Diversity of thought and opinion does not mean immunity to criticism or disdain.
As far as Catholic colleges go, LGBT students would likely not be comfortable at any school on the Newman list (the schools that adhere most strictly to Catholic doctrine). For example, at least as recently as a year ago, The Franciscan University of Steubenville taught in psychology class that homosexuality was a deviant behavior. On the other hand, D, who attends a Catholic Jesuit school, has had more than one LGBT faculty member, including at least one legally married. But then again, not everyone considers Catholics to be Christian. And not all Catholics think in lock-step,
In answer to your question: Jimmy Carter. That’s when the term Christian stopped meaning “Catholic plus Protestant” and began meaning “evangelical, concentrated in the South.” Prior to that, people just identified themselves as Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.
^^ At the same time, certain elements began using the term “Christian” to mean “white southern evangelical” for political benefit.
The simple answer is anyone can insist on anything he or she wants, but that does not mean it makes any sense that it should be granted. In this sort of case, the insistence should not be granted.
To be most accurate, it is bumping up against the Constitution, the supreme law, not against legislative or administrative law.
Congress or federal agencies can pass any law or statue that it wants, however, that does not mean the law must be followed if it runs afoul of the Constitution.
And denying someone or some entity the right to freely practice his / her religion runs afoul of the First Amendment for the government cannot legislate an individual act or accept any practice against one’s faith.
Nothing precludes their choice to attend; but if they attend, they are bound by the philosophy of the school, not the other way around.
But here is the problem I believe you are alluding and is often constitutionally misunderstood - their (gays) happiness does not supersede or override another’s happiness. If anything, in the same space and time, it becomes a wash.
Correct, happiness is not a cvil right, it is an inalienable right granted by the Creator, not by man and not by government, and thus is above and beyond any civil right defined by man or government.
I don’t understand why a gay student, or any student who opposes the schools anti-gay views, would want to attend this college.
If students vote with their feet, this school won’t be around very long.
This applies to all men, i.e., humans, including the ones who attend the christian college.
No one human or set of humans can cherry pick this line and then try to use to deny another’s happiness. If that were possible, then it would be a useless, untruthful belief.
However, the major problem here in using this line is that it is from the Declaration of Independence which IS NOT a governing document.
Therefore, an inalienable right to happiness DOES NOT supersede the First Amendment of government limitations (from the Constitution- the true governing document) and thus Congress or a federal agency (government) cannot legislate that religion cannot be freely practiced.
The Constitution clearly lists what the government cannot do, i.e., the Bill of Rights. Since religion is a source of happiness for many, the inalienabe rights passage philosophically supports the First Amendent and the government cannot impinge on that practice.
However, the Declaration gives no powers to the government and thus the inalienable rights passage of the Declaration cannot be used by government to force one to act or accept something against one’s religion - thereby denying happiness to one party while supposedly granting happiness to another - as the Constitution, the real governing document prohibits such action.
But, this is the part that so many miss - the point of freedom of religion is so that one can do his or her own thing in your own space, not on top of someone else.
If one wants a Christian school, which accepts homosexuality as a practice, then find one and go to that one - the government or another human cannot stop you from finding your happiness there. And if such a school does not exist, then create and found one and you can create your happiness there.
That is the entire point of the Constitution - individual free will. It is not a document to force your individual beliefs and practices on other individuals - if that were the case then the document could not be for all people and would be essentially nonsense.
It is not the role of government of to protect people from stupid parents, lack of money and other life circumstances. That is just a weird thought in itself. Nanny state stuff.
Just because you think the activity is harmless, it is quite presumptive and erroneous to think that they think it is harmless. In religion, sin is not harmless. It is one of the worst things you can do.
Schools have all kinds of rules, and when you agree to go to the school, you agree to their rules. Some have rules you cannot marry while a student (West Point). There is nothing wrong with being married; some people actually encourage it, but not at West Point. Others have no drug/alcohol rules, even if it is legal for some students to consume alcohol or use drugs. People always argue that you don’t have to be Catholic to go to Notre Dame and you don’t, but if those rules and the requirement that you respect the religion bother you, don’t go there! Some prep schools still require Chapel.
