Theophobia

Theophobia seems to gripping a significant portion of our nation, but we are doing nothing about it.  In fact, it is hardly recognized as a problem at all.  Theophobia is the fear of God or religion.  Compared to homophobia, which is extremely rare, despite the fact that accusations of it are rampant in many political forums, theophobia is fairly common among some groups, and frankly it is much more subversive and dangerous.  Instead, it is being summarily ignored and marginalized, as more vocal gay rights activist groups that are plagued with it preemptively accuse nearly anyone citing religion or religious freedom for anything of being homophobic.

Homophobia is a marginal problem for a few reasons.  One is that only a tiny percentage of the population is actually homosexual or of any non-traditional sexual orientation.  This certainly does not justify treating them poorly, but it does make the problem lower priority than problems that affect more of the population.  In addition, homophobia is fairly rare.  A vast majority of people who are accused of homophobia are not actually homophobic.  They merely adhere to religious beliefs that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful (a very small portion actually believe that experiencing same sex attraction is also sinful).  Yes, there are some bigots out there, and calling out bigotry, where it actually exists is totally appropriate.  Technically calling these people homophobic is incorrect, because phobia is actually a mental illness, and bigotry is a conscious choice.

Theophobia is the the fear of God or religion.  It is not marginal, for related reasons.  It is not marginal, first, because at least 60% of the U.S. is religious.  This means a majority of the population is targeted.  In addition, theophobia seems to be significantly more common than homosexual or other non-traditional sexual orientation (this is based on the fact that protests and political movements on this topic tend to have a significant number of supporters that are not homosexual, in addition to those who are).  In addition, theophobia is far more subversive, because a vast majority of people don't even realize that it exists.  Of course, there are also plenty of bigots in this camp as well.  In fact, it is entirely possible that there are more bigots against religion than there are bigots against people with alternative sexual orientations.

We need to start calling out bigotry and phobia against religion.  Right now, we have a very one-sided battle, where religion is slowly losing ground, because accusations of homophobia and bigotry against homosexuals dominates the field.  In the last decade, the U.S. has lost more religious freedom than any time in its history except, perhaps, during the mid 1800s, when it was made legal in some states to murder Mormons, and the Federal government redefined marriage for the first time, expressly to discriminate against Mormonism.

Our country is built on religious freedom.  A significant portion of the colonists that are ancestors to most of us came here to escape religious persecution.  While religion was not the only, or perhaps even the biggest reason people immigrated, it is one of the cornerstones of our nation.  It is the foundation of all of our freedoms.  It is the most important factor in equality, because if equality does not come from God, then it comes from people, and without a universal truth, the only law is that the people who are strong enough to control everyone else are the only people fit to rule.  Whether God actually exists or not, freedom of religion is valuable to everyone, and that makes theophobia far more dangerous than any fear or bigotry against tiny minorities.

Religious freedom should trump most other civil rights.  Of course, there do need to be some reasonable limitations on that.  For example, a religion might believe in ritual human sacrifice, but that does not mean that murder by adherents of the religion should be tolerated.  Likewise, slander of homosexuals, denying them essential services like food and shelter, and such should also not be tolerated.  It is going too far, however, to legally require people to affirm homosexuality, in word or in action.  For example, forcing a preacher, priest, or bishop to perform a same sex wedding is equivalent to forcing them to affirm the relationship as well as activities that are implicit in the relationship.  This is a violation of freedom of conscience, which is the foundation of freedom of religion.  Selling a wedding dress or other wedding services to a same sex couple may be less intimate than actually performing the wedding, but it still comes with a tacit affirmation of homosexual relationships, if the person providing the services is made aware of the situation.  Even adoption is a very intimate service, and while I hold the opinion that same sex parents are better than an orphanage, forcing an adoption agency to place children with same sex couples is forcing them to affirm the moral validity of the relationship.  When we start forcing people to act as if they believe something, we are expressly violating the word and spirit of religious freedom.

In my opinion, we should start with necessities and slowly advance from there.  Discriminating against anyone when it comes to food, shelter, utilities, transportation, and communication should definitely be illegal, because these are all absolute necessities in our culture.  Purchase of clothing should be protected, with an exception for garments with religious significance, including wedding dresses.  Employment should also be protected, with exceptions for positions of religious significance.  Emergency, home maintenance, and transportation maintenance services, as well as other services related to maintaining or obtaining necessities, should also be legally available to everyone.  Anything beyond this is luxury.  Luxury goods and services are not necessities.  While discrimination in these may affect quality of life in some degree, it does not affect ability to survive, and it only affects convenience marginally.

The principle here is, "If it is not broken, don't fix it."  A microwave is a luxury good (if you have an oven already), but it is one that is fairly important to most people.  Should we legislate that it is illegal to discriminate against some group when selling a microwave?  No, because there is no reason to clutter up our laws with things that are not a problem.  Yeah, you might get discriminated against by some guy on Craig's List, but there are plenty of other options.  Even in the worst case, you can buy pretty much anything online, even in very remote locations.  Items that straddle the line between luxury and necessity might eventually need some legal anti-discrimination protections, but if they are readily available, there is no reason everyone should be forced to sell them to anyone that asks.  If we let people who want to discriminate in these things do as they please, they will eventually run themselves out of business if it really makes a difference.

So, what about Hobby Lobby?  The problem with Hobby Lobby is not religious freedom.  If it was purely religious freedom, the service Hobby Lobby refused to provide is not a necessity (it may straddle the line though), and it is readily available elsewhere, which makes the Supreme Court ruling entirely justified.  The fact, however, is that this is not even about a service or good offered by Hobby Lobby.  It is about a failed attempt at universal healthcare, requiring businesses to offer services to their employees that are far outside the scope of the those businesses.  The government has no business requiring for-profit companies to provide healthcare as part of their compensation.  The best solution to universal healthcare is universal healthcare!  Healthcare as mandatory compensation is just as bad as Obamacare and equally ineffective.  The Hobby Lobby case should never have happened in the first place, and frankly, the government should have seen long ago that mandatory healthcare as compensation is prone to freedom of conscience and religion issues.  The fact is, the Hobby Lobby case is not about discrimination at all.  It is the consequence of the government trying to cut corners and force businesses to do things that are outside the scope of business.

What this all comes down to is, we need to treat the problems of theophobia and homophobia according to their impact.  One problem is about treating a very small percentage of the population well, while the other is about maintaining the foundation of our most fundamental rights.  Both problems are about rights, but one covers the rights of every single person in the country, while the other only covers the rights of a very small portion of the population.  The priority here should be clear.  I am not suggesting we should ignore discrimination based on sexual orientation, but when it comes to clashes between sexual orientation and religion, religion should always have the benefit of the doubt.