I wanted to return to a point people seemed to be stuck on during Julia's presentation of Sexual Rights and the Catholic Church, mainly that the opinions of all persons ought to be listened to and included in conversation. A claim that was made was that (in essence) the opinion which opposes a current controversial law could not be respected. I disagree with this, as I believe that one can actually hold the belief that gay marriage is a sin while simultaneously not trying to make it illegal. There is a difference between possessing a belief and acting on said belief, and it is here that one can hold a sort of "cognitive dissonance". For instance, my mother is very religious, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. However, she does not campaign against gay marriage, as this does not "affect" her. In distinguishing difference types of harm, as Julia does, one can make an argument that the psychological harm towards Catholics caused by allowing gay marriage is less than the psychological and harm towards the rights of gay persons who wish to be married. One could also argue that because the US is a secular state, we ought to base all of our laws on principles of harm and respect towards individuals, not based on specific religious doctrine.
Getting back to respect for all opinions, I think that by choosing not to make laws based on religious principles is not harm towards the respect towards those religions at all. The government is not forcing Catholics to get married to another member of the same sex, and rights to practice religion are not being infringed upon either. There are certainly cases where the state interferes with the church, but more often, it is the church which attempts to interfere with the state. This is not a Christian, Muslim, or any other religious nation, so the refusal to make laws based on specific religious morals is not disrespecting that religion. America prides itself on tolerating all forms and practices of religion that do not harm other persons, and to attempt to limit the non-harmful practices of any religion would be wrong.
I think a similar case would be trigger warnings in academia. Many people see this as a way for more "controversial" beliefs to be censured by issuing a warning that they are indeed controversial. Using trigger warning "disrespects" certain beliefs and material by giving people who disagree with said belief a warning to "ignore" when said beliefs are discussed. However, I do not believe this is the case, as trigger warnings may actually serve more so as a caveat, letting people know that the material they are about to digest can cause certain trauma or harm, thus preparing them to read and analyze the material carefully and in a more productive way. Saying that a book has stories about rape in it does not serve to alienate the book from those who were victims of rape, but instead gives fair warning to these persons in order to give them time to prepare to engage with the material. In connection to the opinions of Catholics, simply because gay marriage exists does not mean that their beliefs are not respected.
I agree with most of what you said, Joseph. In most cases, however, I tend to notice more cases of religious people trying to impose their beliefs on others rather than the other way around, with secular people trying to suppress religion. I agree that no one religion should dictate public policy that could impact everyone, as America is made up of many religions or lack thereof, who's to say who is right?
ReplyDeleteSo that begs the question, which is a relevant one, of where the line is to be drawn. Is the government infringing upon the First Amendment rights of, say, the clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses based on religious beliefs? Or what of businesses who refuse customers for the same reason? Where is the balance, how far is too far?
Ultimately, society boils down to majority wins I think. Turning the tide of history equates to changing public opinion. The SCOTUS decision would have been unlikely 30 years ago, whereas now, with ~70% of the population in favor of same-sex marriage, it seemed inevitable (it still required the relentless effort of the challengers, of course, as the case was a consolidation of numerous appeals in different states). Evaluating moral worth and implementing policy are very different things, though they are connected. It's unavoidable that people will let their beliefs influence their actions, and with positive action to change the status quo, inaction is effectively support for the status quo, not true neutrality.
On the note of academia, I do believe that censorship should be avoided if at all possible, unless the material is obviously of an inflammatory nature and has no other merit. Disclaimers and warnings are fine. Academia is the one place where we should be able to discuss topics as objectively and openly as possible, as it's the only way we will ever make progress one way or the other.
In response to the line being drawn: I think the Kim Davis case is more about duties to the government than 1st Amendment Rights. Davis refused to do her job, and was fired for that, in the same way that any employee of any business that refuses to complete the basic tasks of his or her job would. While the practices of her job did not align with her religious beliefs, I would say that it is not Davis's place or job to determine the law. The government did not censure her or tell her that she couldn't hold a certain belief, only that the beliefs she holds causes her to not be able to do her job, and thus she was rightfully terminated. Personally, I think any law based on religious practice is not permissible in a secular state, which draws a sharp line between the 2 institutions. Many of the "moral Christian principles" this society was founded on are found in secular philosophy through Kant or Mills, and therefore just law can be informed without religion.
DeleteI agree, holding beliefs and letting them influence the lives of others are different things. But we all let our beliefs influence our actions, so I guess the line is to be drawn at what degree we should allow it. I think your argument over her refusing to do her job is valid and strong. But I wonder if there is a reasonable case where refusing to do your job is defensible via the First Amendment. Just a curiosity, in a day when one can be terminated from many jobs for any reason or no reason at all.
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but was the comment you (Joe) were referring to the one I made? If so, I think you misunderstood me.
ReplyDeleteMy comment wasn't made with the point of "an opinion that opposes a law should be ignored," as I certainly don't believe that's true. Instead, what I meant is that an opinion or belief that one is being harmed when any sort of harm they might be able to prove is almost negligible, that belief shouldn't be respected when if getting rid of their harm causes more harm.
As I said in class, the point of acknowledging harm is to then find ways to get rid of it. So people who say they are harmed by things like homosexuality- where the harm is almost negligible and honestly founded by ignorance (and, as Rachel said, can probably be more accurately described as discomfort)- would have us cure their harm by getting rid of homosexuality. Well doing that causes not only a more extreme quantity of harm, but a FAR more extreme -quality- of harm. In cases like this, the harm claimed to be had is often a harm done by allowing some action they don't agree with- and THAT understanding of harm should not be respected. Their "harm" is of no serious concern on its own, and ESPECIALLY not so when help in comparison to its alternative.
This is my major problem with utilitarianism, it is often too difficult to evaluate what is harm and to what degree it is harmful. Finding the optimal path to maximize utility is almost impossible. But nonetheless, we often find that in practice, some choices are obviously more optimal than others, but this is a case by case basis (act utilitarianism).
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree, in most cases, the awkwardness of having to explain to your kids the existence of none-straight people is not comparable to the pain suffered by not being able to marry the one you love or be recognized as equal human beings capable of the same sacred kind of love. This is one example, but many similar arguments can be analyzed in the same way.
However, I do not think we should bear disdain for those who have this opinion. They are entitled to their opinions, and we have to respect that. They are not entitled to automatically change the world to their liking, that's where democracy comes in. But we should have basic courtesy to those who disagree, otherwise we tarnish our own cause.
I mean this is a completely separate argument, but should we respect that? Should we actually respect any opinion that tries to hold people as unequal or hold other people back? I don't think so. I think anyone who holds any belief that entails a hierarchy as opposed to equality actually should have disdain felt towards them. If we all lived how they think we should live, we would be actually harming other human beings. That isn't acceptable.
DeleteI suppose it's all a matter of semantics. What is respect? I don't think it's black and white. I can understand where they come from. I think it's important to understand where people come from, especially if you want to change their minds.
DeleteMaybe "disdain" is too light. I can see that there is a lot of, let's face it, hate, on both sides. I think intense emotions like that cloud our judgment and hinder our ability to plot the best course. That being said, I don't mean that we should regard a serial killer the same as a petty thief, so to speak. Someone who discriminates and spreads hate for its own sake is different from someone is is uneasy or unsure due to religious reasons. But in general, I think emotions can get in the way of understanding and the consequent finding of solutions to solve the hatred.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAccidentally posted twice.
ReplyDelete