When religious belief runs counter to "do not judge, do no harm" - February 25, 2014

Arizona has passed a law that allows ones' religious belief to override fairness, tolerance and basic humanity.  I.e., based upon your religious belief, you may refuse to serve gay people. 

Now it is up to the Governor to sign or veto this legislation. Meanwhile, a growing number of groups and individuals are standing in opposition to the law. Ten years ago few would have batted an eye or raised a finger in opposition. We have come a long way, and by the response seen in Arizona, people of conscience are finally saying "enough".

The central focus of this particular issue is homosexuality.  But the foundation of the argument is ones' personal belief system and how far its influence can extend to disenfranchise those human beings it deems unworthy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Again and again I am troubled by religious organizations that ostracize those groups or individuals who do not meet their idea of "normal" or "pure".   I am also troubled by the aforementioned's "hate the sin, love the sinner" pronouncements, which, if they are taken at face value, would de facto rule out the Arizona law.  

But all of this analysis aside.  The real issue here is the Why?  The Deep Seated Why?!  What is it about homosexuality that bothers people?  Sex between members of the same gender?  Marriage between members of the same gender?  Fear of the unnamed unknown?

In the end, no one has the right to discriminate against another person.  No one.  Short of criminal behavior, no one has the right to decide what behavior is good and what is bad.  No one has the right to name whom we can love, marry or, sleep with.  

Civil rights and gay rights are not separate rights; they are enumerations of a compendium of inclusive “Human Rights”.  Men and women of every creed are suffering and dying for these same rights throughout the globe, while we, America, the supposed bastion of tolerance and equality, seem uncertain of what the term “Human Rights” really means.

In the mind of this writer, it means equal rights for All Human Beings.  (I would not exclude our animals and our environment in this statement either, lest we get the impression that equal treatment and material provision has a beginning and an end point.)

If Human Rights are denied to one person or group, all of us are jeopardized.  We cannot, and must not, allow our world to discard those we do not like, love, or whom we consider damaged.  If our laws do not protect all Human Rights, they cannot in truth say that they protects any human rights.  For Human Rights, once compromised by enlightened nations, become no more than lifeless pieces on a chess board, where, in the end, we are left with only winners and losers.