Discrimination and RFRAs

With all the discussion from all sides weighing in on Indiana's new "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" what people are missing is that in most of the United States it is not illegal to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. There are 19 state RFRAs as well as the federal version. All allow a person to ague in court that they should be exempt from a law if it conflicts with their religion; Indiana's law is different in that it allows a person to argue for a religious exemption in disputes between individuals.

Contrary to what most people believe, it is legal to discriminate in certain circumstances. For example, you can discriminate based on education. An employer may require that an applicant have a college degree. A radio station can require that their on-air personalities have a certain type of voice, some jobs need people who have certain physical characteristics. What is illegal is to discriminate based upon certain characteristics known as "protected classes". One example of a protected class is "race". Many people misunderstand the concept of protected class, thinking that blacks/African-Americans or any racial minority are a protected class. The "class" is not minority status or membership in any particular race, but the characteristic of race itself, i.e. you cannot discriminate based on race, no matter what the race. Other protected (from discrimination) classes are color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disability or veteran status. Notable in its absence is sexual orientation. In other words, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because they are gay (or, less likely, because they are straight). This is the hidden problem in some of our current debates: not marriage equality, but the elimination of legal cover for discrimination.

Morality - Part Six

In Parts One through Five I discussed my views of how morality evolved as society changed. How it was my thinking that morality was not a static list of do's and dont's, shalts and shalt-nots, but a growing, adaptive force that reflected what the greater society saw as beneficial for its continuance. This view is at variance with how many people look at morality: rules set down by a "higher power", a god whose proclamations are by definition moral. Despite the stated opinion that morality is god-derived, we have seen moral standards change in our lifetime. Legal racial discrimination, sexism and attitudes toward a variety of issues have slowly moved away from the prevailing morality of earlier generations. Holy books are interpreted differently, old assumptions are re-examined and we move on. What should morality be based on? Some might question the validity of situational ethics and moral relativism, but a morality based on something other than religious texts need not be immoral. Defining a moral/ethical system is not a simple or easy thing, but it should take into account an individual's right to follow the dictates of their own desires as well as society's need to be protected from unrestricted selfishness. To use a current example: does the fact that two people who happen to be of the same gender want to be married and enjoy the benefits of that state harm those who are married and of different genders? Does it harm the greater society? Other than deviating from the old order and contravening tradition as enshrined in "holy books" (or their interpretation) I would argue that no harm is done and that an extension of those benefits would be a moral thing to do.

The needs and desires of the indivual and the society must be balanced when determining the morality of a given action. And individuals are free to consider their religious traditions in their weighing of situations and actions; but society, and it's representative, government, must not be required to consider religion in the sphere of societal ethics.

Morality: Part Five - Specialization

When societies changed from a nomadic or hunter-gatherer phase to agricultural one, often with a pastoral intermediary step, human interaction, and therefore ethics, was bound to change. During a time when a clan group derived all of its needs by hunting animals for food, clothing and implements, supplementing their diet by harvesting wild plants, an ethical system whereby everyone had to pull their own weight would have prevailed. In addition to equal division of labor and intolerance of freeloaders, there could, by necessity, be no "free time". Defending against encroaching neighboring tribes with violence would be the rare diversion from the daily routine of staying alive. In such a society, everyone had to be more or less equal since it took everyone to supply the needs for everyone.

Domestication of animals and agriculture were two developments that led to specialization, i.e. the division of labor whereby not everyone was doing the same thing. These advances also made for more stable food sources. Taking care of the animals and working the fields were still pretty labor intensive, but the daily, 24 hour per day dedication to just staying alive was somewhat relived. Specialization was a natural outgrowth of these changes. Granted, in very small groups, everyone would still be involved in all aspects of living: farming, milking and slaughtering the animals, but in larger groups, even in small tribes or villages, it would become obvious that it was more efficient for different people or groups of people to take on certain tasks exclusively. What this leads to is different people in the group having different responsibilities, or jobs. Some people would be raising the crops, others perhaps baking the bread; niches for people who fashioned the tools of farming, hunting or building - carpenters or blacksmiths rose up. Of course there was still a place for the hunters, for the warriors; if the earlier version of society had religious rituals, the solitary shaman or wise woman might now give way to priests and temples and an ethic that the larger society should physically support the priests rose.

