And he wasn’t particularly a “still, small voice” man either; he wanted everybody in earshot to know that slavery had been God’s will, that desegregation was Satan’s work, and the federal government was the Antichrist. God wanted only whites to eat at Bessinger’s six Piggie Park barbecue joints; so His servant Maurice took that fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1968 decided that his religious freedom argument was “patently frivolous.”
Until the day he died, however, Bessinger insisted that he and God were right. His last fight was to preserve the Confederate flag as a symbol of South Carolina. “I want to be known as a hard-working, Christian man that loves God and wants to further (God’s) work throughout the world as I have been doing throughout the last 25 years,” he told his hometown newspaper in 2000.
Growing up in the pre-civil-rights South, I knew a lot of folks like Maurice Bessinger. I didn’t like them much, but I didn’t doubt their sincerity. Why wouldn’t they believe racism was God’s will? We white Southerners heard that message on weekends from the pulpit, on school days from our segregated schools, and every day from our governments. When Richard and Mildred Loving left Virginia to be married, a state trial judge convicted them of violating the Racial Integrity Act. That judge wrote that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents … The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
That’s a good background against which to measure the uproar about the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law by Governor Mike Pence last week. I don’t question the religious sincerity of anyone involved in drafting and passing this law. But sincere and faithful people, when they feel the imprimatur of both the law and the Lord, can do very ugly things.
Read the rest here
I've been trying to stay informed about this new legislation, and I think this article by Epps is one of the best concise reads I've encountered. He does a great job highlighting the two key (and crucial) differences between the Indiana state legislation and the legislation of most other states and at the federal level. I have to say, faith-based movements of this nature are the #1 reason I often feel compelled to distance myself from a specific faith - because, as Epps so masterfully writes, "sincere and faithful people, when they feel the imprimatur of both the law and the Lord, can do very ugly things." I also thought that the comment he made at the article's close - "Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business..." - was a brilliant assertion. My first job was in retail, and even now, 11 years into my career, I still work once or twice a month in a retail setting. I do this in part because I love the job, and in part because it keeps me humble. I serve people from all walks of life, and sometimes, I would like to craft a rule that says my colleagues and I do not have to wait on individuals who are entitled, verbally abusive, impatient, rude, demanding, etc. Sometimes a customer might have limited access to resources for good hygiene, or a limited capacity to adhere to good hygiene. But, as Epps notes, running a business is a PRIVILEGE, and serving unsavory folks (who often look and sound a lot like Gov. Pence) just comes with the territory. You grin, bear it, and treat individuals with respect because that's life, man. I'm so leery of legislation that sets parameters in place staking businesses against individuals (and backing the businesses). Indiana is playing a dangerous game, and I hope the tides turn against their favor before this new form of legalized discrimination becomes a trend in other states.
ReplyDeleteThis article provides a good reminder of the injustices/evils that have been done and perpetuated in the name of Christianity and of God. I think this article offers a really good critique, because the author makes clear that he does not question the "religious sincerity of anyone involved in drafting and passing this law." By saying this, he is showing respect for people's religious beliefs, while still critiquing the lack of justice in the law that resulted from these beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people should practice their faith as they see fit without the fear of oppression. However, I don't necessarily agree with the idea of giving any business the right to discriminate. I believe this would lead to other discriminatory practices in the business sector. They are not religious institutions, and I assert that is the defining difference. Those lines should not be blurred.
ReplyDeleteWhat is happening to freedom? What's happening to faith? What's happening to humanity? What's happening period? Why is it that winners still write history? Why can't a righteous person who is equally as sincere and faithful not say something about such discrimination coming across their path? I honestly have not understood the entire Act but have read so many comments that categorize it as a start to a horrible humanity that I'm wondering if there's not ONE righteous person who could have impacted this differently? Think I'll go and read it for myself and then ask the questions.
ReplyDelete