Freedom vs. Intrusion
When does one man’s freedom become another man’s intrusion?
Sometimes these things are simple to understand. If you don’t like someone you do not have the freedom to harm him, because your freedom intrudes on his freedom. However, these things are not always black and white.
Think of the situation where a salesman wants to sell something. He believes that he has the freedom to walk up to someone’s home, knock on the door and offer his wares for sale. It is certain that the home owner had no intention of buying whatever is being offered, but the salesman believes that he has the right to ring the door bell and intrude on the homeowner.
Most often the homeowner doesn’t feel put out. The homeowner might feel annoyed. The homeowner might just want the salesman to go away. Or, the homeowner might suddenly realize that the wares that the salesman is selling are the magic that is missing in his life and he would be lucky to pay $19.99 for whatever the salesman is selling.
Some people are lonely and they hope that a salesman will come knock on their door in order to break up the monotony and loneliness. But, if you ask most people they will tell you that they dread the strange knock at the door because it is most often a salesman trying to unload his wares.
People often erect “no soliciting” signs as a warning to those who wish it sell their goods. Apartment complexes and buildings also erect these signs. And, many mostly affluent cities have ordinances prohibiting solicitation. And, these signs and laws often have very little effect on curbing the eager salesman from offering his wares.
Actually, we should face the reality of the situation. No one likes to be marketed to. We don’t like to be told what we should buy. It doesn’t matter how great the product is; we would like to learn about it ourselves. When the salesman appears, then we all would like to have time to think about the product. And, when the salesman is about to leave, then we fear that we will have missed the opportunity to buy that special product.
Dealing with a salesman at the front door is one thing. It is a small intrusion that we are willing to forgive if he offers something that we either want or need. However, the intrusion is less forgivable when the wares are not wanted or needed. One particular salesman has a monopoly on the product that isn’t wanted or needed (At least from my point of view.). This, of course, is the religious salesman selling his faith. These guys aren’t asking for money, they are asking for your faith. In fact, these people are asking for your faith based on a short talk crafted to convince you that their faith is the one true faith.
Now, I am not arguing that there aren’t people out there that don’t need some guidance, and perhaps religious guidance might be the right fit. But, doesn’t the idea of fast thoughtless religion put a bad taste in your mouth? Since people are naturally drawn to ask these philosophical and religious questions, I would expect that people searching on their own are more likely to find their best personal way to God on their own. People who are spoon fed a simple spiritual solution at their doorstep will be disappointed down the road when the doorstep religion slowly becomes real. However, that assumes that religions are all basically equal with no religion better than another. This might be the case, however for most religions there is only one true way. And, of course that one true way is through their doors.
People can be compelled to do many strange things when they are taught to believe that those who don’t share the same faith are likely to be lost souls condemned to eternal damnation. Imagine the sorrow you feel for that dog that was lying dead on the side of the road. Imagine the greater sorrow you feel for the child that died of a terrible disease. And, if you were compelled to believe that that child was condemned to eternal damnation because they weren’t saved by your religion. How could anyone let that happen? And one way to do that is to go out and sell your religion.
As a nation we have created public safety laws that we believe help protect our society from needless death and suffering. Seatbelt laws, traffic laws, drunk driving laws, and Arizona even has a stupidity law that are meant to protect the public from unnecessary death and injury. And so, to the religious it would only make sense that we pass similar protection laws that would protect the public from eternal damnation. After all, isn’t damnation worse that simple death? Well, it is if you believe in it. And, being hounded about damnation might be worse than death if you don’t believe in it.
Conservatives have been known to argue about the ridiculous overreaching of the liberal laws passed to protect us from death and injury. They protested against seatbelt laws. They protested against smoking bans in public places. They argued against clean air and clean water. The only safety laws that conservatives have agreed with over the last few decades have been those dealing with alcohol. This however could be based in the religious morality issues dealing with drinking more than an actually concern with safety. This is because many religious believe that the effects of alcohol and drugs is to disable the personal moral control of a person. From observed evidence of protection laws passed by liberals and conservatives it is clear that the main concern of liberal is to protect the body and the main concern of conservatives is to protect the spirit. Conservatives will argue that government should not waste money on laws that protect stupid people from doing stupid things. And, liberals argue that the government should not enforce religious laws. In both cases each groups intends to take away someone’s freedom for their own good. And both groups feel justified in doing so.
So, the final question here is - If you own a business and you want to protect your clients should you be allowed to exclude dangerous clients? For example, if you have a paintball range are you allowed to exclude people who don’t follow the rules? Not following the rules could result in bodily injury of you or another patron.
This seems to be a straight forward question with a straight forward answer. Of course you should be allowed to exclude those who you deem to be dangerous. After all, if someone is injured at your place you could be sued.
So, for a religious person who believes that damnation is worse than death, should he be allowed to exclude people who he deems dangerous to the spirituality of the others at his place? Or, in simple language, could the exclusion of non-Christians from Christian business owner’s place be allowed? Or, would the exclusion of non-Christians from his place be considered a form of discrimination?
I ask this question because I read of the owner of an athletic club that demands that his swim team members sign a contract that list all the rules of the team. One of the items on the list is “I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.” Of course in all honesty non-Christians would not sign this contract and the net result is that the non-Christians would not be allowed to swim on the team. Of course the owner of the athletic club sees himself as protecting the spirituality of the other children on his team. Read about it here.
------------------------- ------------------------- ---
Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit
Reflection
