Is The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Only About Discrimination?

 

 

Sometimes a blog is filled with numbers and facts and during the course of the day I read a lot of them. Like most responsible people, I'm always looking for a way to verify what I'm reading or at the very least, rationalize opinion.

 

            I suppose in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter what I think about something because no matter what I'm reading right now, at this very moment, it's due to change in the future. I try not to get sucked into ranting mode too often but it happens. Certain things just get my goat.

 

            What helps me think about a topic is to read blogs written by someone else first, before I form an opinion. I don't worry about picking sides right off the bat or even being neutral because as you read these blogs, you realize that what you're reading is all opinion. Sometimes, someone who is exceptionally learned or an expert on a particular subject will throw in a few facts and figures and that makes me feel a little more confident as I read. I want to keep an open mind of course, but when it comes to religiously influenced discussions, I'll admit, I get pretty defensive very quickly. I can't rationalize how anyone's opinion on a religious anecdote could ever be beneficial when applied as a panacea for the societal problems facing the masses.

 

            So, when I first read that Indiana's Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SEA 101) on March 26, 2015, my eyebrows scrunched into a familiar expression that comes with the feeling of skepticism. Lately, I'm getting a permanent "skepticism wrinkle" where, at my age, I should be seeing laughing lines. Governor Pence mentions that the reason this legislature is necessary because "many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action." I wondered how many, out of the six and a half million plus citizens defines his use of the word "many."

 

            I went right to the source of Governor Pence's Indiana .gov page where he lists his agenda and provides his "Hoosiers" with a brief synopsis of every topic. March 26th was a busy Thursday and his agenda list includes issuing a statement as he signed this new act, as well as offering remarks at the Kiwanis Club of Indianapolis. It wasn't specified if the remarks at the Kiwanis luncheon would be about the new Religious Freedom Restoration act or other business.

 

            The March 26 agenda also called to my attention that Governor Pence was declaring a "Public Health Emergency". Now that caught my eye! The fact that he found time to sign and speak on his new religious bill, all while addressing a public health emergency, seemed a strange coincidence. It appears that the Hoosiers have identified 79 cases of HIV in Scotts County.  Scotts county, according to the 2014 Public Census survey has a population of 23,712 out of a  6,596,855 total population. So, this .003% number, according to the Hoosiers, is alarming. The CDC has apparently become involved with this "epidemic" as well. It appears that a newly infected intravenous drug user was cited as the source of the rise in new HIV infections among known drug users in Scott's County. I re-read the agenda expansion description:

 

            "The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) has identified 79 confirmed cases of HIV originating in Scott County related to the outbreak in southeastern Indiana. Typically, Scott County would see fewer than five new HIV cases in a year. All cases are linked to injection drug abuse.  This is an epidemic."

 

            I went on several CDC and state statistic sites, particularly my own Massachusetts government statistic page in order to see whether or not we are experiencing a current HIV problem that is rated in "epidemic" proportions. The plethora of numbers that jump off the page are concerned with the nationalities, gender and transmission avenue of HIV and AIDS infection. The percentages are not as easy to decipher as taking the total  population of a county and dividing the number of new HIV cases per year. At least I couldn't find such simple numbers. It's always a mixture of HIV and AIDS, live cases, deaths, estimations and more confusing statistics.

 

            So, in a way, I applaud Governor Pence for recognizing a problem with an increase in HIV due to intravenous drug users. I know from the general tone of discussions from our own Massachusetts governor that intravenous drug use is a problem here as well and is something we may not even address. Our newly elected republican Governor has his eyes set on cutting the funding to the public mental health industry that may have had a chance to combat our growing drug rehabilitation needs. Being the man who won the " Outsourcing Excellence Award" in 2008, it appears as though the Massachusetts governor's goals lie more in cutting funds to reduce state spending than in adding additional aid to our public health agency. From reading his profile on the government page I mentioned above, it appears that Governor Pence, also falling in line with republican ideology, has also been a purveyor of frugality within the Hoosier society he manages. A main focus of his appears to be supporting tax cuts for corporations, reduced government spending. His online profile revealed the following:

 

            " Since taking office in 2013, Pence has achieved the largest state tax cut in Indiana history while also lowering the business personal property tax and corporate income tax to strengthen the state’s competitive edge in attracting new investment and good-paying jobs for Hoosiers."

 

            So he hopes, anyway.

 

            But I still find it odd that these two seemingly separate agenda items are scheduled for Governor Pence on the same day. Was there a message intended? Is the Religious Freedom Restoration act a partial answer, at least in Governor Pence's mind, to a perceived epidemic that has a known association with a risky behavior practiced by the gay community? Does the agenda's statement clarification that "All cases are linked to injection drug abuse." seem just a little too pre-emptive? Is he mentioning his HIV "epidemic" on the same day as this faith based discrimination bill to subtly link the issues without calling out to homosexual behavior on purpose?  People of absolute conviction walk a tightrope balancing out words carefully. They can't afford to fall because there is no safety net for them down below. Well, if you are a politician, anyhow.

