The ways we justify our reasoning has less to do with sound arguments than you may think.
——
“Arkansas Governor: My Son Asked Me To Veto ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill,” read the Huffington Post headline on my Facebook stream. Governor Asa Hutchinson repeatedly confirmed he was ready to sign the bill as soon as it came across his desk. So what happened? Economic pressure?
Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, certainly opposed it. Hutchinson definitely saw the backlash against the state of Indiana when their law went into effect, and I’m sure that had something to do with it. But the fact that he called out his son as a significant influence spoke volumes.
♦◊♦
Our emotional reactions are so swift and unconscious, logical reasoning doesn’t have time to catch up.
|
Our initial, gut reactions to moral, political and religious issues come from a combination of heredity and upbringing. For those of us indoctrinated in a particular religious or political belief system, we see things through the lens of those beliefs. Our emotional reactions are so swift and unconscious, logical reasoning doesn’t have time to catch up.
In his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, Dr. Jonathan Haidt introduces us to the metaphor of “the elephant and the rider.” The elephant illustrates the unconscious thought process; the automatic, emotional visceral brain. The rider illustrates our reasoning process; the conscious, verbal, thinking brain. The way to train the elephant is not by brute force, but by making mindful, conscious decisions through reasoning and logic. Often times, reasoning conflicts with what our core values tell us is right and wrong. You can think of this as the little human rider trying to tell the big elephant where to go.
As a former 25-year member of the religious right, I completely understand where the religious freedom laws are coming from. They are an elephant reaction to seemingly widespread acceptance of LGBT people. Many believe it is only a matter of time before gay marriage will become the law of the land. From a conservative Christian’s perspective, government sanctioning of gay marriage is not only an affront to God Himself, but can only lead to persecution of those who believe the Bible sanctions marriage between one man and one woman. (Click here for a more accurate view of Biblical marriage.)
In order to avoid being caught in the crosshairs – between God and country – a law that protects someone from having to “approve” of the “vile acts” of homosexuals, is a necessary evil. That’s the elephant talking.
…research shows when we are only with others who think like us, we tend to go deeper into our own values, moving us further right or left of center and convincing ourselves that we are right and everyone else is wrong.
|
The problem with “logic,” however, is that sometimes it only makes sense to us, or to our group. Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein, in his book, Wiser – Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter, says that research shows when we are only with others who think like us, we tend to go deeper into our own values, moving us further right or left of center and convincing ourselves that we are right and everyone else is wrong.
It’s not difficult to imagine, then, how a group of seemingly persecuted religious individuals came together to do something about a perceived problem.
So where does Governor Hutchinson’s son come in to this? Stay with me for a moment.
There are three ways in which the rider – the conscious, verbal, thinking brain – can guide the elephant, and they are not mutually exclusive. In other words, they all work together to bring about change in our thought processes and reactions.
1. Cognitive Dissonance
This is holding contradictory beliefs at the same time. For example, someone may oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, but have a gay child. He or she knows the child personally and realizes that all of the stereotypes and beliefs taught about homosexuality from a religious point of view do not apply to that child. This causes a conflict between a belief held to be true, and the reality of what is seen.
Once a mental conflict arises, a person now has other experiences that confirm the long-held belief may indeed not be completely accurate, or in fact is completely untrue.
|
2. Experience
Experience is knowledge of an event through involvement or exposure. Once a mental conflict arises, a person now has other experiences that confirm the long-held belief may indeed not be completely accurate, or in fact is completely untrue.
3. Critical thinking
A person who can think critically about their experiences, or make clear and reasoned judgments, particularly when those experiences don’t align to long-held beliefs, is now steering the elephant.
According to the Huffington Post article Governor Hutchinson said, “My son Seth signed the petition asking me, Dad, the governor, to veto this bill…And he gave me permission to make that reference, and it shows that families — and there’s a generational difference of opinion on these issues.”
Governor Hutchinson was experiencing cognitive dissonance between what he believed to be true and the influence of his son, whom he trusts and respects. He recognized and valued the difference of opinion between generations, as well as the toll this bill was having on families, and I’m sure, businesses. What we see is a combination of cognitive dissonance, experience and critical thinking swaying the governor’s point of view.
But what does this say about the future of those who believe in the need for such laws? Is there any hope of bringing them around?
First of all, let’s differentiate what Indiana has done compared to the 19 other states with religious freedom laws. Indiana’s law is the only one that specifically applies to disputes between private citizens. While Texas has a somewhat similar law, it exempts civil rights protections. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, was put into effect to protect citizens and entities against other entities or governments, not to protect citizens from each other.
It’s difficult to address the issue by simply defining what Christianity is about or what Christians should do. There are multiple facets of Christianity and the Christian label is available to anyone who wants to claim it. Logically, religious freedom bills don’t make any sense. Gay marriage is still likely to be approved by the Supreme Court, and to make matters worse for the Christian right, the LGBT community becomes the underdog. Historically, this means stronger support, particularly from younger generations.
The problem the Christian right has with the LGBT community stems from misinformation about LGBT people gathered from the 1950s. This outdated and debunked propaganda fits nicely within their fundamentalist worldview and, unfortunately, is still proliferated by the large, well-funded, religious PACs firmly planted in political wallets. It is a shining example of what happens when the elephant controls the rider.
