News of a crazy ruling by a federal judge that materials discussing the varying levels of acceptance of homosexuality in different religions produced by a Safe Space program at a public university is unconstitutional, in that it indicates support for some religions over others:
In another section, the materials discuss specific faiths, noting which faiths recognize same-sex unions, and the conditions under which some faiths will ordain gay clergy. While the Episcopal Church is praised as “more receptive to gay worshipers than many other Christian denominations,” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is described as having “the most anti-gay policies of any religion widely practiced in the United States.” The section on Roman Catholic belief also notes that some theologians have argued, “much to the embarrassment of the Vatican,” that the medieval church recognized unions for same-sex couples.
I’m no legal scholar (hello, legal scholars–pipe in, please!), but it seems to me a little nutso that gathering the facts about how religions have dealt with the issue of homosexuality somehow amounts to bias against them. It’s like being punched by a bully, telling the teacher about it, and then being punished for discriminating against the bully.
And as much as I want this to be all about The Gay because that’s close to my scholarly heart, it seems to me to be a thinly veiled attempt to set legal precedent upon which to challenge the teaching of evolution. If gathering the facts about religious institutions is religious bias, then it is easy to make the case that rejecting creationism based on scientific evidence is also religious bias.
6 Comments
My impression, based on a quick read of the decision itself, is that there’s no way this could be used to prohibit teaching evolution (or to otherwise support creationism) in schools.
The decision is based, in part, on whether this material would be viewed by an informed and neutral observer as preferring one religion to another. The judge concluded (correctly) that it would. This may not be a good question on which to judge the material, but it is an established test.
The judge had no grounds to look deeper or question the propriety of the test, since the defendants (the backers of the program) maintained that the material at hand was only marginally relevant to their program. Had they not asserted this, the judge may have come to a different conclusion, and he certainly would have had to craft a different decision.
What I don’t get about this is how stating the historical facts about what choices religious institutions have made about any subject constitutes expressing a preference.
And now I’m thinking that I need to be clearer. My beef with this ruling is in the apparent lack of a distinction between evidence (in this case, the relatively uncontroversial recap of the historical record of various religious groups) and opinion (or preference for some religions over others). It seems to me that if we can’t distinguish between these, then we are on a rather slippery slope that fits quite nicely into creationists’ arguments that biologists simply have a preference for evolution over creationism, and that this preference constitutes religious discrimination.
The preference should be clear. Would an informed and neutral observer think the religious groups that discriminate against homosexuals are no worse than the religious groups which don’t? Not likely.
This question as test does not apply to classes or their subject matter, and as I noted in an earlier comment, it has an established judicial history.
The “ID” proponents will have to look elsewhere for help.
Although not the point of your post, I know enough about religious history in the United States to say that even based on the short section cited in the article (and in your post) the material is far from a “relatively uncontroversial recap of the historical record of various religious groups.” I think there is some very clear evidence of preference of some religious groups. Of course, my quick attempt to dig up more information from the Safe Space program is, not surprisingly, revealing little as to whether the example of text we have is really representative of their entire report. Although I don’t necessarily disapprove of someone creating a report like this, I am not sure this group has proven itself a reliable source of information on this topic.
@4 But some people would think that religious groups that discriminate against homosexuals are better than religious groups that do not. Information about churches’ current stances is informative regardless of whether one uses the information to find places that are safe for glbt people or to find places that are not following what some view as an immoral perversion of religion. A handbook or chart listing these ought to be available to everyone who wants to know.
The basis of the ruling, hopefully, was that the materials evaluated beliefs. Another passage from the news article:
One passage cited in the ruling says that “historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities.” Such attitudes have led some religious groups to declare “that homosexuality is immoral,” the group’s materials state, while others “have begun to look at sexual relationships in terms of the love, mutual support, commitments and the responsibility of the partners rather than the sex of the individuals involved.”
This passage — especially “out of context” — and the “embarrassment” passage above do appear to be written from a standpoint that asserts that the anti-homosexual beliefs are wrong. However, minor editing would make them neutral. Something along these lines: “Many religious traditions teach that homosexuality is a sin. However, some religious groups disagree with these teachings and welcome glbt people into their congregations. For example, . . . [cut to above paragraphs edited to indicate that this is the view of particular groups]”
Now, if religious conservatives object to my wording because they are offended that there are religious groups that have pro-gay teachings, THEN I would say the court ruling was endorsing conservative religious viewpoint in banning a neutral statement about the beliefs of different groups. And there are conservative religious groups filing suits arguing that any accommodation or welcoming to glbt people is violating their own religious rights, so this is not out of the realm of possibility.
I have also read letters to editors by religious conservatives claiming that they are being unfairly attacked as “homophobic” because they believe homosexuality is a sin. This kind of whining leaves me truly amazed.