I’d Like the Definition of Equality, Please.
Where are the same sex marriage supporters now? Those who shout about tolerance and equality, as the main buzz words for their fight in recent social arguments? The supporters who made you believe they wanted a “kumbaya” moment of everyone having the opportunity to live out their lives in the way they choose. The same supporters you thought would be willing, even though disagreement, to support those who don’t believe in homosexuality and same sex marriage, because of equality. If backers of equality for homosexuality want tolerance and support, it would seem logical that this would be a commutative property type of formula. If someone wants their beliefs validated, then they should validate the other opinion also. That seems fair and equitable, doesn’t it?
But what is equality? It is “the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability”.
Where is the equality now? Where is the tolerance for not believing the same way now? When homosexuals felt abused, mistreated, unequal, because Bible based believers openly shared the belief of such a lifestyle choice being against God’s plan, everyone screamed discrimination and inequality for rights and beliefs.
Equality never says we have to agree. It never says we have to live the same. It doesn’t even say we have to be supporters of, in this case, a way of life. What it does mean however, is if you are willing to fight for what you want, once you get, vindictive behavior is an unacceptable way to treat your neighbor, as revenge for years of inequality.
‘“It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord’. (NIV Romans 12:19) So if those of us who believe in the Bible’s view of homosexuality have been wrong in our behaviors toward our fellow citizens, God will take vengeance. We don’t need to take it against one another.
Now that America has “opened its arms”, freely accepting the same-sex lifestyle, if someone disagrees or doesn’t choose to live this way, now they are discriminated against.
They are literally fired from their jobs. Not fired because they made a comment at their place of employment. Fired because they chose to share their beliefs, in a public setting and then their employer “checked with human resources” and decided “he couldn’t say those things here”. Strange twist though, the comment wasn’t made “here” meaning while at work or while acting as an agent/representative of the company. In fact, the individual wasn’t even an employee of the company, when the comments were made.
The “human resource violator” in this case is Craig James. James, a former pro-football running back for the New England Patriots and a former football announcer for ESPN, was recently fired (after one week) by Fox Sports Southwest for a statement he made during a debate in his 2012 bid, for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas, which was ultimately won by Ted Cruz.
During the 2012 debate for the Republican seat, James, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and Ted Cruz had a moderated discussion, regarding Leppert’s ostensible support of the gay community. Leppert had twice participated in the city’s gay pride celebration parade, which raised questions regarding his support of issues regarding the topic.
The deliberation between candidates found James contributing his ideas on the topic, which led to him sharing his belief of homosexuals will have to “answer to the Lord for their actions”.
That statement is what ultimately cost him his job at the beginning of the current college football season with Fox Sports.
Prior to Fox Sports terminating Craig James for his beliefs on homosexuality, (which Fox Sports now faults on improper vetting) the United States Air Force had begun its own circumspection of Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk and his dissimilarity of beliefs with his commanding officer.
Monk has served America for 19 years, with what appears through other reports, a clean military record. While serving at Lackland Air Force base, in San Antonio, Texas, Monk’s squadron was assigned a new commander, Major Elisa Valenzuela. Valenzuela is openly lesbian.
In a conversation regarding an “objection” Valenzuela had regarding a chaplain, Monk was involuntarily subjected to a conversation where Valenzuela’s opinion on individuals who believe homosexuality is a sin, resulted in her comment of not knowing “what kind of people actually believe that kind of crap”. Well, Monk holds that belief.
In another instance, Monk shared publicly, Valenzuela was soliciting Monk’s opinion on how to handle a trainer, whom Valenzuela wanted to punish. Monk suggested alternatives to harsh punishment with “training” and was met with Valenzuela threatening if Monk didn’t “get on his commander’s page he wouldn’t be allowed to continue serving in his current position”.
At present, Monk has been relieved of his duties and is being investigated and awaiting possible punishment from the military, for sharing his story with the nation.
Where have our religious freedoms gone? The gender with whom we choose to enter a relationship with, in itself, is not a religious freedom. It can be argued to be a choice of freedom, but it doesn’t fall under a religious freedom. Nonetheless, it is being held as a more valid freedom to uphold, than allowing individuals to believe it is wrong, based on their beliefs in the Bible or other religious teachings.
What it truly comes down to is who believes in the Bible and who doesn’t. Craig James and Master Sergeant Phillip Monk (I would presume) can show exact passages in the Bible, where their beliefs are based. Conversations about such polarizing topics cannot be easily accomplished, if both parties don’t believe in the source from which the information is derived. Therefore, unless all parties involved in the conversation can agree on a base of belief, in the case the validity of the Bible, constructive discussions will never succeed.
Putting that aside, there is still the issue of same sex liberty supporters, fighting dirty against those who disagree with them.
In the case of Craig James, Fox Sports said, “he couldn’t say those things here”. Well, he didn’t say them at Fox Sports or at ESPN. James made those statements during a bid for political office, in a state where the Republican Party Platform holds the same belief. However, he was punished for having a belief and stating it openly.
This is the point where America has gone wrong. Whether a group of individuals have legitimately been wronged over time or groups have felt marginalized in the past, it doesn’t serve any good to society to punish someone for their beliefs, especially if that belief is in line with the Constitution.
America was founded upon the need for religious freedom. That freedom affords citizens the right to live out their relationship with God, in the way they believe is most correct. Have people been offended in the name of religious freedom overtime? Certainly. It wasn’t right, but show me an individual who is absolutely perfect in all their ways and let’s get them to run for President in 2016. Atonement for those wrongs cannot and will not be gained by taking away a religious freedom.
Is it that society no longer has any conservative values or are those values so “out of style” that they cannot be appreciated? Maybe it all comes down to the legality of society. When a human resource department declares a statement made prior to employment a reason for termination, it sounds as though fear dominates society now and not a true belief in the freedoms of the Constitution and what it affords the citizens of America.
A belief is “an opinion or conviction”, not a reason for termination or even possible military punishment. A religious belief is a right, afforded by the Constitution of the United States of America, which a President, elected officials or anyone else cannot take away from us. Employers can’t use this right to chastise someone, to have them align themselves with a belief they don’t hold.
If equality is truly wanted by all, it must go both ways. In America, one right is not deleted just because another has been recognized.
