New York Times Op Pages
by Zach Compton
The human experience is a vast collection of culture, history, and conflict. Our modern society in America is a representation of diversity and appropriation, constantly evolving and absorbing to be ever more inclusive for our citizens. This natural mechanism changes how we think about the world in order to form a more perfect Union. However, these oscillations within society often conflict with sacred traditions within holy texts, leading to disagreements between those who subscribe to conventional religious beliefs and those whose unconventional beliefs contradict scripture. This is illustrated today as the battle for gay-marriage equality rages on between conservative Christians and more progressive citizens.
The recent article in the New York Times, Anti-Gay Laws Bring Backlash in Mississippi and North Carolina covers the resolve of conservative politicians to retain vestiges of the bible that prohibit homosexuality. In summation the current governor of Mississippi “signed far-reaching legislation allowing individuals and institutions with religious objections to deny services to gay couples.” Jonathan M. Katz and Erik Eckholm, who wrote the article, outlined the significance of the bill and how it will affect the state. As a result of this legislation PayPal immediately announced it was cancelling a prospective investment of $3.6 million in North Carolina. Many other companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google have since made public denunciations of the legislation. This nuanced issue involves a careful consideration of what religious freedom protects.
For a stable society to exist, there must be a certain degree consensus. Quantifying consensus is a difficult task, especially on the Internet. Fortunately the New York Times allows its readers to post comments directly related to the article. This provides a metric for how disparate American’s opinions are on this particular bill. Allowing people to post with anonymity can lead to inflammatory comments and trolling, but it can also lead to an enrichment of the original article and its purpose. As I evaluated the comments left by readers, I was able to discern general trends and outliers within the NYT audience. An overwhelming majority of comments I read vehemently opposed this legislation, while a very small number of comments supported the bill. The critics of the bill site the separation of church and state, as well as the South’s proclivity to hold on to antiquated principles. The proponents of the bill site their concern for a breakdown of family values and the defense of their first amendment right to freedom of religion.
Those who opposed the bill provided personal insight, opinion, and professional experience in their comments. These comments ranged from emotive condemnations to logical dissections in order to expose the dangerous nature of using religion as a tool of discrimination. As we see from a commenter named Brian Williams, the legislation is overreaching in its intent to protect religious freedom.
This comment shows a reflective response to the article and articulates in a logical manner the distinction between protection and discrimination. European settlers escaping religious persecution colonized our nation so our country recognizes the importance of such liberties. Though, Thomas Jefferson stated that in order for government to effectively function, there must be a division between Church and State so that neither would usurp the power of other. This law violates that separation and permits citizens to discriminate against homosexuals, justifying such actions with a claim for religious freedom. Many comments echoed this concern that the right to practice religion does not extend into the private sector. Additionally I posted a comment as well, “Freedoms afforded to churches are very different than freedoms afforded to businesses and there is an intentional distinction with which each is regulated. One can practice without discrimination in the protection of their religious institution, but one cannot extend that into the private sector and start denying people liberties because of personal beliefs.” These comments provide clarification of what it means to have religious freedom so that misinterpretation does not lead to discrimination.
Another trend amongst those who opposed the bill was how this conversation is emblematic of the South’s history of using religious freedom to impose discriminatory laws. Prior to emancipation many supporters of slavery sited instances in the Bible to justify this oppression. Alice Clark from Winnetka, Illinois shares her personal experience to emphasize this sentiment. “I went to school in the South during the 1960s and heard these same arguments, but the issue was skin color. The Bible of the 1960s, it seems, supported racial segregation and not serving darker-skinned people in restaurants. Now the Bible of the 21st Century is silent on race, but suddenly supports people who don’t want to do business with gays. Will we ever get the part of the Bible that exhorts us to love our neighbors?” Versions of this sentiment were common throughout the comment section of this article. This reveals how many Americans still view the South and its conservative religious value system. The article benefits greatly because these stories are personal accounts testifying to the magnitude of this legislation and different perspectives enrich the conversation.
Few commenters provided support for the bill however those who did tended to mention a concern for their children and praised what the bill ostensibly safeguarded. For example April from Texas expresses such fear about the fallout of “equality” and how it could threaten the traditional conservative value system.
The infrequency with which these types of comments were seen is likely due to the tendency of NYT readers to be more liberal. As a result we cannot surmise this is an outlier. We can however presume that it is probably a shared concern amongst other conservative families.
This all reveals an important facet inherent to ancient religious texts. As our society fluctuates, evolves, progresses, these texts remain static, inert, unchanged, inevitably leading to social conflicts. Analyzing this conflict through the lens of NYT commenters also illuminates the growing concern of religious overreach within state and federal politics. It is clear that a majority of Americans believe in the importance of freedom to practice religion within the parameters of the institution. It is also clear that a majority of Americans recognize political doublespeak that panders to a dogmatist faction of conservatives. By examining the comments on this article it revealed that Americans would not hastily defend religious freedom at the expense of subjugating others. Comment sections can be a treacherous space especially on the Internet. So it appears as though humanity has been restored in the most unlikely of places.
Works Cited:
Katz, Jonathan M., and Erik Eckholm. “Anti-Gay Laws Bring Backlash in Mississippi and North Carolina.” New York Times (n.d.): n. pag. 5 Apr. 2016. Web.
Brian Williams, “Anti-Gay Laws Bring Backlash in Mississippi and North Carolina.” New York Times comment, April 5 2016.
Alice Clark, “Anti-Gay Laws Bring Backlash in Mississippi and North Carolina.” New York Times comment, April 5 2016.
Related Images:
