Religious discrimination

• dis·crim·i·na·tion /də skriməˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. 

 Why do we discriminate against others?  (Explanation from ReachOut.com) 

• "Individuals or an organisation are discriminating against you if they treat you differently from everyone else because of something about you that they don't respect. Discrimination can be a horrible and hurtful experience and, in many instances, it's against the law."

One day on Twitter I commented in a reply to someone that I felt discriminated against as an atheist. The original poster lists herself as one, but said there was no discrimination and I was wrong feeling oppressed. I corrected her in that I said "discriminated," not "oppressed." But the exchange, which went on for several posts and gathered another against my view, got me wondering about the current idea of discrimination among those younger than 50 or 60 years of age (which both my "adversaries" in the discussion were, I believe). With the protests involving Black Lives Matter going on, just how do younger people view the idea of discrimination, especially if they equate it with oppression?

The recent Supreme Court moot decision on making religious gatherings exempt from coronavirus restrictions is a good example. TV pundits and commentaries are all about how unnecessary it was (Gov Cuomo said the restriction was already expired) and at least one TV commentator I heard mentioned the current makeup of the conservative-majority Court, but none have touched on the other long term consequences (unless networks I haven't heard have done so) — anti-religious discrimination. 

The Court's ruling effectively raises the profile of religion and further ensconses it as an essential part of American culture. Both Christian and Jewish leaders pressed the suit. While these two religions are intrinsically discriminatory against anyone who doesn't follow their teachings, radical conservatives of each can be especially so. And while the US Constitution declares no religious preference or deference (the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment) Evangelical Christians have long ignored this and influenced politicians to enact policies and laws giving preference to these Christians and their repressive agenda.

(For the past couple of decades, Evangelicals have voiced an affinity for Jews and Israel, but only because the Hebrews fit into the Christian "End Time" mythology.)

In exempting churches and synagogues from pandemic regulations, the Supremes have elevated religious groups above measures intended to reduce the risks to the populace (the pandemic in this case) and afforded them benefits for which religion does not deserve despite comments like the ones made by New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan ("Our churches are essential," he said. Notice he only said "churches.") How much leverage does religion have over policies that affect all of us and how much discrimination will the Court's ruling ultimately entail? Will younger citizens recognize the discrimination or see it as normal until it's viewed as oppressive? The trend towards theocratic rule has gone on long enough. It's past time to purge this supposed religion-neutral country of religious overtones.

NORML plea for Criminal Justice

Received this email from @NORMAL. Thought I'd pass it along.


June 17, 2020

Today, members of the House Judiciary Committee are marking up the Justice in Policing Act, which seeks to amend federal guidance over certain law enforcement activities.

Many of the bill’s components are steps in a positive direction, such as banning “No-Knock” drug raids by law enforcement. This is a recommendation that many on NORML’s Legal Committee have long advocated for, as the proliferation of these raids have often led to tragic results.

But while lawmakers focus largely on police behaviors, we at NORML also wish to raise questions about police powers. Over the years, law enforcement in this country have been granted extraordinary powers — powers that often provide them with the ability to interact with citizens whenever and wherever they please. In many cases, the rationale for these ever expanding police powers has been to enforce the so-called war on drugs.

In fact, one of the most common pretexts provided by police for interacting with citizens is that they suspect that someone has either used or is in possession of marijuana. That is why, during these hearings, Rep. Lou Correa has wisely suggested the need to amend federal anti-marijuana laws should go hand-in-hand with reforming policing.

Tell your Representative that it is inexcusable that the House has yet to advance legislation to end marijuana prohibition.

Speaking recently with Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler, Rep. Correa recently asked, “How do you think that the legalization of cannabis would help for social justice in this nation?”

Professor Butler’s answer was instructive. “We think it would help create equal justice under the law.”

One must only revisit the origins of marijuana prohibition in America to understand how ending its criminalization will address issues surrounding racially-based policing. Look no further than the sentiments of its architect, Harry Anslinger, the founding Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who declared: “[M]ost [marijuana consumers in the US] are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. … [M]arijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes. … Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

It is clear that marijuana prohibition was largely born out of prejudice and racial animus and its enforcement continues to disproportionately impact people of color.

That is why NORML is demanding that federal lawmakers end marijuana criminalization, by way of either including language in the police reform bill to deschedule cannabis, or having House lawmakers pass the MORE Act, which cleared the Judiciary Committee last November.

Join me in telling your Representative that we can’t wait. End marijuana criminalization now.

In the days, weeks, and months ahead, I have no doubt that public and political debates over racially motivated policing and systemic racism will persist in living rooms, city council chambers, and within the halls of Congress. And while marijuana policy reform alone will not undo all of the most egregious practices that have led to the recent public outcry of Black Lives Matter and others, ending cannabis prohibition will help to improve the situation by limiting law enforcement’s power to stop and arrest over half a million citizens annually for possessing a substance that never should have been made illegal in the first place.  

Let’s do this,

Justin Strekal
NORML Political Director

P.S. During these times of global pandemic, NORML’s efforts have largely been supported by our amazing sustaining members who contribute a few bucks a month to help ensure we have the resources for the long fight. If you can, please kick in $5, $10 or $20 a month to help us keep going.

NORML and the NORML Foundation 1420 K Street, NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 483-5500 • norml@norml.org