 

            The ultra-conservative, "right" politicians in America make no attempt to hide their disdain for the Lesbian, gay, transgendered and bi-sexual population. As they cherry pick phrases and the interpretation of required action out of their written book of religious guidelines and attempt to enforce these rules on the masses, their discrimination against this community is often reflected in their preaching. If a politician feels righteously compelled to stand up for a religious rule in part or overall, you see bills like the Religious Freedom restoration Act. Because similar to what they portray as residing in a "supreme being", the power and options in a bill such as this can be infinite.

 

            I can see all kinds of new religions springing up. Established with buildings, members and tithes, anything can be labeled a religion and enjoy status of a tax-free business. "The Broken" are an easily attracted mass if you promise them a way out of their misery. A religious placebo is a strong medicine.

 

            I read a blog this morning that asked what would happen if the religion believed we had to once again start "burning witches." It's an interesting concept to consider. If you performed your murders in Indiana, would the Freedom Restoration Act hold up in court as an excuse to get you out of life imprisonment?

 

            The murder involves a state action, the Bible commands the action, a compelling government interest might be that somewhere down the line, the witch might threaten to disrupt public security and murder may be the least restrictive means to get rid of the witch threat rather than say, a high school bombing that could potentially harm innocent bystanders. Am I right?

 

            You can see the problems with this open-ended and far-reaching piece of religious legislature. It pained me just now, as I use this combination of adjective and noun and maybe you can understand why I feel this way?

 

            Obviously, this bill is so flawed that it's usage will make its way to the attention of the courts and it will be re-written or abolished all together before things get out of hand. We just hope that no permanent maiming, disfigurement or death comes out of it before that happens.

 

            The ways to think about this are overwhelming with so many angles,  repercussions, and selfishness. I know that there are many in Indiana who rally against this bill, as there should be. We should stand behind them in their fight for humanity. Rather than boycotting Indiana, how about putting the blame where it lies in the non-voters and the republican platform of starving society to the point of crisis. Perhaps, as people suffer more and more as they try to adjust to having less as they work harder, drug use will become their only escape. We have to go back to putting the citizens first. Indiana's madness should be a wake-up call for us all.

 

 

            

What Am I Really Afraid Of?

While listening to a person who is telling a long story, I try not to think of what I want to say during the monologue but to just fully absorb the words and form a mental picture in my mind of the exact scene. A good story teller can make you want to do this by interacting with your imagination.

          But have you ever listened intently to someone and they talk on and on but you can't grasp the meaning of what they are saying? Even worst, in order to signal to you that they don't want you to say a word during the monologue, you hear, "well anyways," where any possibility of a natural pause might occur. They say this catch-all phrase and take a short breath and then continue on, their thoughts running off in all directions.

            Now, if you do try to interject anywhere during their speech or diatribe, you'll hear, "excuse me!", and they'll give you an odd, confused look and start the next part of their one-way "conversation" with , "Well anyhow...as I was saying..." and babble on.

            I'm not saying that I don't enjoy listening to a story being told because I do. I can listen to someone tell me about their past, or a recent trip and I don't find a need to say a word because I really want to hear about these things. With most people, I know at some point the monologue will turn into a conversation. I love interaction, especially with a good conversation.

           

            But these folks I'm talking about are what I call "single dialoguers." They want to be both sides of a conversation. And, because they don't even seem to realize you are there listening to them go on, they are very bad story tellers. There are parts of their uninterrupted speech that you can't quite understand. Sometimes, they will interject a third person into their monologue and you have no idea who this person is or how they fit into the story. Since the single dialoguer is really only rehashing this event in their own heads and have no need for details, they fail to explain. So, you wait for a pause, keeping the question in your head until you get your chance to slip something in. At the first inkling of a pause, you attempt to quickly squeeze in your question by slightly interrupting.

            "Was this guy Bart in college with you and Stan?"

            That gets you a hot-headed look and a "what?" stated pretty rudely from the long-winded single dialoguer as though he were climbing up a ladder and you pulled it out from under him. For a more dramatic effect, he has a slight squint as though he has a headache or is straining to hear as he looks at you. You are left staring back, thinking about how to explain what you were asking about since it's already been forgotten. The single dialoguer shakes his head back and forth as though you have knocked him so far out of his line of thinking that he may never recover. He mutters a half-word like "uhmph," takes a long deep breath that sounds kind of dejected—sincerely hoping he has embarrassed you enough to prevent you from intervening in the future—and starts up again, "Well as I was saying..."  He continues on as though nothing happened.

