberty—my freedom.

hqdefaultI wrote about Freedom of Religion a few posts ago, and there are more cries for such freedom. The mass media and social media exclaim “religious freedom,” but the anger is felt from those claims rather than understanding its history and definition.

Is it a person’s right to believe in any religion without discrimination, or is religious freedom a fear mongering tactic enabling a certain religion to force their beliefs freely unto others? Google I went, and followed the trail to find an answer. I’m still confused.

The Office of International Religious Freedom (OIRF), within the US Department of State, “has the mission of promoting religious freedom as a core objective of U.S. foreign policy.” So, protecting religious freedom is the core for US foreign policy? What about solely for the US? The OIRF suggests policing the world. Damn.

The current International Religious Freedom Report is 2014.

The following quote is huge, but it is my duty pointing out specifics and not cherry pick for my own good. In short, the United States’ report focuses on countries other than its own. Except for announcing:

Freedom of religion is a first of many inalienable rights enshrined in the U.S Constitution and other laws. We believe freedom of religion is a universal right that governments should neither be able to grant nor withhold. The United States strongly believes that protecting freedom of religion promotes mutual respect and pluralism, and is essential to human dignity, robust civil society, and political and economic development. Around the world, we focus on concrete, positive steps to support government and civil society groups in combatting religious intolerance and promoting respect for religious freedom for all.

The last sentence is my claim for blatant disregard the US Government has on its own country. I’ve yet disclosed the big quote. Here it is (emphasis added):

Governments have the obligation to protect the human rights of all their citizens and should promote an environment of tolerance and non-discrimination. In both principle and action, where people are endangered, threatened, or face discrimination, it is the responsibility of governments to safeguard universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to life and the freedom of conscience, belief, practice, worship, and to explain and change one’s faith. The right to freedom of religion is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in states’ own domestic laws. When governments fail to respect those laws, obligations and standards, whether by deed or inaction, they legitimize and facilitate non-state actors who persecute and discriminate against members of vulnerable religious communities, nurture an environment of intolerance, and weaken the ties that support peaceful and resilient societies.

5947521_origAgain, this from a 2014 report, and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was created in 1957. The US overcame segregation among blacks and whites. Before the long segregation, all women fought for suffrage—a right to vote in elections. Before women in 1920, black men were honored among white men to vote in 1869. Slavery was abolished in 1865.

After blacks were “accepted” into America’s liberties, a new demon paused progression for inalienable rights: gays. You can choose reading this link, or continue on with my short synopsis. (Yes, it is Wikipedia, but I checked the sources for accuracy.)

World War II proved the world how evil one person as dictator can influence hate and initiate genocide. America rattled to restore order in view of the fact of genocide towards Judaism. Then came the Korean War—communism on the rise—stretching fear from WWII. During this time, Senator Joseph McCarthy created bounty hunters for potential communists. McCarthyism spread to many other groups—gays being one of them.

stonewallii
The bearded man is not Fidel Castro.

The 1969 Stonewall Inn was a battled riot between gays drinking in an established bar and the New York City Police’s invasion of the Inn to arrest them . . . because they were gay. The 1960s and 1970s emboldened many activist groups (right to marry between races, civil rights for blacks—still, anti-Vietnam war, the second feminist wave) which shared the same oppression as gays: having inalienable rights to liberty as an American citizen.

 

My intentional digression ends with the 1980s through today how lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBT) have yet received their right to liberty. The 2015 Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage was great, but “religious freedom” trumps all.

By now you should know the controversies with a few southern states deciding the same law North Carolina’s Governor, Pat McCrory signed in their House Bill 2 (HB2). Defenders of HB2 argue transgender women (men opting their physicality as women, and rightfully in doing so) would molest, sexually abuse, or rape women and girls in public bathrooms. This is absurd since such a crime has yet occurred.

Why the HB2? Did North Carolina lawmakers forget what happened in Indiana? Why the fear of something which never occurred? Could it be the longstanding molestation and sexual abuse towards children from Catholic priests? Nope, because priests are sacred beings and the current Pope failed his ardent rhetoric holding abusers accountable.

Calling a spade a spade.
It hurts, I know. Imagine how a gay person feels reading “God Hates Fags” on a devout Christian’s sign.

