(Part I, II,III)
As with the houses of sexual sin, there is a defense against
establishments of racism such as my Aryan coffee shop. Obviously, citizens of
goodwill would have the right to congregate outside my Aryan coffee house to
protest as long as no physical harm is done to any of the patrons. If white
supremacists are desperate enough to walk through a protesting mob and bear
their shouts (but not the spitting) in order to enjoy my Aryan coffee then that
is their right. A pro-tolerance mayor would be allowed to lend his voice in
moral indignation and send
out the police with sandwiches to make sure that the
protesters can fight for justice in orderly comfort. Besides for this, the
local government would be free to put non-discrimination laws into the zoning
ordinances. It is reasonable for the city to say that it is in their interest that
all businesses agree to serve everyone. If the city could not guarantee blacks
that they could order a cup of coffee anywhere in the city without
looking out for any "whites only" signs, then blacks might choose to
take their business someplace else. Furthermore, protecting white supremacists
from angry protesters costs money and the city has the right not to take on
added expenses. (This is one reason why the city of New York has the
constitutional right not to allow the Klan to march through Harlem.) The city
would not, though, be allowed to close down my Aryan coffee shop out of any
interest in tolerance. The government has no more interest in tolerance than
they do in promoting Christian brotherhood and the love of Christ. This would simply
be the government stuffing their morals down people's throats and violating
their liberty.
Before we breathe a tolerant sigh of relief, I will warn you that there is a price to pay for allowing the use of zoning laws to eliminate segregation. The moment we acknowledge that cities can go after segregation out of purely monetary concerns, we must also acknowledge the right not only of private businesses but local governments as well to practice segregation as long as there is some reasonable monetary justification. If Mobile, AL wishes to put blacks to the back of the bus then it should be their right as long as
they can show a valid city interest is at stake such as getting more whites to
use the bus system or decreasing fights on buses. (If blacks wish to boycott
and bring down the economy of that city then that is their right.)
Obviously, the city would not be allowed to bring in segregationist laws out of
any concern for "protecting the Southern way of life" or "the
natural order of
things." Also, the police would have to treat integrationist
protesters no differently than any other non-violent group that violated city
ordinances so no hoses and attack dogs.
The main Ohio State University campus is next to a large black
neighborhood with high crime statistics. Naturally, this crime spills over.
During my years there, I had three bikes and a front tire stolen, one assumes
by a youth from this neighborhood. Now I personally believe that a tolerant
racially integrated society is more important than a few bikes stolen and I am
willing to pay this price, but other people might not be so generous and moral
and that is their right. They may wish to pass laws saying that no black male
teenager without a proper student ID should be allowed on school grounds after
nightfall. (There actually was a debate in the Lantern about
neighborhood youths being
allowed to use school basketball courts.) I might protest such laws,
but I would essentially be in the same position as if the school had voted for
free student-sponsored strippers. I would have the right to sit in my room and
blog about how sinful Ohio State is and contemplate moving to a more godly
campus like Michigan.
Just as the government has no business getting involved in
things that offend popular religious sensibilities, they have no business
getting involved in general moral sensibilities. Our southern town is not doing
any direct physical harm to blacks by putting them in the back of the bus or in
different schools. It is not this town's problem if blacks cannot get a better
deal. If blacks wish they are free to form their own black racist towns. A
group that is unable to do that probably does not really deserve
rights to begin with and should come back when they have further
developed as a group. (This is one reason why Zionism is so important for Jews.
It shows that we are capable of being full citizens and gives us something to
negotiate with in terms of our host society.) I may not like it, but as a
religious person in a free society, I am used to people using their liberty in
all sorts of ways that I cannot approve of.
Before we breathe a tolerant sigh of relief, I will warn you that there is a price to pay for allowing the use of zoning laws to eliminate segregation. The moment we acknowledge that cities can go after segregation out of purely monetary concerns, we must also acknowledge the right not only of private businesses but local governments as well to practice segregation as long as there is some reasonable monetary justification. If Mobile, AL wishes to put blacks to the back of the bus then it should be their right as long as
The main Ohio State University campus is next to a large black
Just as the government has no business getting involved in
1 comment:
You know, Ben, I've been thinking about this a lot, and I actually think you've persuaded me on this Aryan coffee shop issue. As long as conspiracy to commit felonies is prosecuted, I guess I'm willing to allow establishments like these the legal (though not the moral) right to exist.
Post a Comment