I remember hearing some religious people disparage some other religious people for being “buffet” religious people. (I am not naming the religious people.) The term was coined to describe those who picked over the tenets of a particular faith and selected those that fit their individual worldview.
People often take the high moral ground in public, but practice a different morality in private. I have an associate who regularly steals glasses from bars and restaurants. She is unapologetic about this, with neither explanation nor disclaimer.
I had a recent conversation with a woman of Korean ancestry. (I know this because I asked her.) She told me of an insulting term applied to her by someone with whom she was acquainted. She laughed, and said she found it amusing. I told her that that kind of behavior made me angry. “It was a lack of respect,” I said.
A man with whom I had some contact presented himself a “a religious person.” He was active in his church, and his son — a business professional — was generous and giving in the name of his faith. The father had a relationship with my two youngest children, and one day, I heard him make a disparaging remark about a group of people. I spent a lot of time trying to make my children understand why what the man had said was wrong. Their mother, who also had a relationship with the man, said that he was “brought up in a different time.”
As I told the young Korean woman, I am not convinced by that argument. We have access to all the news from all the corners of the world, and when people say that they are offended by a term, we should listen. But we seem to choose to whom to listen. When a doctor, after having taken an oath to “do no harm” can refuse critical care for a newborn child because of the parents’ sexuality, we have gone sideways in our caring. We have people traveling to the corners of the earth in response to disasters, and who have died as a result of that great caring. Here at home, we have legislation pending that will give us the right to refuse service.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is wending its way through the legislature with the intended purpose of “protect(ing) churches, businesses, nonprofits and individuals against unjust lawsuits and/or government action that could result in prosecution or worse.” The bill would shield those of “deeply held” religious conviction from being prosecuted for refusing, for instance, to bake a cake for a gay couple. I wonder about a demonstration of “deeply held” faith that can sanction the denial of service to the sick and cares who eats the cakes we bake.
I am not one who has deeply held religious convictions, despite my mother’s never-ending attempts to bring me into the fold. And I have slammed into — and bounced off of — a few of “The Commandments.” I have practiced a convenient morality, to my detriment and the detriment of others. But I care about the kindnesses that we can show to each other.
Morality is not solely in the demonstrations and grand gestures and buildings of people of faith, but also in the small things said and done by people who merely desire to be decent.