In a blistering op-ed published by The Salt Lake Tribune, former Utah senator and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bishop Stuart C. Reid spoke out against what he sees as a serious problem in America: the abandonment of ethics and principles by the religious. By adopting what he calls the “sexualcratic” stratagem, he argues that the majority of faithful people in this country have “abandoned their moral standards and religious orthodoxies” in exchange for peace.
“The sexualcratic stratagem’s ultimate objective is legal and political dominion over religious freedoms standing in the way of its absolute sexual rule,” he wrote. “While dissension is distressing, appeasing sexualcratic dominion over God-given religious freedom is diabolical.”
One wonders what motivated Reid to pen his criticism. Is there any convincing evidence that his rights or those of any other religious person have been compromised? Have any penalties been enacted for believing in God? Have any LDS temples been mandated by federal or state governments to host same-sex weddings? A sober, impartial examination of the United States or Utah does not leave one thinking that religious liberties are being infringed upon.
Drawing on the words of Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill, Reid compares the fight of same-sex couples against discrimination to Hitler’s invasion of Poland and aggressions against the United Kingdom. He argues that in their appeasement of “sexualcratics,” the religious are losing ground to the tyrannical and authoritarian demands of the LGBTQ community and its advocates. This rhetoric draws striking parallels to that of white supremacists who argue that there is an ongoing “white genocide” in the West and that American and European culture is slowly being eradicated and phased out of existence.
Both Reid’s argument and those who believe in “white genocide” are severely exaggerated and reactionary. There is no ongoing war against whiteness. Multiculturalism is not pushing the “white race” into extinction. Similarly, there is no war against the religious. If anything were going on, it would be more accurately characterized as a fight against using religion to restrict someone else’s autonomy. This is hardly the “dominion over God-given religious freedom” Mr. Reid rails against.
In an apparent affirmation of the “Utah Compromise,” a bill that outlaws LGBTQ discrimination while still protecting the rights of religious groups to object to homosexuality, Mr. Reid complains that other states have neglected to adopt similar policies. Perhaps the reason other states have been slow to do so is because of the implicit messages such a bill sends. Imagine if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 included a joint clause protecting the rights of certain groups to act with prejudice on the grounds of religious belief. In this situation, the intent of the bill — to outlaw discrimination based on race, sex or religion — would be totally undermined.
This is comparable to what you have with the Utah Compromise: an anti-discrimination bill with conditions; an ambiguous attempt to meet in the middle that comes close to contradicting itself.
It seems like, in Reid’s eyes, any person of faith who supports or advocates for the rights of same-sex couples is abandoning their principles and committing an atrocity. I disagree. Two of the overarching themes of every branch of Christianity, the dominant religion in the U.S., are compassion and empathy for your neighbors. One interpretation of this is to have respect for the paradigms of others, especially those which deviate from your own. Far from being an abandonment of principle, respecting and honoring the rights of those whose beliefs differ from yours is an affirmation of Christian principles, and a humbling one at that. Rather than being upset that the majority of religious people in the U.S. now support same-sex marriage, Reid should be warmed by such an increase in Christ-like acceptance among his religious brethren.
With his intense language and choice of analogies, the former senator appears set on viewing the cultural shift in this country as a declaration of war against those who believe as he does. By calling it such, as well as naming an enemy, he is stoking tensions that could help fulfill his prophecy. I hope others will not participate in this war.