Friday, February 7, 2025

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance #10: Can a church discriminate against gluttons?

I read an interesting article today from the best religious liberty magazine in the world. The article is about the tension between religious organizations that want to hire only people who adhere to their religious beliefs and government entities that want to prohibit discrimination.

Let’s make up a religion as an example of some of the issues mentioned in the article. This religion will be called Skin ’n’ Bones. Skin ’n’ Bones believes that gluttony is the most terrible sin and so this religion’s primary mission is to condemn and combat gluttony.

This church will say they should not be required to hire gluttons to work as officials at their church or to accept gluttons as members of their church. They may or may not allow gluttons to attend their church services depending on whether a particular congregation is orthodox Skin ’n’ Bones or liberal Skin ’n’ Bones.

In terms of hiring, I think this church is within its rights. They have a private religious organization and they can make whatever rules they want, unless they are deliberately harming people, like having human sacrifices or something…. Even a religion can’t have human sacrifices!

[Check out this book about how Jefferson and Madison
ensured freedom of religion in America.
If you buy it from this link Anything Smart
will earn a small commission. Thanks!]
The Grand Collaboration

What if the church wants to hire people to do some work on the property, carpenters maybe, or groundskeepers? Can they refuse to hire gluttons, or would that be unacceptable discrimination?

This is a little more complicated, but I think I would still let the church hire who they want without accusing them of illegal discrimination.

The article doesn’t go into the more complicated issue of private businesses owned by Skin ’n’ Bones members.

Suppose a Skin ’n’ Bones member starts a restaurant and refuses to serve gluttons or hire gluttons. Obviously, this would be really bad for business, but this member thinks it is wrong for him to participate in the sin of gluttony by serving gluttons at his restaurant or even hiring gluttons who will just use their pay to indulge in more gluttony.

NOW I think the government is right to step in and call this illegal discrimination.

To have a free country, that does not become a dictatorial theocracy, we have to distinguish between the religious sphere and the public sphere. In the religious sphere, organizations can treat people unequally and discriminate against people they don’t approve of. In the public sphere, organizations CANNOT treat people unequally and discriminate against people they disapprove of.

Churches are in the religious sphere and restaurants are in the public sphere and there need to be different rules for those two spheres. The religious sphere is always going to try to creep into the public sphere and the public sphere is always going to try to creep into the religious sphere, but we really need to keep them separate if we want to have a free society…. Which I do!

Within a church (in the religious sphere) people are allowed to prevent women from holding certain jobs, for example, because they believe women are supposed to be subordinate to men. But in a business (in the public sphere) you are not allowed to keep women subordinate to men, and prevent them from holding certain jobs just because they are women, because in our free society we believe that all people are created equal and need to be treated equally.

That’s what I believe anyway!

Here is a link to the article I mentioned above: https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/tightening-the-screws-on-religious-hiring

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links on my blog to buy your books or anything else at Amazon. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2025 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance #9: Is Identity Politics Good or Bad?

This morning I read a good article by David Remnick in The New Yorker. There were many thought-provoking paragraphs in the article – kind of what you would expect in an article by one of our great current events writers who is also the editor of one of the smartest magazines in the world….

One of the interesting and alarming paragraphs in this article was this one: “Shortly before the end of Obama’s second term, the President was in Lima, Peru, being driven to an event with some of his aides. Along the way, he confided that he’d just read an opinion column implying that, in electing Trump, tens of millions had rejected liberal identity politics. “What if we were wrong?” Obama said. “Maybe we pushed too far,” he went on, according to a memoir by one of his advisers, Benjamin Rhodes. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.” “

This made me think about “identity politics.” “Identity politics” is one of those things we hear people argue about and fight about and get angry about and yet, I almost never hear anybody explain what they MEAN by “identity politics.”

When I think about “identity politics” I am thinking about the process of looking at each group in our society SEPARATELY so we can see how they are doing. We do this to make sure that each group in our society, even groups we don’t belong to, and hardly ever think about, is sharing in the equality, and opportunity, and legal protections that EVERYBODY in America is supposed to have. To me that seems like a good thing to do….

[Check out this book great book about the growth of freedom in America.
If you buy it from this link Anything Smart
will earn a small commission. Thanks!]
The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction

To see why that is a good thing to do let’s imagine a white American man in 1850. If we asked him, “Is America a free country?” he would probably say, “Of course America is a free country!”

But then we could ask him, “So the Indians are free?” (They didn’t say Native Americans back then….) He would have to admit that Native Americans were not free in 1850. In fact, they were being systematically driven off their ancestral lands by force, and those who resisted were killed….

And then we could ask him, “So the black people are free?” (I don’t know if they said “black people” back then. Maybe they used more scurrilous words that I don’t want to use now….) He would have to admit that black people were not free in 1850. In fact, millions of them were being bought and sold and OWNED as slaves….

And then we could ask him, “So women are free?” This one might shock him, but if he thought about it for a minute he would realize that women were not allowed to vote and had all sorts of legal restrictions on their activities that men did not have so no; in 1850 women were not free either.

After our conversation this man might say, “OK. So now I see that SOME people in America are free, but we still have a lot of work to do if we want EVERYBODY to be free and equal.” But this man never would have noticed the problem unless he looked at each group separately. If we want true freedom in a country, we have to make sure EVERBODY has it. And looking at each group separately to make sure they are free, is exactly what I mean by “identity politics.”

People who HATE identity politics… I don’t know what they mean by it. We will have to ask them….

I’ve seen lots of movies or TV shows where there is a car crash or some other kind of accident and someone will shout out, “Is everybody OK?” To me, identity politics is just how our society shouts out, “Is everybody OK?”

And that is a very good thing to do!

Here is a link to the article I mentioned above: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/11/18/it-can-happen-here

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links on my blog to buy your books or anything else at Amazon. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2025 by Joseph Wayne Gadway