Kim Davis

This blog is not really about Kim Davis.  I just used the heading to attract attention.  Although it is related to Kim Davis.  Since she refused to give a marriage license to a gay couple, the media and social media has been in a frenzy.  Personally, I have never taken a side in the gay marriage debate.  And when it comes to the Kim Davis “fiasco,” I don’t think it is worth too much attention one way or the other (if she gave the gay couple a marriage license or not).

What has caught my attention, and what I think is important, are the social media memes that have been traveling around.  There are many.  As an example the one above is a copy of many others – expressing that even though people do not believe in their job or certain aspects of their job, they still do their job.  The other example, above, presents the argument that if we allowed everyone their moral beliefs, nothing would get done and doing something as simple as shopping would become ridiculous.

Both of these arguments are legitimate, in that not every religious or moral belief is able to be accommodated in a society as diverse as ours.  Doing so might cause a gridlock of ideas, and the ideals of an individual will trump those of a functioning society.

However, I strongly disagree with the two memes and the arguments they represent.  (1) The most reasonable reason to not perform a job is because it is morally reprehensible or because you don’t believe in the job.  To do a job without any sense of belief or moral support renders the job meaningless, and employees become mindless drones instead of fulfilling purpose in what they do.  This is not to say that mundane tasks are meaningless.  A simple or mundane task is only without value if it does not seek or fulfill a rightful purpose.  (2)  It is not the idea that everyday shopping will become ridiculous and gridlocked that makes the meme about the checkout counter so ridiculous.  What makes the meme so ridiculous is that we do not find buying condoms or ham morally reprehensible.  Religious accommodation in the workplace is needed for two reasons – (a) to allow civil disobedience and support the marketplace of ideas and (b) to tip a hat to what makes our government strong and helps maintain a healthy government.  For these reasons, I do not find a problem with the law to allow “reasonable accommodation”

(1) The Still Does His Job Meme

When have we allowed “because it’s my job” to substitute “because it is what I believe in”?  When have we become sheep to the workplace – ruled by wealth instead of served by it.  We can either dedicate our time and skills to serve meaningful lives or we can merely do what the boss says because we like money.  There are many meaningful reasons to do our jobs – to serve society is one of the best.  If, at some point, you believe that performing a task harms society in such a way that it would be best not to perform that task and risk being fired, by all means I argue that you should not perform that task.  I am not saying that Kim Davis was right or wrong (personally, I probably would have issued the marriage license), but I am saying that there are certainly many important reasons why one should not perform their job.  If a job pays extremely well, but is incredibly harmful to society, then why take the job?  Money is not what is important.  The sake of merely doing a job is not important.  What the value of that job or task is is of the utmost importance.  Sometimes I do not easily recognize the value of a job, but some jobs, no matter how mundane or dull they are have EXTREME value to them – to society and the individual.

(2)  Ridiculous Checkout Lady Meme

As a society we view this meme as ridiculous because we do not find anything morally reprehensible about what the man is trying to buy.  On the other hand, if the man was trying to buy crack cocaine and prostitutes, we would think that the man is the one being ridiculous.  Further, without opportunities for expansion, there is no room for ideas to grow and the marketplace of ideas becomes dead.  For example, the gay movement was only allowed to grow because people made “reasonable accommodations” for the moral belief that allowing marriage for gay couples was the right thing to do.  If there is no room for opportunity to grow, society’s moral code will remain static with the changing times.  Therefore, a balance must be placed between the moral code of society as a whole and the individual.  A “reasonable accommodation” in the workplace helps maintain this balance by giving opportunity and freedom to the individual while still perpetuating the common good.  Anyone who disagrees with an individual’s moral code, will of course find it ridiculous.  And many argue that others should not be allowed to force their religious views on them, but that is the working of a functioning society.  Much of our society exists today because of the forcing, if by pseudo-democratic means, of religious ideals on others.  Similarly, much of our society exists today because of the forcing, if by pseudo-democratic means, of secular ideals on others. It is the marketplace of ideas.  Therefore, I argue that not only should religious beliefs be afforded some protection in the workplace but also those that are merely considered moral beliefs.  Let the free market determine what it wants for itself as a whole.

An argument, which is much more difficult to swallow for those who are not religious, is that religion maintains healthy government.  Without a recognition of higher consciousness, which connects morality to the will of a superior being, people lose morality to their own will, which is egoistic by definition of its own superiority.  A friend of mine wrote that the law of the land supersedes God’s law but failed to justify why.  Do we want a government that is self-justifiable – that can do whatever it wants and be justified in its action?  One might argue that the people keep the government in check, but I do not wish to substitute a self-justifying government with self-justifying people.  They are really one in the same.  No individual or government is the arbiter of right and wrong.  Although I am very guilty of this myself, it is a bit strange when people say “why would God allow such a terrible thing?” in response to a tragedy.  However, we fail to recognize who defines what a terrible thing is and why we feel that something is such a terrible thing.  Why do we feel that something is terrible?  Where does that feeling come from?  Where does our sense of right and wrong come from?  The ideas of mercy and compassion do not originate from ourselves but are programmed into us.  To make ourselves the programmers would make ourselves self-justifying.  Unless we create an infinite line of justification, morality must come from a source that is self-justified.  When correctly justifying itself, a government grows in prosperity and health.  When merely justifying itself to itself, government becomes egotistical and self-righteous because it is self-justifying.

As far as fearing a gridlock of ideas, the law speaks for itself.  The law has allowed reasonable accommodations for decades.  Businesses still run.  Society still continues.  And life, as we know it in these circumstances, has been what it has been since the inception of the law many decades ago.  As a 31-year-old man, all I have ever experienced in the workplace is reasonable accommodation.  Another reason why the meme sounds ridiculous is because the circumstances described probably would not pass the reasonable accommodation test.  Those who fear reasonable accommodation because of the meme fear a law that does not exist but which they believe is the law of reasonable accommodation, making the law of reasonable accommodation a scapegoat for their fears.

For the above reasons, I disagree with the messages presented in these memes.