If, After Reading These Words of Jesus...Why, On Earth, Would you Discriminate? (Part 3)

How can we work to make this world a better place for everyone if we can't even agree to follow the Golden Rule? To treat others the way we want to be treated? How can we ever find  peace in this world if we can't even agree to follow the simplest precepts of those teachers we choose to worship? Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, God, Goddess--any preaching about the words of any of these great teachers has to start with the word "love". To teach anything else, purporting to be the words of them, is reckless and will lead ultimately to the destruction of this world--not by their "hands", but by ours. Human hands. 

The one thing you can be sure they taught, the one thing they all could agree on? The Golden Rule. It's a universal rule. Look it up.

As I wrote Part 2 of this post, I kept thinking about words that Jesus spoke during his Sermon on the Mount--these were arguably the most important words he spoke; he wanted to give guidance to his listeners, and it was a huge crowd, so you have to know he chose his words carefully.

And again, not one word about homosexuality. You would think, if that was important to him, he

would have mentioned it first, last, and in the middle. But no. 

 Jesus had a different message (I have chosen to embolden some words)...

 The Sermon on the Mount

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

The Beatitudes

2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Love Your Enemies

43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Judging Others

“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

The Golden Rule

12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
  
 Amen.
Our lives are short, and the list of ways to make this world a better place is long. We have far more important things to do than discriminate. 
Far more important things to do. 
Start by spreading love. 

Discrimination is Easier Than YOU Think...Why, On Earth, Would you Discriminate Part 2

I've had a whirlwind of thoughts for the past couple of weeks. I have taken some time to write, re-write, and clarify, so that you--the reader--can understand. I hope you take some time to read, and then think, about what I'm trying to say here. Please.
"Here's the church, here's the steeple. Open the door, and see all the people."
I love to read stories about lives that are different from mine. Different cultures, different situations, different periods in history. When I read these stories, I often have an "ah ha!" moment; a moment when I have a new perspective on life. I like to learn about different religions and different spiritual practices; I choose to go to my church because we draw on many religious traditions, and I've learned so much. What I've mostly learned is that there is not ONE answer to life's questions, but many answers. To think that you have all the answers, or that your religion has the only answers is misguided indeed.
I've learned that your spiritual beliefs will have a major impact on how you occupy this world, and how you treat others.
As I've gotten older, I've come to realize our time on Earth is very limited, and we can choose to leave this Earth better than when we arrived, or we can make things worse--a whole lot worse, if we choose to.

"Here's the church, here's the steeple. Open the door, and see all the people."

Because I truly want to listen, to learn the perspective of others, I recently went to church--not my church, but another church. A church so vastly different from my own that my heart was pounding (sort of a "fight or flight" mentality automatically kicked in--some of you might not understand this, but going in as a minority of any kind puts one on edge) through most of the first part of the service. I admit I went with some prejudices of my own, but by going, I was able to "call myself" on some of them. No, not every license plate was an "In God We Trust" plate. No, not every woman had to wear a dress to the service; as a matter of fact, I would have fit right in in my usual jeans that I wear to my own church services. What did surprise me--more than I expected--was how HUGE the place was! Enormous!! They have 3 services, and the place was packed at 11. According to the Order of Service, on a Sunday when the weather was snowy and driving treacherous. they still managed to have attendance of 1,000. THAT'S amazing.
I listened to the minister. I know him, have read some things he has written. I've had conversations with him, but had never heard him address his congregation. I was intrigued by the topic of his sermon: "Did Jesus Ever Discriminate?" I wanted to know what he thought, so I sat, listened, and took notes. 
The short answer to the question was:  "Yes. Jesus did discriminate." He went on to speak about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Bill, and how important it was that this Bill be passed. And, he spoke about being true to your religious convictions.
I left feeling not uplifted, but sad. Sad for the world.
Jesus taught a message of love. "Love one another." That message was not delivered at the church on the Sunday I visited. Instead, the message was, "Yes, Jesus DID discriminate."
And that's why we need to have the Religious Freedom Restoration Bill. So you, as the owner of any business in any town in Indiana, can discriminate against those you think you can't abide.
AND LET ME BE CLEAR:  WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS AND WOMEN.
Because to discriminate against the darker skinned? That's just not done anymore.
To discriminate against the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist? We don't do that as much either.

