By DONALD DeMARCO
The zeal with which people are fighting discrimination these days has reached the point where mere disagreement is now regarded as a form of discrimination. A baker who does not agree with same-sex marriage and has therefore refused to do a cake for a same-sex wedding has been sued for discriminating against homosexuals.
Pope Benedict XVI expressed the matter clearly and accurately in his 2006 book, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. Benedict pointed out: “The concept of discrimination is constantly enlarged and this means the prohibition of discrimination can be transformed more and more into a limitation on the freedom of opinion and on religious belief.”
Discrimination is a one-way street. One person discriminates against another. One is the villain, the other is the victim. The one who discriminates treats the other unfairly by rejecting or barring him from some potential benefit without sufficient warrant. In this regard, such discrimination is unjust.
Disagreement, on the other hand, is a two-way street. When one person disagrees with another, both parties disagree. One cannot disagree with a person who agrees with him on the same matter in which there is a disagreement. If mere disagreement were discrimination, both parties of the disagreement could sue each other. But disagreement has nothing to do with injustice. People disagree on all sorts of things without making anyone else a victim.
To extend discrimination to cover disagreement is, as Pope Benedict XVI pointed out, an example of “enlarging” discrimination to the point where it goes far beyond discrimination. In the case of the baker mentioned above, there is a disagreement about same-sex marriage. If the baker is charged with discrimination for not supporting something that he does not support, is he not a victim of discrimination for not being allowed to disagree on a matter that is very important to him and is even supported by Scripture?
While making the movie Gone Girl, director David Fincher required Ben Affleck to wear a Yankee hat. Although he is a most cooperative actor on almost all occasions, Affleck, an ardent Boston Red Sox fan, simply could not comply with a directive that he regarded as traitorous to all the members of Red Sox Nation. By no means was Affleck’s refusal to don a Yankee hat an expression of discrimination against the Yankees. He was happy to cheer Derek Jeter at Fenway Park, but wearing a Yankee cap was quite something else. His refusal to wear the hat was an expression of his loyalty to his favorite team. There was no talk of discrimination, though disagreement was palpable.
After much “shuttle diplomacy, so much back and forth,” an agreeable solution was found: Affleck agreed to wear a New York Mets hat. Would that all disagreements could be resolved so easily!
Disagreement should be met with tolerance, not lawsuits. The “No Smoking” sign on the restaurant window does not discriminate against smokers; it serves to protect the non-smokers who want to dine in a smoke-free environment. The smokers may continue to smoke, but not inside the restaurant.
Unfortunately, even the word “tolerance” is commonly misunderstood these days. There are some things that are simply intolerable, such as the slaughter of innocent children. Jacques Maritain has stated that he prefers the word “fellowship” to “tolerance.” “Fellowship,” he explains, conjures up something “positive and elementary in human relationships”: traveling companions in the journey of life who meet and enjoy “friendly and cooperative disagreement.” Disagreement is inevitable; fellowship should be mandatory.
There is an element of self-righteousness in the reckless use of discrimination. And one of the problems with self-righteousness is being blind to justice. The self-righteous person can exact vengeance on the other and be more severe than justice would allow. The current firestorm of anti-discrimination lawsuits for reasons that are not discriminatory is a strong indication that what is sorely needed in our society is a stronger sense of fellowship. We are all members of the same human family. We should treat each other with more familial loyalty.
+ + +
(Dr. Donald DeMarco is a senior fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, Conn., and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest work, How to Remain Sane in a World That is Going Mad, is available through Amazon.com. Some of his recent writings may be found at Human Life International’s Truth and Charity Forum.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress