Judge Joe Brown Having His Say About the Religion of the Rainbow Cult
By Judge Joe Brown
When it comes to race, color, national origin, sex, age, health, and religion, these are considered protected categories. However, with the exception of religion, all of these categories are physically determinable. Why?
I’m glad you asked. With the exception of religion, which requires a personal declaration, all other categories can be determined through independent and objective means, without the individual needing to speak a word. Vital records, a DNA test, or even an autopsy would independently establish an individual’s status in relation to these categories.
Religion, on the other hand, is inherently subjective. It is largely a personal matter—although, let’s be honest, it has often been a source of fanaticism and indoctrination. Historically, religion has caused more death, war, and suffering than any other force. It has nonetheless been accommodated in the United States to prevent violence and dysfunction, given the nation’s commitment to tolerance. Now, however, we have a new set of categories proposed for inclusion on the protected list. These categories—sexual preference, sexual orientation, sexual practice, gender identity—are subjective, with no objective tests or vital records to verify them. These new categories are entirely volitional, meaning they are conscious choices made by individuals. Under our system, this makes them matters of the First Amendment and, as such, cannot be suppressed without violating individual liberty. But here’s the caveat: like religion, these matters cannot be forcibly imposed on others.
The same principles that prohibit the government from imposing an official religion should apply to attempts to impose these subjective categories. For instance, religious symbols like crosses, crescents, stars, Shiva, and Buddha cannot be displayed in government facilities or services. Similarly, the display of rainbow symbols by government entities is also prohibited. The government cannot teach, impose, or adopt any subjective set of beliefs, no matter how well-intentioned.
What we are witnessing today is a concerted governmental effort to impose what amounts to an official metaphysical cult. This cult may not have a deity, but neither does the ancient and respected belief system of Buddhism. Just as you cannot teach or impose traditional metaphysical doctrines, so to should be the same with the “Rainbow Cult.”
It is essential to clarify that this is not an attack on homosexuality itself, nor on the individuals who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Just as being a Christian does not mean you support figures like Reverend Jim Jones or extremist groups like Al-Qaeda, ‘if you are Muslim’, being gay does not automatically align someone with the Rainbow Cult. The LGBTQIA+ coalition is an evolving socio-political entity, often representing diverse and sometimes opposing factions. Many people within this community may not align with certain practices or ideologies associated with it.
The First Amendment guarantees individuals the freedom of expression, including the right to live and love as one chooses—provided that it is consensual and does no harm. But that same 1st Amendment must prohibited any governmental entity from ‘imposing’ metaphysical beliefs; most especially ones that are inextricably indexed to intimate uses of sexual anatomy for erotic stimulation. You might wish to keep this perspective in mind when assessing the official Californian policies on certain erotic practices and/or orientation matters.
The key takeaway: “What goes around comes around.” Precedents established for one cause—no matter how well-intended—can be used for a purpose that may not align with your own beliefs. A regime change can use precedents set for one thing (to your liking) for something entirely different (not to your liking).
Just having my say, Judge Joe Brown