Here's the thing, You are free to open a business, provide a service, sell a product. You open your doors and welcome customers. According to some, who believe we should have a Religious Freedom Restoration Bill embedded into state law, you are also free to follow your "moral compass" and discriminate against women, if they want to control their own reproductive health; and anyone under the LGBT "umbrella" because they are perverse.
Here's the problem. Although some differences are plain to the naked eye, and therefore easy to detect and discriminate against, the ones that are actually more foul and heinous are buried under the skin--they reside in the soul.
We don't all wear shirts with our "attributes" listed for all to see:
"Hello, my name is ___________________. I have never murdered anyone, I am not a child molester, and I have never beaten anyone. I do use birth control, I am for gun safety, and I have vaccinated my children. I release spiders outside and I recycle."
Can you imagine the length of that shirt that we would have to wear??

Because we don't all wear that attribute shirt, we have to rely on the visual. For most of us, we take one look at someone, and judge them. One look.
If the person looks just like me and acts just like me, I assume they believe the exact same things I do.
If their skin is a different shade, I hesitate. I'm not sure.
If they are with someone of the same sex, I need more information before judging.
If they open their mouths to speak, and they have an accent or if I cannot understand them, I am uncomfortable.
If they appear to be more poorly dressed or smell in a certain way, I judge them.
But if they are like me, I gladly will serve them.
I gladly serve them, because I have judged them, and I've decided they must believe the same things I do.
I do not know, nor do I care, what they are really like, because they look just like me.
They could have murdered their parents, but they look like me. I will sell them a CD.
They could have raped 3 women in the past year, but they have a nice haircut, so I will welcome them into my restaurant.
They could have molested 100 kids, and sold child pornography for years, but because they appear with their fiance and ask me to bake their wedding cake, and they are a heterosexual couple, I will happily do it, just let me get them a sample of the cake......

Discriminate against the very people Jesus DID call out? The adulterers and the fornicators? Well, it's just not that easy to figure those people out...But two people, of the same sex, buying groceries together? Well, now THAT we can see, and THAT we can feel righteous about. THOSE people need to go (even though Jesus said nothing about the lesbians, or the gays). Those are the people I don't want to serve, because I am following the "teachings of my religion." Here's another crazy thing. If I walk into any place of business, I will be served, because I'm just a funny-looking older woman. I would have to walk in with my WIFE in order for you to feel you need to discriminate against me. You will look love in the face and you will throw us out, but will gladly serve the guy over there, even though I know he's been married three times, and has recently impregnated a college cheerleader. But he LOOKS like a fine citizen.
To truly discriminate, to follow your religiously-ordained set of prejudices, you actually have to get to know someone a little bit. You have to form a relationship with them. And then? You have to turn your back on them--you have to condemn them for who they are.
Think about how that feels to that person.
If you're not a sociopath, it hurts.
It hurts a lot.
And why do you do it? Discriminate against....? Do you think the person you're ushering out of your place of business with suddenly fall to their knees and thank you for showing them the error of their ways??? Really? You think they will suddenly agree with everything you believe as you refuse them service in your restaurant? Because that's not going to happen. What IS going to happen is that person will harden their heart against you, and against everything you purport to believe. They are going to feel hatred maybe...certainly will feel anger as you have basically called them a bad person, and have shunned them. Perhaps they will internalize their anger, but far more likely, they will communicate their feelings to friends and family, who will in turn feel anger toward you and your beliefs.
This! This is how wars get started.
Because in the world where we allow discrimination to legally take place, most rapists, murderers, and child molesters will be welcomed with open arms. Because they look like us.
We will gladly serve the fornicators and the adulterers. Because they are us, and are easier to understand.
But the gays? We MUST shun them.
Because the Bible says so.
Even though Jesus said...not...one...word...about homosexuality.
But he said a whole lot of words about love.
"Here's the church. Here's the steeple. Open the doors.....but don't see ALL the people."

