Mr. Howard,
I’ve been writing for The Daily Gamecock for a short time now, and I wanted to let you know I appreciate you reading my column and your critical thought in responding.
In my time as a columnist, yours was the first letter to the editor that I have received, and I am very grateful. Thank you for reading and contributing to the conversation on the Opinion section, which is why the other columnists and I do this on a weekly basis.
I wanted to keep the dialogue on the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act going for one more column, although much of the subject matter we were originally discussing has been negated due to the recent reforms to the law.
To begin, I stand by my statement that religion and religious leaders have absolutely no space to be included in law making. But when I say that religion has no space in lawmaking, I do not mean to say that political leaders are not allowed to have their own faith.
I prefer that my lawmakers keep their religion out of legislative action as much as possible. But this is not to protect some personal political agenda but rather to protect the citizenry that is subject to the decisions of lawmakers whether they are religious or not.
The separation between Church and State is not to keep people with a religious faith outside of an upper-tier of society, rather it is a mechanism to keep the country tolerant of all different faiths.
The upper tiers of society are already made up of largely religious people, and yet some of the people that find themselves on the outside of our modern society are members of the LGBT community. I have a hard time believing any argument that the religious segment of the population is subject to intolerance, and yet I don’t think the same can be said for the LGBT population.
I would like to be clear, logical and careful in saying that I am happy that Indiana lawmakers have reworked the RFRA to disallow the same amount of discrimination that the original legislation would have.
Opponents to social progress will always complain that in allowing others to gain more rights, those who are already advantaged are being oppressed. That is truly a fallacy, as those with all the rights will never want to give up any advantage to those who are disadvantaged.
I have no political campaign to further, but I am a major proponent of equality. And, Mr. Howard, you may have pegged me as a nonreligious person, but I am actually Catholic.
In my life as a young Catholic white man, I can’t really say that I’ve ever felt any prejudice against me. I’ve always been very satisfied with my protection under the law, and if there comes a time when a business denies me service due to my faith, I will let you know.
But there are segments of the population where unequal and unfair treatment on the basis of discrimination is a reality, and that is why I thought the Indiana RFRA was a mistake.
Defend the rights of the legally unprotected population rather than the overprotected.