The divergence of opinion – and the discussion it gives birth to – is what we know as politics.

As I read – and watched – the back-and-forth over Indiana over the past week or so, I couldn't help but think of these two simple classroom examples and wonder how far we've strayed from our roots.

As we all know by now, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence last week signed into law the "Indiana Religious Freedom and Restoration Act," modelled after the similarly named federal law.

Never mind that the U.S. Constitution does this already in the First Amendment, with the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" (Notice which one comes first?)

That clause is apparently pretty effective, considering how robust religious freedom is in this country – we still rank among the top five countries in the world.

And religious groups profit in this country in ways few others do – with regard to tax exemptions, criminal and employment law protections, as well as a special lobbying classification, among others.

So it strikes me as a little disingenuous to hear worshippers of any stripe complain about how much of a burden it is for them to serve gay couples dinner. Or rent unmarried couples a hotel room. Or allow cab drivers to refuse to drive a woman anywhere alone – especially to work. Talk about your First World problems.

And remember, it wasn't that long ago that many argued slavery was God's will. And interracial marriage an abomination. And, yeah, both of those arguments had to be settled by the Supreme Court as well. How embarrassing is that?

But back to Indiana's whack at RFRA, which is in fact different from the other 19 states that passed similar legislation. According to Garrett Epps over at The Atlantic, the law contains language that goes much further in granting religious expression rights to nonhumans. His breakdown is worth a read.

It's also worth pointing out that those other 19 states also have statutes in place to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. Indiana does not.

Make no mistake, religious persecution is alive and well in the world. Just ask Muslims in central Africa. Or Jews in an increasingly hostile Europe. Or Christians in Egypt. But it's insulting to all of them for worshippers here in the States to bemoan their suffering at the hands of homosexuals.

The one bright light of this story has been the political and corporate backlash. The response has been almost been bipartisan, with the Republican CEO of Salesforce emerging as an early vocal opponent. And the backpedaling has been as frantic as Wile E. Coyote after he's already left the cliff. It's a textbook example of the market putting its weight to bear – with businesses and consumers alike raging against the Big Red Machine.

And, even Arkansas, where a similar bill made it to the governor's desk, listened to retail giant Walmart, which like Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, spoke out against the expected persecution of his employees, not to mention what a recruiting nightmare these laws present for employers. Benioff has even gone so far as to say that his company will help move employees out of the state if they want.

I'm always skeptical of those who claim oppression at every turn, especially as they're kicking someone out the door, but Malcolm X said it much better when he warned, "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

Damn if that doesn't look a lot like what we're seeing in Indiana.