 

Why, On Earth, Would You Discriminate? Part One

A couple of weeks ago, this Guest Column was posted in our local paper (referencing The Religious Freedom Restoration Bill now before the Indiana Senate.

The bill reads:  "Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. "

Here's the Guest Column from Pastor Steve Viars:

 "OK, let me get this straight. Freedom Indiana has just announced their opposition to ... wait for it ... the religious freedom bill. That's like the American Cattleman's Association opposing cows. I'm not sure these dear folks thought this one all the way through.

This is similar to our local so-called Citizens for Civil Rights whose behavior over the years demonstrates that they are really only concerned for the rights of themselves and their left-leaning friends. It seems to me that these groups ought to be more transparent in the names they choose for their organizations. How about "Freedom Just for Those in Indiana Who Agree with Us and Everyone Else Can Take a Hike" or "Citizens Concerned Only for the Civil Rights of the Cultural Liberals"?

Why is it that progressives seem hell-bent on imposing their brand of morality or — in many cases — immorality, on everyone else by force of governmental law? Are they that insecure about the quality of their ideals? Doesn't civility require — even demand — an approach to community life that seeks to balance the legitimate needs, desires, and rights of a variety of world and life views?

Good men and women of faith ought to be able to practice their religious beliefs in all spheres of life without incessant harassment from those who want to live differently. For example, a Jewish family should be able to start a video production business and choose not to make movies for the wicked pornographer down the street. An Amish man should be able to purchase a catering company and prefer not to provide food for the area swingers convention. A Muslim woman should be able to buy a wedding hall and decide to only make it available for activities she believes are consistent with her beliefs about marriage. It's not like the progressives have no other places to make their movies, buy their food or hold their celebration

Whether it is advisable for such persons of faith to practice their religion in these ways is beside the point. Truthfully, if I was a Christian baker, I'd make my gay neighbor the best wedding cake I possibly could out of a desire to demonstrate the love and grace of Christ. But there is a significant difference between living that way by personal choice versus living that way by governmental coercion. The question here is how much value we place on the religious freedom of everyone in our state, even when we find such religious expression questionable or even objectionable.

Of course some will run to the tired accusation that this legislation promotes discrimination. The challenge is — that door swings both ways. You can either discriminate against the pornographer or discriminate against the religious person who prefers not to use his privately purchased equipment for such evil purposes. How hard is that decision?

We saw this logical inconsistency several years ago during the public hearings regarding Faith West. A spokesperson for the West Lafayette Human Relations Commission appeared at the final community meeting to express their views on our development and their expectations for our behavior.

This outrageous action was completely inconsistent with the group's legal purpose and to my knowledge, is something the Human Relations Commission has never done before or since. That is the essence of discrimination — treating someone differently or illegally based on an inherent or perceived difference, in our case — our religious beliefs.

The irony was too delicious for words — a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission discriminating against a church because of the unfounded concern that the church might discriminate against someone else. I seriously considered reporting the Human Relations Commission, to itself.

What is needed in this conversation is balance — which as one wag observed — is that elusive point we all pass on the way to our next extreme. I would encourage my friends at Freedom Indiana to reconsider their opposition to the religious freedom bill. If not, then could you at least change your name?

