Losing My Religion, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

January 31, 2015 Victor El-Khouri 6 Comments

This week marks the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp.  Although I’ve seen a lot of film footage of this event over the years (and went to the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem last year), I still found myself surprisingly moved by the media coverage.

It’s not just seeing the mounds of dead bodies, or the skeletal living bodies of the survivors.  It’s not just seeing the entrance gates, which say “Albeit macht frei,” which is German for “Work Makes You Free.”

(Side Note:  Doesn’t that sound like something a Republican would say?  I don’t mean he’s a Nazi.  I mean that certain types of Republicans have the same vocabulary and seem to be enamored of the same imagery.)

The docent who took our group through the museum never missed an opportunity to include gypsies, gay people and others who were the targets of the Nazis.  She agreed with me when I compared the genocides we’ve seen since (Rwanda, Syria, etc.) (and that “etc.” breaks my heart) to the Holocaust.  We knew these words to be synonyms.

The Holocaust happened (in part) because the people in charge decided that their comfort was more important than the lives of other people.  Hitler and his cronies blamed all the social and economic ills of the time on those who were different.  If they could only get rid of the Jews, the queers, the cripples and the rest, everything would be fine.

There was a time when that was the prevalent wisdom in this country.  No, there weren’t death camps (although we did lock up our Japanese-American citizens, just in case).  Instead, we just needed to keep the “undesirables” in their place, which was away from the white Christians.  When my parents were on their honeymoon in 1950, they stayed in motels that had signs saying, “No Jews.”  (“Thomases” apparently wasn’t considered to be a particularly Semitic name by the brain trusts at the front desk of these establishments.)

Not long after that, a group of African-American college students was arrested for sitting down at a lunch counter.  They were convicted and served 30 days on a chain gang.

The charge was trespassing, because the store owners claimed that there place of business was “private property.”  Which is interesting, because in general retail businesses (and motels) are considered to be public accommodations.  In other words, a lunch counter is not a private club.  One doesn’t pay membership dues to shop in that particular store.

This week, a court overturned the conviction, more than 50 years after the sentences were served.  The comfort of the majority was not deemed to be more important than the rights of the minority.

I remember those times.  The people defending segregation cited the Bible (along with their interpretation of the Constitution) when they claimed to have the right not to associate with black people.  Inherent in that position is the assumption that public accommodations — in this case the goods and services of the store — exist for only their use and enjoyment, and any other types of customers would detract from them.

Rights don’t work that way.  If I use mine, you don’t lose yours.

You wouldn’t know that from the latest news from the battle for marriage equality.  According to this story, many states are trying to limit the rights of all people to get married, despite the rulings of the Federal courts.  They say that the religious “freedom” of the clerks who issue the licenses are more important than the human rights of the couples.

I quote:  “John Kallam Jr. Mr. Kallam, a Baptist minister, said he had gone to the judge who served as his supervisor to see if there was a way he could opt out of marrying gay couples, but had been unable to work out a solution. On Oct. 31, Mr. Kallam resigned after nearly 12 years on the job. ‘I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom,’ he said.

“He compared his situation to that of a Sikh soldier, with whom he served in the United States Army, who was allowed to wear a turban and grow his beard because these were central to his religion. ‘Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?’ he asked.”

To me, there is a logical inconsistency there so enormous we could have a parade.  The Sikh soldier’s turban and beard pose no thread to Mr. Kallam.  The Sikh soldier does not have to shave nor cut his hair, and Mr. Kallam doesn’t have to grow a beard nor wear a turban.

However, if he chooses to practice his religion in a way that prevents him from doing his job (in this case, marrying gay couples in civil court), than perhaps he needs another job.  Observant Jews don’t choose to work in barbecue restaurants because they keep kosher, but they don’t stop you from eating what you choose. Keep gay people out of your church if that is what you believe, but don’t make me be part of your bigotry.

That’s pretty much the opposite of freedom.

Media Goddess Martha Thomases might need to lay off the parentheses.