I’m guessing it’s the Evangelical’s fearing their God’s damnation upon them for letting LGBT people (Human Beings) have their rights too. I’m trying not to bash Christianity or any religion, but its obvious what is going on and very few are calling it like it is. Especially the Republicans and their followers demanding less politically correct speech.

C’mon! Call a spade a spade. (Note: calling a spade means calling a playing card having a spade on it a spade, and nothing implicating Hispanics. If you were thinking of the latter, then you really need to speak your mind for others explaining to you what hate feels like.)

North Carolina, a southern state, and priding itself on Christianity, passed a bill discriminating LGBT people over public bathroom usage . . . in “schools.” They included the right for corporations refusing business with people encompassing sins against the corporation’s religious rights. Services can be refused if a business chooses . . . to discriminate.

I believe I’ve defined “Religious Freedom,” but I must first explain a previous quote, “Governments have the obligation to protect the human rights of all their citizens and should promote an environment of tolerance and non-discrimination.” All and should differ in their relations towards an action. All citizens mandates no exclusion of any citizens. The governments having an obligation promoting a tolerant, non-discriminative environment does not necessarily require fruition. The proper tone would be “shall” based on “all” citizens protection of human rights.

 

An obligation is either a morally bound or legally bound action; therefore, the government bears the consequences of law versus morality. But morality based on a particular religion, or morality stating the right to life?

freedom-of-religion-meme-i0

 

How far off can “human rights” be from religious freedom? Does the American Government and its states dictate what is justifiable? According to the US Department of Justice, the Community Relations Service (CRS) is a “Peacemaker” concerned with allocutions for two parties or more regarding conflicts of human rights. (Skip the quote and link if I’ve kept your trust so far.)

The Community Relations Service is the Department’s “Peacemaker” for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and disability.  CRS is not an investigatory or prosecutorial agency, and it does not have any law enforcement authority.

Rather, the Agency works with all parties, including State and local units of government, private and public organizations, civil rights groups, and local community leaders, to uncover the underlying interests of all of those involved in the conflict and facilitates the development of viable, mutual understandings and solutions to the community’s challenges.  In addition, CRS assists communities in developing local mechanisms and community capacity to prevent tension and violent hate crimes from occurring in the future.  All CRS services are provided free of charge to the communities and are confidential.  CRS works in all 50 states and the U.S. territories, and in communities large and small, rural, urban and suburban.

The CRS does not provide legal intervention. “What [They] Do” is similar to a mediator for an intense divorce, between a man and woman. The upset you’ll experience while on the CRS website is not finding information on HB2. The Civil Rights Division shares the same neglect for “human rights.” The NC Attorney General, Roy Cooper, made his comments known to the public, sharing the same disbelief the LGBT community and many others who support them and human dignity.

So, what is religious freedom? North Carolina has yet provided logical reasoning for passing the HB2, and how it even came about. Who paid who for this bill’s genesis and fruition?

Religious freedom shall be the right for all citizens keeping their religion(s) solely inside the religious community for which they started from, and in their household, and other households consenting or mutually agreeing on a religion(s) for their faith alone, but never forced upon public and state’s affairs, policies, regulations, services, businesses, and laws. Also, churches, mosques, and other religious property shall pay property taxes.

I’m an atheist who does not discriminate anyone. I am fearing my future, because one state proved discriminatory action, much like Hitler’s, that is causing more harm to the majority than the few devout Christians. I am not comparing genocide with the HB2. I’m arguing the fear tactic used discriminating against a minority (LGBT humans). The next target will be me, an atheist. Shit.

dYujTcL
This is for people like Ted Cruz (Sen.) who desire no political correctness.

Posted by

I recently graduated Rutgers University at Camden, NJ with a Bachelor's in Philosophy and a minor in writing. I served 15 years in the United States Air Force, and now trying to figure out what to do with the rest of my life. Serving in two unjust wars kept me silent. I paint and write for mental stability. My dog's name is Socrates "Soc," who I rescued after getting out of the military. Drinking with Socrates is a concept for my mind and hands describing the world as I see it, and having a say in solving socio-economic problems, if at all possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s