AND......Here's MY response:

As I read the recently-named “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (SB 101), all I could think was, “Wow! What a great state I live in! Evidently, poverty no longer exists, everyone who wants a job has one, and all of our students must be above average! Because, if any of these were still a problem, our legislators would be working around the clock to solve them, instead of spending even one minute on a poorly-worded, divisive bill such as this one!” Sadly, I was mistaken. Our public schools still struggle to be funded, students still come to school hungry and ill-clothed, we still have unemployment. But, the politicians in the Statehouse have decided it’s far more important to waste time and taxpayer money to pass a bill that will only lead to more incivility and acrimony among its’ citizenry. Don’t believe me? One only has to read Pastor Viars’ Guest Column to begin to understand how the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” will divide.

The business owners I know serve every person who comes through their doors (except the ones without shirts and shoes). In this shaky business climate, one cannot be selective or discriminatory if one wants to be profitable. Most business owners know if word gets out that they refused service to this person or that one, word will get out to friends and relatives of said person, and people will stop frequenting their establishment and worst of all, they will take their business elsewhere. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan business owners who want to be successful do not question the customer coming through the door, for that can be a slippery slope:  “Just one last question before I serve you your ice cream sundae—do you use Viagra? Because use of that drug is not covered in my Holy Book, so therefore I cannot in good conscience serve you.” I agree—that one was silly. As is this one:  “Your child is [insert medical condition here]? I’m sorry, if you were a better [insert religious sect here], your child would already be cured, and we could allow them to come to school here at Perfect In Every Way Private Academy.” But it’s far more likely, under SB 101, the latter would actually happen--legally. 

As Pastor Viars points out, “There is a significant difference between living that way by personal choice versus living that way by government coercion.” It’s a slippery slope indeed, as we are all fallible human beings; rather than unite, this law will divide us. Can you imagine owning a business, and having a deacon from your church say to you, “Why did you serve that customer? You know he’s Catholic. The law says it’s ok for you, legally, to refuse service. Why didn’t you do it? Aren’t you a good Lutheran?” Or, someone using the words of any religious teacher, incorrectly, to avoid treating another human being at their family-owned pharmacy? I would like to know who is going to be the final arbitrator when Sam Smith says, “I didn’t give him pills because Jesus said people wearing purple could not enter Heaven.” Of course, we all know Jesus didn’t say that, but then again, Jesus did not say one word about homosexuality, and look how that fact has been ignored and misused. It would be a worst-case scenario, but we could easily become a state with “no go zones” for Christians or Jews or Muslims or German Baptists. Our economy would suffer too; what company would want to locate to a state with sectarian areas? Or, more to the point, what company will want to relocate to a state with a poorly written law in effect, which may or may not impact who they can or cannot hire? 

SB 101, while purporting to protect ones’ freedom of religion, is just a “feel good” law; it will make some feel good, and will alienate others. Not all religious people are in favor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; in fact, I've seen very little religious diversity among those pushing for passage. Perhaps that’s because we see there are far greater problems that need to be solved in our state. Perhaps that’s because most people of faith stand on the side of love, and believe and practice the Golden Rule, “Treat others the way you wish to be treated,” and believe that, until all are treated fairly in our state, we all will suffer. Perhaps all of us should push for codifying the Golden Rule in the State of Indiana, but that would mean we were progressive—“favoring social reform”— and some have used this word as a pejorative. 

Words can be used to unite, and words can be used to divide. The words contained in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will most certainly be used to divide us. To some, much has been given. The question is:  How will you use this power? For the betterment of all, or for the select few? As many religious books will advise—whatever you do, do it in love.

The Road to Theocracy...

The road to Theocracy is paved with good intentions.

According to a dictionary:  Theocracy:  "a system of government in which God or a deity is held to be the civil ruler."


When I read that Rick Santorum had won the primaries of 3 states, all I could think was "Theocracy".  For that's what he and his supporters are asking for in this country.  And for those in this country who fear Sharia Law; that is, those who think the "Muslims are going to take over this country", I have a warning for you.  Once you open the door to electing only those who share YOUR "Christian values", there's no shutting it.  If people get used to being governed by only fundamentalist Christians, why wouldn't they agree to being governed by fundamentalist any religion?  Why, if you're charismatic enough, and have enough money, you can convince anybody that your God is better than their God.

