Pastor: Stewart revives national stigma

Dear Mr. Stewart,

In recent months, I communicated that our community has been successfully recovering from the reputation of being discriminatory. This terrible attribute was the result of the Aryan Nation and its wickedness toward people of color – an evil that is condemned by all who have a good “moral compass”. I also told you that the request for the LGBT ordinance may have the potential to revive the national stigma associated with North Idaho. You are making my case. Your recent “My Turn” suggests that a “discussion” about the ordinance will revive our former reputation. I find it odd that in our past discussions we could not see eye to eye about this - and now we agree.

Secondly, I also told you that the LGBT ordinance would impose upon the rights of one party or group in order to provide rights to another group or person and therefore does not protect the rights of all people-groups in Coeur d’Alene. In this, we now seem to agree as well. In your letter you said that you believe in the “principles of freedom and equality for all Americans, including all the residents of Coeur d'Alene.” Herein you make my case yet again. The ordinance does not protect the rights of all people; it protects the rights of one group at the expense of another. Furthermore you said, “We in the human rights community will once again be energized to take a firm stand against discrimination directed toward any of our citizens.” So I ask, will you be energized to “take a firm stand” to defend the “human rights” of persons like Mary Souza or Joe Kunka if they would like to discuss the issue and its consequences? Discuss it? Are you suggesting that we cannot even discuss this issue or allow the people of our beautiful community to voice their concerns? Would disallowing a discussion be discrimination?

In your article, you said, “It is well established in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution that all Americans have certain inalienable rights…” We agree. You also said, “The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees no person shall be denied ‘Equal Protection of the Laws.’ I contend this means all people.” On this, we also agree. Yes, equal protection for all people.

You said, “I find political stands based on discrimination contrary to the world's great religions whose tenets have historically been based on love, compassion, and acceptance for all humanity.” I wish I could agree with you here, but a close look some of the “world’s great religions” would force me to suggest that every major world religion in fact discriminates and has developed laws that are designed to protect people from what is harmful - or for some religious groups - what is perceived as harmful. This form of discrimination is present in the Christian Faith. Yes, you heard me correctly. The Christian Faith discriminates - so does Judaism and Islam. Muslims, Jews, and Christian all have laws that discriminate against those who do “wrong”.

You said, “The repeal of the anti-discrimination ordinance would send a message across America that we embrace discrimination toward some members of our community. It would take years to erase this stain on our city.” Once again, we agree - in part. The question is whether or not it would be a stain or a banner of righteousness. You said, “The city would be erecting a sign stating: ‘We welcome discrimination toward some Americans.’” Yep, and I wish it did. We could suggest that we will discriminate against anyone who does not care about the needs of all people, every day, and everywhere.

You said, “After more than 40 years as a resident of this beautiful city, I am confident that a great majority of our residents will reject any attempt to endorse a policy of discrimination that would once again permit some of our neighbors and friends to be treated as second-class citizens with regard to housing, employment, or public accommodations in our restaurants, hotels, or other establishments.” This is simply untrue. At present, we discriminate against registered sex offenders, felons, and even those who may simply cause undue distraction or disturbances such as solicitors who are simply trying to make a living. We may not see the signs that say “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service”, but we do still see those that read, “No Solicitors.” Wouldn’t you call that discrimination? Don’t you think that solicitors should have equal access to “our restaurants, hotels, or other establishments”?

You said, “At the end of life, each of us will be judged based on how we have treated our fellow human beings and if we had the courage to stand with those who faced such adversity as discrimination.” I ask, to whom will we give account? Will we be held accountable for all forms of discrimination? Will you be held responsible for discriminating against Mary Souza and Joe Kunka? What else will we give account for? There is much at stake in this equation.

You said that Joe Kunka and Mary Souza have, “forsaken their moral compass”. Once again I ask who defines our morals, and to whom do we give account for our moral compass? The answer is important as will be the consequences.

Tony, I know that you believe you are defending human rights. Please consider defending the human rights of all. This includes the human rights of Joe and Mary. This includes their right to say they would like to “discuss” how the community feels about this ordinance.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Van Noy, pastor, Candlelight Fellowship in Coeur d'Alene