There are thousands of schools. Why pick one where you don’t share the vision?
It might even get more popular.
You seem to assume that people believe like you do. There are more than enough people who believe that homosexuality is against their religion that getting applicants would not be a problem.
^ Fairly or unfairly, the South does have a certain reputation for intolerance among many non-Southerners. Nevertheless, Erskine College does not represent the entire South. Conservative Christian schools exist all over the country. There are quite a few fairly liberal colleges and universities south of the Mason-Dixon line (Duke, Vanderbilt, UVa, Richmond, Davidson, New College of Florida, Warren Wilson, Guilford, etc.)
I’ve always wondered how that happens. Erskine may have a well-regarded program in the region, or else it might be one of those things where the parents pressure them into attending because the school’s values match their own. I can’t imagine wanting to go to a school like that completely on my own though, any more than I as a black person would have attended Bob Jones University at a time when it banned interracial dating.
There are so many colleges and universities in this country that unless you know someone’s individual circumstances it is hard to imagine why someone would choose a college that is openly hostile towards their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. I get that not everyone requires an open or welcoming environment to learn but it just seems like there are so many other, better schools that aren’t burdened with these views.
I absolutely agree a private religious college has the “right” to ban homosexual behavior, just as they can ban miniskirts or boys in the girls’ dorm after midnight or drinking or dancing or beards. They just then have to bear the consequences - that they’ll pretty much be thought of as a joke, like Liberty or Bob Jones. This was a no name college anyway, though.
The train of accepting gays as like everyone else has already left the station. (As well it should.). They’re just simply on the wrong side of history. Our kids are going to look at efforts to stop gay marriage as incredulously as they look on efforts to keep blacks at the back of the bus.
While I too wonder why a LGBTQ student would attend a religious college that is opposed to homosexuality, I also keep in mind that in most cases, it is the parents who pay the bills, wish for their child to attend the college, and may have no idea of their child’s sexual orientation. It would make sense that the child would wait to come out after leaving home. If the child lives in a community that would not accept this, then there may have been little opportunity to explore their feelings until they get to college, or act on them. Then, like every student- gay or straight, college brings the freedom to act on attraction that students may not have had at home.
If you’re gay, why the heck are you in a small Christian college? It’s bad for all involved!
^^That may seem obvious to some of us here, but there are still a few parents who don’t want to recognize their kid is gay and might prefer the kid attend such a school.
I have been trying to decide whether to post here. I don’t feel the need to argue with folks like awc any longer. The world is passing them by. They can’t really impact my gay kid any more.
I mean, this is disgusting but hardly surprising–Erskine is a tiny Christian college in South Carolina. The complete hypocrisy of the president really makes me cringe.
Upon his instatement in 1999:
Well that’s obviously not true.
Don’t be silly, the government legislates all kinds of impingements on the complete unfettered right to practice things someone might claim is a part of their religion.
Gay students attend anti-gay religious colleges for the same reason straight students do: because it’s where their community is. That’s where all their friends are going. That’s where their parents went. That’s the language they speak. Chances are, most of them believe in the doctrine, or at least most of it. They may love the college! Most of us are not looking to abandon our friends, family, faith, and upbringing at age 18. That’s a lot to ask of gay youth with conservative religious parents!
Let’s not argue over the current interpretation of the First Amendment as if this were a Constitutional Law class. As it might pertain to this college and this situation, fine, but not in an abstract, far-reaching way. I think the issue as it pertains to this college has been discussed and largely settled. Even the people opposed to the tenets of this college appear to agree they have the right to have them and enforce them.
This discussion really boils down to the classic question: what do you like better, equality or liberty? Most of us like both, of course. When we think in terms of equality, we don’t like what this college is doing. When we think in terms of liberty, we think that people who want to attend such a college should be free to do so.
In my opinion, this is a healthy tension in our system.
I also don’t think this is news. I suspect what happened is that this school is so religiously conservative that it never before had to confront directly the issue of homosexual students.