Playing with (holy) fire

In my last post I wrote about how one of the main driving forces behind the anti-same-sex marriage movement is that it’s not just about “keeping the government” out of the bedroom. In fact, it doesn’t get them out at all.

One of the consequences of same-sex marriage policies is that state coercion and aggression is used to force others who do not support this definition of marriage to do so. You have florists being sued and harassed for not wanting to provide flowers for such weddings due to religious convictions, or bakers threatened with state violence for refusing to bake a wedding cake.

It is only a matter of time before churches are sued for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies and are either shut down, cave in to the threats, or refuse to perform any marriage ceremonies.

In case you thought I’m inventing such a mentality, consider the following exchange Julie Borowski had with someone on Facebook.

Frankly, I grow weary of the stupid arguments thrown back at us every time there is a dispute over private property. The “nuclear option” is always used (and also wrong). And the “what ifs?” are wearisome, as well. What’s your point?

While this is just one person’s statements, I promise you, the threats they vowed are not confined to a few fringe elements. In the region I live, I would venture to say this is probably the majority mentality. The idea of using the state as a bludgeon weapon against people who do not conform to your beliefs is considered either necessary or justified. At best, they may not really like it, but they won’t protest it, either, and practically speaking that is just as dangerous.

Irregardless of what one believes on the matter, for libertarians it is a no-brainer; if people do not consent to something involving their property, it is a violation of the NAP to force them to do so.

I don’t care how upset it makes people or whose feelings get hurt. Emotional reasoning never did any good. None of it justifies state violence, and it is amazing how some libertarians are so quick to dismiss it. It doesn’t take a lot of integrity, courage, or character to defend people whose views you share or at least sympathize with.

Real bravery and intellectual honesty requires one to stand up for the rights of people you may not like or even sympathize with, no matter how unpopular they are or how it might negatively affect the way people see you.

I could write about this on a separate post, but this person’s comment about suing churches is incredibly foolish and ignorant. Do they not realize they the ones who send the Evangelical Christian community in panicked droves to the camp of necon theocratic reich-wingers like Mike Huckabee? It’s fools like these who give the Huckabees of American politics their power by providing a real bogeyman to wave in front of voters and galvanize the otherwise politically apathetic because they believe they have been offered a pessimistic choice or either oppressing others or being oppressed themselves.

Atheist libertarian Christopher Cantwell wrote a while back about wielding the double-edge sword of the state (bold emphasis added).

For a religious man to hate gays because they are his political rivals and oppressors makes perfect sense, and is more difficult to argue with. The nature of political battles in America being partisan, it represents an even bigger problem. Not only do gays force him to do business with them, but they elect Democrats to do so, and they then raise his taxes, confiscate his weapons, and force other costly regulations down his throat. His religious bias now has real world backing behind it. “The gays did this” is seared into his mind, and he’s not wrong about that.

….He becomes politically active where he might not have been before, and his biases are thus imprinted on the political figures he helps to elect.

Since politicians are democratically elected, and most Americans still identify as members of some religious group, atheists really ought to be careful about stirring religious folks to political action. There is next to nothing left of the constitution these days, and a theocratic government is really just 50.01% of the vote away from becoming a reality in America. The same political process that bans discrimination, could just as easily make homosexuality a capital offense punishable by death. The same goes for heresy, ethnic cleansing, or any number of policies we all like to think we’re beyond these days.

If you are curious as to what keeps modern conservatism alive, look no further than leftists who think pushing them into a corner is going to make them submit. They may very well, but ultimately that submission could be to the last type of government the Left wants to see in charge of the country.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Central Government, conservativism, Constitutional Law and Courts, federal government, free speech, gay marriage, libertarianism and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Playing with (holy) fire

  1. Bad Wolf says:

    You’re right. Whenever one side – liberal or conservative, same rules apply – pushes too far, the push-back is even more extreme.

    Like

  2. Pingback: How Conservatives Helped Ruin the “Sanctity of Marriage” | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s