Trump’s Imbecilic, Un-Biblical Religious Freedom Executive Order

trump stainedglass

A possible Religious Freedom executive order is currently being passed around to federal staff and advocacy organizations.

The ignorance in it is dumbfounding.

As reported by “The Nation,” it defines religious organizations so broadly that it includes “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

Basically, this is legalized discrimination.

And it stands over-and-against everything the United States is supposed to be about.

Trump isn’t going to “Make America Great Again.” He’s making America… well, un-American.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e and following) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits discrimination in all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including hiring, firing, compensation, benefits, job assignments, promotions, and discipline. It applies to a number of types of employers including closely held for-profit corporations with at least 15 employees.

According to “The Nation’s” article:

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

There’s so much wrong with that paragraph from the executive draft that I hardly know where to begin, but I’ll start with this: the idea that there are only two sexes is not only asinine, it flies in the face of modern science. Of course, there is the Trump administration, so I guess it’s to be expected.

The reality is that biologically there are more than two sexes. The Trump administration seems to be trying to normalize every person to either XY chromosomes (male) or XX (female). The reality is that not only are there more biological possibilities than that (including X, XXY, XYY, XXXY), but even in the overly simple presentation of only XX/XY, which they seem to be promoting, there can be external reproductive differences as well, which are also not only just male or just female.

The bottom line is that we know, without any doubt, that humans are not born as simply male or female.

On top of all of that, science and psychology are now telling us that it is possible for your brain, your body, and your reproductive system to all have different biological sexes.

Another massive problem I have with the wording of the possible Executive Order is: “in accordance with the belief that marriage is… the union of one man and one woman.” In saying that it is a “belief” not only does the Order admit it is simply an opinion, but it leaves it completely devoid of any legal foundation.

Sure, they actually mean the Christian belief that “marriage is the union of one woman and one man,” but they can’t say that. They think they can’t say it because of the First Amendment, but that’s actually not the only reason.

Even if they could make a law for religious reasons, it turns out that the Bible is fairly broad in what it understands a “union” to look like. According to the Bible, if a woman’s husband dies and she hasn’t had a son, she must marry his brother and have intercourse with him until she has a son (Mark 12:18-27). Sometimes, biblically, wives are good but concubines are better. Many of the “men of God” in the Bible were not only married, but at least three of them had more than one concubine (Abraham, Caleb, Solomon) and they remained “men of God.” But like I said, “biblically, wives are good” and there’s no such thing as too much of a good thing. Right? So, why not have many wives? God frequently blessed polygamists like Esau, Jacob, Gideon, David, Solomon, and Belshazzar.

And don’t even get me started on how poorly you have to misinterpret the Bible to say that it is definitively against same-sex relationships.

I can only hope that this Executive Order doesn’t come to fruition. It is ill-advised, half-witted, and simple-minded. It denies science and makes a mockery of the very biblical texts which it seems to make veiled references to.

In other words, it’s not just moronic, it’s un-American.

Advertisements

10 comments

  1. Really, cleared the comments? The XXY is truly listed on one of his draft cards. Only mention it because it shows his ignorance of his own condition. Or maybe it is like the gay basher who is gay syndrome.

    Like

  2. And it states that HUMAN LIFE begins at conceptiom6, flush roe v wade without so much as a hearing or a trial..so the one of two sexes are bonded servants at best , or as one state legislator stated, woman are only “hosts” to the “baby” not an individual while human being.

    Like

  3. The author may be an accurate explanation of chromosomes; however, he is disingenuous in his treatment of Scriptures. The author seems to be implying that story about the widow is other than an example in a discussion about the resurrection, not stating Christian doctrine.

    The author says: “And don’t even get me started on how poorly you have to misinterpret the Bible to say that it is definitively against same-sex relationships.” – how about these, they seem pretty straight to me.

    1 Corinthians 6:9
    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,

    Jude 1:7
    In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire.

    Like

  4. The basic point is…there is no Biblical reason to discriminate against anyone for any reason. This goes against any defining of love, grace or mercy and certainly does not show any decent imitation of Jesus. No matter what our convictions, treating someone as a “less than” is simply wrong. As it is, the issue of homosexuality is an exalted issue, along with abortion. Meanwhile, men are engaging in adultery, greed and gluttony while people sing their praises as they stand in the pulpit and condemn Planned Parenthood, LGBTQ people and just about anything dealing with the Democratic Party, using their chosen “clobber verses” to justify their hatred and judgmental attitudes.
    If we have a law that allows what is really discrimination, we will be as un-Christlike as a nation can get. No amount of rubber-stamping Jesus’ name on anything will make it look like anything He would do or say.

    Like

  5. Our judiciary will save us as they have done do far with the (let us call it what it is) Muslim ban. Don the con’s bs doesn’t work on them. They paid attention in school.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s