            And on, and on, and on. Until you turn yourself off. 

            I have tried all different kinds of methods to deal with these single dialoguers because they can be important people in your lives and as close to you as immediate family or even some long-term friends. The thing I've learned over the years is that the better skilled you can get at counteracting adversity the better off you'll be because the other guy most likely isn't going to change.

            I've tried using the "I'm sorry, I drifted off for a moment" ploy. "Who was that Bart again?" and gotten the angry stare.

.

            I've tried the mid-rant coughing spree and gotten the annoyed look.

            I've tried to mentally hold all my questions in my mind as the speech goes on hoping to have a chance to ask them and catch up later, and I always forget them.

            And I've even tried opening a notebook and writing all my questions down so I can actually remember them all and ask to try to make sense out of the monologue later, some day. This just causes me to look deranged.

            Nothing stops a single-dialoguer. As long as you are in the same room, anyway.

            Since none of these methods have ever worked sufficiently enough to make me understand these scatterbrained monologues, I've mostly just learned to look ahead blankly (but with a slight enough smile to seem present.) I absorb a few words here and there, but mostly just find pleasure in drifting off into a comfortable meditative daydream. I never gain any lasting confidence in the ability to converse with a single dialoguer. I think these single sided talkers are  just happy to have the speaker's podium. I've felt pretty isolated while in the presence of these types of people. You know, the feeling of being along even though you are with someone?

            It's negative incidents like these that can teach you even more than by learning through positive reinforcement. I pride myself on thinking about all the different things I come across and how I respond to them. If you tell me about yourself I'm going to learn something. It may be what to do about a problem or even what NOT to do about something but a thought will break through the brain barrier, eventually. That's how I grow.

            Which is why I am so afraid of losing my hearing as I cross over into the downward curve of a profound, degenerative loss. "Listening" has been such a huge part of my life and the entire basis of what's shaped me, if you think about it. It's been a constant flood of interactions, one right after another that has taught me the most.

            Helen Keller once said that being blind cuts you off from things, but being deaf cuts you off from people. I truly hope that the electronic boom the world has seen since her time has changed that. I hope that the vibration of sound can make its way to my head in other ways than the pathway of the ear. I pray that my visual capabilities can step up to the task to keep me connected. I am trying so very hard to reason with this predicament.

            Of course, the silver lining? The single dialoguers will never know that I'm no longer listening and I won't even have to pretend. A simple glance to the right or left, out of eyesight will shut them off completely, a reaction they have rightly earned, so I won't feel bad about it.

            I'm going to be doing a lot of soul-searching and introspective thinking during my ordeal and I hope it gives me the same rewards that I have gleaned from my "hearing" self. I guess time will tell. 

            Here-in lies the basis of our connection to each other and our willingness to accept each other's differences. I hope this phenomenon looks down on me favorably.

Who Is Taking Away Your Right To Pray?

I am not against believers. I am just fed up with being annoyed.

            Let's face it, if you really want to pray to a God, being or anyone or thing for that matter, you certainly can. What's stopping you? Simply close your eyes (or don't), imagine your "connection" and fire away. It's that easy. But please, just do it silently. You may have as long a conversation as you want, anywhere, anytime. Not only will no one try to stop you, better yet, they'll never even know that you are doing it. Really think about that. You've got a free and open line.

            Now, the Facebook memes sent around where people are claiming they are sick and tired of everyone trying to "stop" them from praying can stop. I've told you a way to have your unobstructed prayers, in your head, whenever or wherever you want to have them. You can all just relax now.

            If you don't relax and agree to travel down the path to silent "prayerhood", I'll know that with you in particular, it's not really about prayer. It's about being annoying and disruptive to others. No one ever took away your right to prayer, but you relentlessly and carelessly accuse people of doing this. I have to wonder why.

            Do you need attention? Are you angry that other people aren't doing the same things you do? Do you need to "show" folks, out loud how faithful you are?

            Well, I don't put up with loud music from neighbors, teenagers who party too far into the night or children who are allowed to scream inside my home. I just won't.

            I refuse to be annoyed by anyone sitting next to me on an airplane who insists on reading out loud,  ask everyone I ride in a car with not to blast the radio and hate it when someone in Starbucks is talking way too loud on their phone and disturbing my morning coffee.

            You see? I am not singling you out. I really just have a huge need to preserve my personal peace and privacy. I'll only let you impede on my world if I want you too. So, yes, if you suddenly walk up to me and begin praying, out loud within ear range, I'm going to walk away to a more quiet spot. If I can't leave, I'll ask you to pray silently, in your head. If you are offended by this and feel like I'm taking away some sort of "right to pray" from you well, don't be. I am simply placing you in the same annoying category of bystanders I've mentioned above, where you rightly belong.

I hope that clears up why I can't understand what you are asking for with your "right to pray" memes?