Chris Jepson: Indiana - Where intolerance and religion meet

"Tolerance is the worst roar of all, including tolerance for homosexuals, feminists, and religions that don't follow Christ." — Josh McDowell, at a Youth for Christ rally

There is an issue (for me) that is not being discussed regarding Indiana’s recent enactment of its Religious Freedom Law. In it is language stating that government must not infringe on a person’s religious liberty. There are provisions that if you can prove compelling reasons to intervene, it must be done in the least restrictive manner. All this sounds rather benign, of course, until you’re discriminated against for offending someone’s religious sensibilities.

This is what I do not understand. This law is about protecting a belief system, a “morality” based-on scripture. Why? Why is one’s religious-based morality sacrosanct but my personal non-religious ethics and practices not? Why is a religious creed given preference over how any of us — individually — determine our lives? Because I subscribe to a particular sacred text, my behavior is to be exempt from government regulation? That is what the Indiana law attempts to codify.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a bill prohibiting the state from enacting laws that “substantially burden” a person’s right to live or follow their religious beliefs. This is all about gay marriage, reproductive choice; any issue for that matter that one finds threatening or offensive to one’s religious beliefs. Assert your intolerance as practicing your religion and you get a “bye” in Indiana.

Let’s review one historical example of using sacred text as justification for structuring society. Did you ever wonder why there is a Southern Baptist Church? Once upon a time in America there was one unified Baptist Church. The church split in 1845 over the issue of slavery. “Southern” Baptist church leaders of this time (some actual slave holders) supported slavery and the issue became so bitter nationally that the church split. White Southern Baptists cited the many Biblical passages on slavery as support for their “Peculiar Institution.”

How exactly is that concern (slavery) any different from today’s issues of homosexual rights and reproductive freedom? Slavery is mentioned in the Bible many times with specific verses providing instruction on the efficacious management of human bondage. Ask yourself this: If one set of Biblical verses condemns homosexuality while another condones slavery, why would Indiana not allow the re-implementation of slavery? If religious freedom is the crux of the issue and sacred Biblical verses are cited as justification for not serving homosexuals, I’m at a loss as to how you can intellectually cherry-pick which “truths” to follow, let alone protect them by Indiana law. If you argue the Bible is the literal word of God, how then do you decide which tenets to follow? Those that are the “hot-button” issues of the day?

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." – Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue.

Mr. Terry at least calls a spade a shovel. The absolute beauty of America, one that our wise forefathers embraced, was to keep religion out of government. As Blaise Pascal so eloquently put it, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Can I hear an, “Amen?”