I've said this before, and I'm sure I will say it again:  Our country, the United States of America, is a Republic.  We, all of us, are responsible for electing other people to represent us.  All of us.  All colors, all genders, all lovers of others, all believers of all religions, AND all non-believers.  If you are elected to public office in this country (any office), you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the edicts of your clergy.  And that's good, because the Constitution protects all of us--and, if you care to read it, you will note--establishes no state religion.  Which is great.  Because you are allowed to personally believe what you do, and I am allowed to believe what I do, and we have to be aware that our beliefs may not be the same.  Which is good--my church does not tell you what you have to believe, and vice versa.  What we DO have to believe is that our elected officials will represent all of us.  

It's a hard thing to do; represent everyone.  The majority of your constituents, and the minority.  Some elected officials might pray to a deity for guidance.  Some may meditate.  Some others just go with a "gut feeling".  No matter what, I hope the official takes time to consider all sides of an issue, intelligently. I sincerely hope they are guided by the principles of justice and equality, not the latest edict from their religious leader.  [I'm going to digress a moment, and ask--how in the hell does the Catholic Church maintain its' tax exempt status?  Really?] 

Let's take the issue of contraception as an example.  Really, this should not be an issue discussed in government--the job of the government in this case would be to make sure any form of contraception is safe to use, and available to everyone.  Like drinking water.  And air.  And food.  I daresay we don't expect the government to tell us what kind of water to drink, but we do want them to regulate the quality, and ensure an adequate supply.  That's exactly the way our government should handle our health care--make sure it's available to all, it's safe, and then let the people decide what doctor to see, what course of treatment to pursue.  A man "needs" Viagra?  Fine, let him talk to his doctor, and they decide what's best.  He doesn't have to ask his congressional representative if it's OK.  A woman decides she needs birth control.  She talks to her doctor, and based on the medical information, decides what's best.  SHE DECIDES.  If she discovers she's pregnant, SHE decides whether her body can deliver a baby--taking various factors into account.  If she's healthy, feels capable of raising a child, will do all she can to ensure the pregnancy will lead to a healthy child, and so on, she might even consider her own beliefs about adoption, abortion, circumcision...she might decide to consult a religious guide of some kind to help her make her decision.  It's a big one, for sure.  But it's the woman's own choice to make.  She doesn't have to ask her congressional representative if it's OK.  She shouldn't have to ask you, me, or anyone else in this country to take a vote on it.  

It's a basic human right, to have control over your own body.  We tell kids this all the time--it's your body.  Nobody else has a right to touch you.  At what age does that change?  Because for some Americans, if you're a woman, all bets are off.  EVERYONE has a say about your body.  Fuck your fundamental right.

But let's get back to Rick Santorum, shall we?  Oh, he's a slick one. all right.  To save you the trouble of Googling "Rick Santorum", and getting lost, I've done it for you.  The following is from his official campaign website (I skipped past the money beg on the first page):  

http://www.ricksantorum.com/oped/no-more-leading-behind-america

He talks the talk, all about religious liberty and equality for women, respect for all beings, blah blah blah.  But he never walks the walk--he believes life begins at conception, and if elected, you will too.  Especially if you're a woman--no choice for you.  No right of control of your own body.  Liberty for all?  Except if you're gay.  Then the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to you.  Are you a Muslim?  Try not to be too "extreme" in your beliefs, because Rick Santorum will take you out.  And not for dinner.  Is your child in a PUBLIC school?  Not for long, not if Rick Santorum has his way.  Prayer will be back--the right, Christian prayer, that is.  Theocracy all the way...

God help us.

