Members of Omega Psi Phi Black fraternity at IU-Bloomington hosted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act discussion panel last night and graciously invited a member of Traditionalist Youth Network to sit in as a panelist. There’s no party like a TradYouth party, and true to form the discussion was provocative, engaging, and intense at times. The evening’s discussion was also one of several indicators that our overall mission on campus has been increasingly successful at reaching students with the message of Radical Traditionalism.
Heimbach was joined by students from the Lutheran Student Association, Muslim Student Association, and a member of the local chapter of the NAACP. As a disclaimer I will also add that the other students were representing only themselves and were not baring any official representation for their respective organizations. With such a broad cross section of religious and social opinion you’d think that we would have had more disagreement on more topics, but really only came down to a single disagreement: whether or not anyone has the right to discriminate for any reason.Across the board the decision to repeal, rescind or otherwise shit-can the RFRA was a unanimous decision. The little protection that the RFRA provides is, as Heimbach described, a “Styrofoam shield” if it is anything at all. He believed we should scrap the entire bill because it did not go far enough in the protections it is supposed to grant, and also that it isn’t actually capable of defending people who claim those promised freedoms. The Lutheran and Muslim Student Associations members argued along some line of reasoning that LGBTQWERTY people would be denied essential services or some basic service needed of be members of a society. The NAACP member agreed with the reductio ad gay-discrimination (which continued well through the evening) but also added that Selma spice impugning that bitter earthy aftertaste of 1960s civil rights agitation. No surprises there.
The real surprises started coming when panelists had to speak about whether or not RFRA would have any long lasting impact on the way that business conduct themselves in the marketplace. Again, all panelists were in agreement that businesses would carry on with “business as usual.” Most of the other panelists said it would have been silly to refuse business to anyone on simple grounds of fiduciary responsibility on part of the business owner– convictions be damned. As Heimbach reiterated in the opening question: freedom to discriminate is real freedom. Without the freedom to discriminate a business owner doesn’t own his own business, but instead he becomes a tenant to a government owned shop. This was that one weird moment when the liberal pro-LGBT panelists came out as hardcore capitalists and tyrannical usurpers stating that nobody should be allowed to deny service to any member of the public. Folks, remember that these other panelists are the very ones who decry fascism (or whatever they decide to call fascism), and their solution to the RFRA “problem” is to say that an all-powerful state should be able to punish even the smallest of business with such heavy handed fines that the business’s only option is to go out of business. If that doesn’t say “we need the government to stamp out small businesses and make room for godless multinational corporations” then I don’t know what does.
The most surprising point that the whole panel agreed on was that our Federal government is a godless secular capitalist state and needs to be destroyed. Our position on #DeathToAmerica was entirely and completely without rebuttal, and neither did anybody quibble about our observation that the federal and state governments are bought and owned by international Zionists and organized international Jewish interests. The only time that the other panelists refused to answer a question with any clarity, trying to play both sides of the line, was when Heimbach flatly asked if anyone ever has a right to discriminate for any reason at all. The smooth talking girl from the Muslim Student Association learned quickly that “you can’t block the ‘bach” after she was left floundering around and offering highly conditioned hypothetical conjecture in response. I guess it’s better to respond with wishy-washy hot air than nothing at all, but she certainly didn’t help her case any. She didn’t much like my question about whether or not a copy shop owner should have the right to refuse service to a Klansman who wants Klan fliers printed (true story, ask me about it sometime…). She didn’t want to answer that question either, because she would have had to deny her own position (that nobody can refuse service based on conscience and conviction) or affirm our position (that people can and should be able to deny service based on conscience and conviction).
The high point of the evening was finding out that many Black members of the audience agreed with our positions on self-determination and the right of the Black community to organize for its own best interests in cases like law enforcement. A hush fell over the audience followed by tense whispering on the “F” of “Ferguson” when Heimbach said we wouldn’t have had a situation like Ferguson, MO if the Black community had been allowed to select police officers from their community for their community– after which there was a resounding nodding of heads and smiles. The second high point was the panel’s hosts were amazed to find out that we weren’t the hateful evilnaziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews. Can you imagine that? White nationalists and Black nationalists happily agreeing and shaking hands after finding out that even though we’re playing for different teams that we’re not necessarily competing against each other but with each other for the same quality of life in our own communities. Shocking! I can only wonder who has been running around scaring them into thinking otherwise… (draw your own conclusions)
The evening’s discussion was a complete success. The liberal hive-minds in attendance managed to publicly prove that their world view is oppressive, intolerant, secular, capitalistic and fundamentally against even the most basic freedoms of association. Meanwhile, the Traditionalist Youth Network genuinely and sincerely argued for true freedom: freedom from capitalist government, and freedom of conscience. Our youth organization model has proven very effective on IU-Bloomington, and there’s no reason to think that it couldn’t work elsewhere. We are winning the fight for our future in the classroom and in the streets, and we are actively forging inroads to campus and youth communities and educating them with the Radical Traditionalist school of thought while fighting for Faith, Folk, and Family message.