In some cultures this specialization evolved into a caste system, where everyone was required to follow the profession of their parents. Even in areas with no rigid caste framework, social mobility was very limited. Those in power always want to stay in power. And this is where you see a shift in how morality was defined: obedience became paramount, respect for authority, everyone knowing their place, the political leaders, the kings, became allied with the priests to provide divine justification for their continuance in power. The concept of kingship became more important than how well a king ruled. Obeying the rules became more important than the rules making sense. Morality became defined as "whatever the god said" (interpreted, of course, by the priests and enforced by the king). And despite many changes in society over the centuries, this is where morality still is for those who look to "scriptures" for their moral framework.

This is not to say that there is nothing moral in scriptures. Jesus said some cool stuff. There are some decent things in the Qur'an. The Hindu texts have some great things to say about duty. But to imbue writings from thousands of years ago, written in different times for different societies in wholly different situations where in many ways people were fundamentally different than they are today is to place an ethical straitjacket on our collective selves.

Excuses for Sexual Harassment

I thought of doing a blog post on sexism while listening to Lynsey Addario being interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air. Ms. Addario is a photographer who had been kidnapped while on assignment in Libya. While she was not raped while in captivity, she was subjected to multiple incidents of groping and other indignities of a sexual nature. To Terry Gross she related incidents of groping even in supposedly "safe" situations, like documenting protests. From what I have read about woman journalists covering the Arab Spring movements of a few years ago, this is not uncommon. Whenever I hear about incidents like these I recall a passage from Whirlwind by James Clavell about the early days of the Iranian Islamic revolution. The passage portrays Iranian men sexually harassing Western women as well as Iranian women in Western-style clothing, groping them and exposing themselves. The excuse given was that they viewed these women, by virtue of their "immodest" dress, as harlots and unworthy of the respect with which the Koran supposedly encourages men to accord women. It is therefore acceptable for these men to behave in this un-Muslim manner because the decorum and dress of these women unacceptably tempts these men.

Apologists for Islam and the more conservative versions that require women to be covered head-to-toe sometimes state that it is for the woman's protection, to guard her from easily tempted men, putting the onus back on the woman for a man's behavior if he is so tempted. I would be more sympathetic to this point of view if the men covered themselves as well.

Look at virtually every photo that came out of the so-called Arab Spring, or indeed any demonstration of any kind in the Middle East. Very seldom, perhaps never, do you see any women in the crowd. Where are the women? Usually confined to the home, unable to talk to anyone outside of the family without the permission of their husbands or fathers. Once again there is the rationale that women are to be protected. But protected from what? Apparently protected from the fathers, brothers and husbands of other women, locked into their homes. And what happens if one of these upstanding religious men rapes a woman who has wandered out of her home without permission? Is the man arrested and charged with rape? Does the father and brothers of the raped woman enact revenge against the rapist? Maybe; but in many situations what happens is that the woman is killed....by her own family!

I'm not a Muslim scholar. Many of you know that any phrase that begins with "I'm not a..." usually is followed by an opinion that one might surmise is the purview of someone who is what the speaker or writer claims he is not. Proceed at your own risk!  Like any religious text, the Koran/Qur'an is something that is interpreted. It is not a technical manual that clearly and unambiguously lays out rules and guidelines for life - just like any religious text. You will hear from self-proclaimed devout Muslims justifications for barbarity against women, as well as claims that women be set upon the metaphorical pedestal. One of the things that the Qur'an does say is that women (and men) should dress "modestly". Again, interpretation: some Muslims hold the interpretation that women must be covered head-to-toe with even the eyes covered with some gauze to allow (restricted) sight through the covering; others don't even require a head-scarf, but see "modesty" no differently than a nineteen fifties baptist woman in Nebraska might have. Even some who mandate that niqab (head-to-toe covering) come up with differing rationales: some say it is because women are temptresses whose beauty must be hidden to avoid tempting men, while others cite its "protective" nature. (As a side note, the Qur'anic suras citing modesty for women also urge men to avert their eyes when approaching a woman so as not to think of them in a sexual manner)

So here's the part where many of you shake your heads at the foolishness of those Muslims who don't know "the truth". But the reality is that one of two things is occurring: either misogynistic men in these societies are using and misusing their "holy" books to justify their treatment of women, or people who otherwise would never think of acting the way that they do are constrained by the tenets of their scriptures to treat women in this manner. Comparing the practices in majority-Muslim lands with treatment of women in majority-Christian societies is really just a matter of degree. The growing secular influence in the West over the last several centuries has also softened the strictly religious views of women in "Chistendom". In fact, until relatively recently women did not have the same rights as men, could not own property or inherit, and even further back were virtually the property of their fathers, husbands, and even their sons.

While things may appear more backward in Muslim societies as it applies to human rights, there are still many people in our own society that will cling to outmoded, outdated religious texts to justify their mistreatment of others