"Separation of Church and State" part I

We, the people, often talk about the "Separation of Church and State", and we attribute it to the Bill of Rights. The Article actually reads:

"Article the third [Amendment I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Our Founding Fathers (with a little help from the Mothers no doubt) had the wisdom, based on actual experience, to write a Bill of Rights that specifically forbade the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. Furthermore, and arguably more importantly, the citizens or the United States were free to worship how and what they wished. You were free to worship a God, Goddess, Allah, or any of the thousand names for a deity, AND you were free to NOT worship if you so chose. You were free to use whatever resources you needed when developing your own sense of morality; the government might be charged with teaching you to read and write, but you were not going to be taught how to think. Don't you just love America? I do.
You only have to look around the world to see the horror that happens when religion and politics mix--today and historically (let's save that for another blog). The Taliban misuses the Holy Koran to keep women enslaved and uneducated, and lately, throws acid on school girls who have the audacity to want to learn to read.
Let's fast-forward now from the 1700's to the 1980's, at the time that Ronald Reagan was running for office. Remember that he was running against President Jimmy Carter, a man who was deeply religious, knew his Bible, but also knew his Constitution. Carter was a Christian who was President, but that wasn't good enough for some people--they wanted a Christian President, and a Christian nation. The election of Ronald Reagan ushered in trickle-down economics, and gave rise to the Christian Right. The people who, in the early 1960s, were afraid that President Kennedy might be guided by the Pope were now demanding that our nation be a Christian Nation, controlled by Christian principles--oh, but only the Christian principles that they believed in. No abortion rights, reproductive rights (especially not to teenagers!), no rights for gay people, no gun control--the list was full of issues that were sure to polarize the nation. Divide and conquer has been used in every winning military campaign since the dawn of time, and it certainly worked in present day America, finely-honed and tweaked over the past 28 years. Why, we even thought it was OK to ask the Republican candidates this year if they believed every word of the Bible--where was the outrage that this question was even asked, let alone answered as it was? We became an even more divided nation, the Us vs. Thems grew, and in 2008, the Republican candidates littered their stump speeches with hate language, but by now we were so used to it, we let it slide. Or did we? Did we, as Americans electing Barack Obama, finally say, "Enough is enough. No more hate speech and scare tactics. We want to unite as a nation. A secular nation."

Yes and no.

For while our country was saying a leader should not be judged on the basis of the color of his skin or the church he attends, citizens in three states were voting discrimination into their State Constitutions. Many of these citizens were voting this way because their church leaders told them to. From the pulpit. Via e-mail. With fliers. With television commercials, using children to raise fear among their followers. These churches felt it was their right, their duty to interfere with the government of the United States of America. The Roman Catholic church, the Mormon church, and a whole host of "independent Christian churches" poured money into the campaigns in Arizona, Florida, and California. The Mormon church leadership and followers gave over $8 Million to get Proposition 8 passed in California. To put into the Constitution of the State of California these words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Why? Because their church believes it. The leaders of the church believe it, and they've told their followers to believe it. Somewhere in the Holy book of their religion, they think they can find words that tell them to believe this (note to those reading the Bible--Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Guess it wasn't high on his list of priorities). And now they think the government should believe it.
But the beauty of the United States is that our Bill of Rights allows us to have our own personal belief system and be free of the dogma of any one religion. Some religious people thought slavery was OK, others thought interracial marriage was an abomination, and still others believed women were not human enough to be allowed to vote. But the government thought otherwise, thank goodness, and gave legal protection to these minority citizens through various amendments to the Constitution--GAVE them rights, didn't take them away.
Our country has risen against discrimination before, and I hope we can do it again--soon. As an eternal optimist, I believe we will rise against injustice, hate and bigotry, and leave this world a better place than it was before. Regardless of our religious beliefs.
That being said, I believe these churches broke the law, and I believe they should be punished.
The following is the Internal Revenue Code for a 501 (c) 3 organization:

"(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition ... or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. "
We should revoke the tax-exempt statuses of these churches, if for no other reason than to send the clear, understandable message that our nation is a secular nation, reflecting the views of many, not few. Our founders did this for the protection of all of us, and for the protection of the country we call our home. We would be wise to uphold their wishes.