—
Photo – Flickr/michael_swan
Freedom of religion has been perverted to mean freedom to be a bigot and be granted a legal exception to discriminate. Christianity is a joke!!! By the way, their new favorite talking point is a false equivalency. A gay print shop owner who is not in the business of printing hateful messages targeting any particular group for anybody should NOT be required to all of sudden make an exception for a Christian bigot by printing hateful anti-gay signs at the behest of such a Christian bigot. A cake catering shop that IS in the business of making wedding cakes SHOULD… Read more »
“However important religious freedom is, it cannot be absolute. It can’t guarantee you the right to do anything you want to, especially when that thing impacts the rights of others.” Of course no right is absolute. The traditional line is that my rights do not allow me to affirmatively harm another. In this case a person who is minding their own business and affirmatively harming no one can be forced to provide personal services to a gay couple. Does that work the other way. Can a gay printer be forced to print for a paying customer pamphlets that are anti… Read more »
If your business is open to the public, you’re obliged to provide your goods and/or services to the public—the whole public. If you sell sandwiches, you have to sell them for the same price to black and white, male and female, of any religion, gay and straight and bisexual, native-born American and immigrant alike. Nothing obligates you to make kosher sandwiches, or halal sandwiches, or gluten-free sandwiches; if you don’t, observant followers of two particular religions won’t buy your sandwiches, but you’re not discriminating against them. If you sell wedding cakes, you have to sell them to all comers—the same… Read more »
Good question. My first reaction is to say no, the printer cannot be forced to do that, but logically, you’re right, it should go both ways. The tricky part is that customers still have the right to as anti-gay as they want to be. But, the difference between a business and a customer isn’t always clear — what if it’s a private trade? Another example that’s even more of a gray area — what about posting an item on craigslist but refusing to sell your used item to a gay person? In that case, who is the business and who… Read more »
No right is absolute, and no right is infinite. Every right has boundaries. Every one of your rights borders everyone else’s rights.
However important religious freedom is, it cannot be absolute. It can’t guarantee you the right to do anything you want to, especially when that thing impacts the rights of others.
There’s an old saying, “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins.”
Furthermore, ideas do not have rights. Beliefs do not have rights. Religion does not have any rights. It’s people who have the rights, not religions.
Religious Rights. LGBT Rights.
What makes the second inherently more important than the first?
I’m not religious, and I have no personal objection to gay marriage, but I am troubled by the unquestioned assumption by many that the second automatically trumps the first.
Gosh, StevenS. It might have something to do with the fact that LGBT people actually exist, are actual people who, for the actual tax money they actually pay, get second-class citizenship because adherents of certain popular religions (i.e., collections of fairytales and delusions) think LGBT people are icky.
So: Real, actual subjugated people on the one hand. People clinging to babyish delusions and sky-daddies on the other. That’s what makes the one more important than the other.
It’s pretty simple. LGBT rights are about *not being denied something because of who you are”, i.e., being denied a job, a home, a marriage, etc., because you are gay. Religious rights *in the same sense* are just as important, an there’s no argument that they are not, i.e., the right to not be denied a job, a home, or a marriage because you are Christian or Muslim. In this sense, Religious rights and LGBT rights are the same. However, what is being promoted as “freedom of religion rights” is something very different. It is the right to behave in… Read more »
I thought that this article was extraordinarily condescending to Christians who hold traditional moral views. I also think that the analysis comparing the Federal RFRA to the Indiana RFRA is shallow. A more nuanced discussion that presents opposing viewpoints can be found here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/
Religion is the cancer of this world.
Religion brought nothing good to humanity. Only pain, misery and lies.
This comment flies and passes moderation?
This place is becoming incredibly hostile to people of faith and the hostility isnt checked by the staff. I believe Mr. Rymel is a Christian and is a minister regardless of his sexual orientation. Many long time commentators and authors are also openly religious.
Bigots don’t come in one color, faith or sexual orientation. There is a whole rainbow of bigotry out there. It would sure be nice if the moderation staff stepped up to stem this tide.
Dubya – Religion, in this sense, can be seen as “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” Bob is not specifically calling out Christians, or Muslims, or Catholics, etc. Any religion that reduces human rights to subjective rules and disallows diversity in favor of uniformity, or dismisses human experiences because they don’t match an ideal is, in my opinion, a cancer. It does nothing but subject people to the control of others. It keeps us from finding truth and it hinders the study of science. Many of us at Good Men write to make people think and… Read more »
Hi Tim, Your response is far more nuanced than Bobs’. I appreciate that it is YOUR position and respect it. however, Bob’s comment lacks any nuance or needs any interpretation. It’s a bald faced gouge at people of faith, not specific actions or specific tenets. I’d put the good works of community of faith up against someone like Bob any day of the week. Bob’s comment cannot be “explained away.” The original article was quite interesting. I’d only caution against limiting the application of groupthink to one end of the political spectrum. I’ve seen as much dogmatic behavior from the… Read more »
See Dubya …. “Bob’s comment cannot be “explained away.” Yet there are many who will excuse Bob’s comment. Which is why, other then this response, will not partake in thew conversation.
Ooh, lookit Dubya! Someone dares to have an opinion you disagree with, and Dubya wants it stricken and banned. How ’bout that?
“Religion brought nothing good to humanity.” Clearly an overstatement. Religion does provide benefits to people, and I say that as an atheist. Clearly at least some people benefit from religion, otherwise it never would have existed. It has a powerful, functional effect. Joel Osteen’s house provided a lot of work for the construction industry, for example. The pope gets to live in some really nice real estate, stocked with some masterpieces of art, thanks to religion. So, obviously SOME people benefit from religion, and an even greater number think that they do. I have no doubt religion generates some good… Read more »
They don’t make sense, but you’re only looking at things through the liberal lens. Why should private entities serving the public be able to set aside women only swim times because Muslim women have asserted a religions objection to swimming with men?