Gee, what could seem discriminatory about that?

You’re a devout Christian and you walk into a bank in your small town.  On the wall is a lovely painting of a mosque. On a table, a Qur’an is open to the reading of the day.  Small flags with the a crescent moon and star festoon each teller window, and the tellers all have buttons that say, “Allah is the One True God, and Muhammad is His Prophet.”

You go home and decide to try banking online instead.  There on the bank’s front page is a daily verse from the Qur’an.

Now, you might be able to go use another bank — but it’s a small town, and this one’s convenient, and they offer competitive rates, or maybe that’s where your boss arranged to have the company’s direct deposit done.  But …

… well, you have to wonder.  The message seems pretty clear, in word and pictures.  Are these faithful Muslims really going to treat you, a dhimmi, fairly as a customer, compared to those of their religion? Will you get access to the same deals and benefits?  Can you trust them not to cheat you? Will they try to convert you? Do they even want you as a customer? Is this a bank for Muslims only?

Imagine how a group like the American Family Association would get all torqued off about such discrimination against you.  Just imagine.

*     *     *

Well, you do have to use your imagination, because the AFA is actually outraged that the Federal Reserve has ordered the bank in question to remove all over sectarian trappings and decor. Except, of course, since we’re talking about Oklahoma, the institutional Christian display is Christian, not Muslim.

Federal Reserve examiners come every four years to make sure banks are complying with a long list of regulations. The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say “Merry Christmas, God With Us.” were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank’s Internet site also had to be taken down.

… Specifically, the feds believed, the symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, “…the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication … express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion.”

The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslin or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.

Now, I don’t know about you, but this seems pretty reasonable. But the good people of Perkins, OK, are having none of it.

“I don’t think there should be a problem with them displaying whatever religious symbols they want to display,” said Amy Weierman, a Perkins resident.

… “This is just ridiculous,” said bank customer Jim Nyles. “This whole thing is just ridiculous. We all have regulatory bodies that govern us. But this is too much.”

“I think that’s absurd,” said Chelsi Holser, a bank customer. “I don’t agree with it at all. They are taking Christ out of Christmas and life.”

Of course you feel that way. That’s because (I’d be willing to bet a substantial amount of money) you’re Christian.  You take Christian  symbols and trappings for granted.  You assume that everyone else is probably Christian, or at least as comfortable with Christianity as you are.  You’ve grown up around it all your life.  It’s the norm.  Why would anyone feel offended or threatened by Christian religious texts and symbols at their bank?

I’d hope the thought exercise at the top of the post might indicate why someone not a member of the “club” might feel differently.  But that would assume “exercise” and “thought” were applicable.

Which brings us to the AFA.  Tim Wildmon’s outfit sent out an “Action Alert” email, and they don’t beat around the bush: they don’t see any problem with what the bank was doing either.  “Feds order Christian signs and symbols removed from local bank” the subject line (accurately) blare. “Immediately send an email to Kansas City Federal Reserve president Thomas Hoenig and other key executives, asking them to repudiate the order to remove religious signs and symbols from the Perkins County Bank.”

The sample email says:

It is ridiculous of your staff to take it upon themselves to censor and repress the free speech of the Payne County Bank.

I certainly hope that this is simply a case of over-zealous employees abusing their power.

I ask you to quickly end this nonsense now by publicly rebuking the examiners who ordered the Perkins bank to remove its religious signs and symbols.

I also encourage you to order the examiners to attend sensitivity training, so that religious bigotry will no long exist under your watch.

Yes, that’s the AFA arguing against religious bigotry. Toward Christians, that is.

And note that the AFA isn’t willing to offer the benefit of the doubt that it might be an erroneous reading of the regulation.  This is a case of “over-zealous” and abusive bigots who need to be rebuked.

Of course, while I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Amy and Jim and Chelsi that they never thought of how things might look if the shoe were on the other foot, or that people might be reasonably offended or put-off or excluded by things that don’t offend, put-off, or exclude them … well, I’m fairly certain Tim knows what precisely what he’s arguing for: assertively declaring Christianity the norm, and that business required by law to not discriminate or discourage any class of people from doing business there can boldly proclaim that they are all about being Christian — and if you don’t like it then you should take your business elsewhere.

Which sure sounds like a “policy of exclusion” to me.