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.