On Discrimination

Until recently I had a different understanding of civil rights. I thought that civil rights were pretty clear cut and I could not understand all of the hullaballoo over civil rights issues. What I realized, I admit somewhat embarrassingly, was that I was confusing civil rights with ‘unalienable’ rights.

Thomas Jefferson enumerated Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as among the rights endowed upon mankind by virtue of our humanity. Civil liberties or civil rights, on the other hand, are bestowed by consensus of the civilization or community.

To remove the stigmas and connotations of the word ‘government,’ let us consider joining a club. The Club has rules and privileges that club founders agreed upon and the members adhere to. Membership in the club is contingent upon that adherence.

Our Founding Fathers not liking certain aspects of the club to which they had belonged, formed a new club wherein they said the members could speak against the leadership if they wanted. Further, members would be permitted to worship God as they chose and the press could print essentially what ever it wanted.

So the Fathers formed a new Club. But unlike membership limited to those of wealth or family name, this club was open to all men—that is all white men. Black men and women were not permitted. They were shunned in certain respects and discriminated against. That was a civil or club decision. Women and blacks protested their exclusion and eventually the club was made to see that their exclusion, or discrimination, was wrong. That America was founded by Christians for Christians is factual as evidenced by the national emblems numerous.Though this country was founded on principles of a Jeudeo-Christian ethic, there are those non-Christians who resent their exclusion from the Christian nature of national holidays and the national culture and they are pressing for their inclusion, or rather to neutralize their exclusion.

Over the centuries many such civil liberties matters have been addressed. At one time adultery was punishable by death by stoning, but no more. For millennia, slavery was acceptable. So it was for an Egyptian man of Pharos’s house. Moses was raised around Israelites who had been enslaved for hundreds of years. And then one day he was persuaded that enslaving a nation was not right and he took action. It was not until Lincoln that slavery was abolished in this country. Discrimination against people for their race, color or creed, has been a long time dying in this nation. The common cry has been that discrimination is wrong and should not be part of our club rules.

In recent news, discrimination against the gay community has come to the forefront. Proposition 8 passed in California defining marriage recognized in that community as only between a man and a woman. Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled in October that same-sex marriages would be recognized in that state on the grounds of separate standards. (see article CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT RULES ON GAY MARRIAGE)

So what of this business of discrimination? Ex-convicts have to answer to their past on job applications and a company may refuse to hire them based on their record. Is that not discrimination? What about lenders who may not lend based on credit history? Are not the credit-risky being discriminated against? What about a child who wants to work but is denied because he is not yet 16? Is that not age discrimination? The point is being discriminate is the nature of weighing options and rendering judgment or decisions.

There could never be a complete elimination of discrimination without eliminating the basis for sound judgment and the very rules of civilization. So the question then must be, how do we draw the lines of permissible discrimination? And that is why civil liberties issues become so cloudy.

The answer must be centered in principle, as principle exceeds the various circumstances. In all organizations of humanity—family, business, clubs, churches, governments—principle must drive the rules. Rules are in fact founded in principles. The real matter is to correctly understand the founding principles as causes and their effects.

Wisdom of club or government leadership rests in understanding cause and effect and having and accurate vision of the desired effects in order to implement the necessary causes. This is why the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions—they are either natural results or imposed by civil mandate.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. It is civilly limited by slander. Freedom of the press is not absolute. It is civilly limited by liable. Freedom of religion, rights to privacy, right to own property, etc. all are civilly limited by the intrusion they become on others' inalienable rights—rights that cannot be sold or transferred.

So as with all civil liberties issues, when the issues of gay rights or same sex marriage, or plural marriage, are brought forth, the rights of the individuals must be considered in the light of cause and effect. Particularly, the effect on the whole of the community must drive civil decisions. In every case, club rules are going to discriminate against those who do not wish to comply with the rules. So the civil debate cannot be about discrimination alone. Like it or not, it must be about whether such discrimination is in the best interest of the community and what are the effects upon the rest of the individuals, the family and the community at large. In doing so we must look past self interest, fear, ignorance, delusion, denial, or opinion and look to know the truth of the effects of our decisions. As those decisions are deliberated, let us behave, well, civilly.