College bans homosexuality

“Freedom of thought and of conscience, to hold opinions and to defend them without interference, is a natural right that we should all have, and no government is legitimate when it is trampling on this right.”

Good grief, no one is declaring that personal thought is a crime. You are entitled to think gays are icky, that black people shouldn’t marry whites, or whatever you like. No one is stopping you from having those opinions or defending them. But you’re not immune from the consequence - that people will, frankly, laugh at you.

Pizzagirl - with all due respect, pay attention.

I was responding to Sorghum’s posts (#103 and #105). Sorghum was clearly talking about the power of the state (also referenced as society or the majority) to suppress someone’s worldview. Here is a direct quote:

“There are some worldviews that society as a whole reasonably decides to suppress or prohibit”.

I don’t know you, but if you never give me anything to go on than what you have written so far in this thread, I wish you the best, but I am not going to give a second thought to your opinion of me or who you laugh at. I strongly resent any implication you are making that I think anyone is icky (wow I can’t believe I even retyped that) or that I oppose interracial marriage. I hold no such view, in fact my views are as far from that as I can imagine one holding.

Ok … then I’m not quite sure why you were so worried about “what it might look like to fully accept gays.”

marysidney - I have read your post at least a couple of times now. This is one of those times that I guess I need to remember my own suggestion, and realize that we must be coming to this discussion with very different backgrounds and worldviews, and therefore do our best to really listen and to try to understand and learn from each other. I will confess that I am struggling here to do that, because I have such a different perspective on what is really transpiring in our society today.

For example, you weren’t specific when you spoke of “birth control”, but can I assume you are talking about the issues in the Hobby Lobby case? In that facts of that case, what is really happening? Is Hobby Lobby actively seeking to ban anyone from using any form of contraception? To use your words, is Hobby Lobby trying to make sure employees don’t get it under their watch? I am sorry, but that isn’t even close to the reality. The head of this private company has personal convictions about certain products that terminate rather than prevent pregnancy. But he isn’t trying to force anyone to abide by his personal convictions. He isn’t seeking to ban the sale, purchase or the manufacture of these products. He is merely saying you can’t make me pay for it. Pay for it yourself. Surely you can understand that is a very different matter. To present the matter as you did without mentioning the distinction diminishes the opportunity to have a real conversation with you about it.

When I think about this case, I scratch my head wondering how in the world we have come to this point, where one supreme court justice stands between us and this government. How in the world we have come to the place where my freedom to do business and to hire people to work for me means that the state can force me to pay for someone’s “contraceptive”?

If this really your best example of someone trying to “politically reduce your freedoms”? I wish we could have this debate in the middle of the constitutional convention, where we could hear what the framers would have to say about this issue, and what their original intent was and how it would be applied here.

In order not to get any further off topic, I will pivot back to one of the educational topics you referenced. You mentioned science education in the public schools. There isn’t really any serious effort being made by any group to teach young earth creationism in the public schools. There have been some efforts to teach intelligent design as alternative to the viewpoint that the universe and everything in it came into existence through random unguided processes. I assume that is what you see as impinging upon your future and the future of your children?

By the tone of your post, I am certain that you and I are far apart on this issue. But surely even you can acknowledge that there are huge gaps in our knowledge about questions of origin. I find it so dishonest that those who presume to be “in charge” of science curricula feel the need to restrict any possible explanation of origins to only naturalistic causes. Supernatural causes are by rule and definition out of bounds. Even if the evidence in some area points strongly in favor of intelligent design (over random unguided processes) it doesn’t matter, because that just isn’t “science” (by definition). Personally I find such repression to be the real impingement upon the future of my children.

Science should only be dealing with the natural, measurable, observable universe. That is what science is. It’s not even really at odds with religious belief, which is about the spiritual world; if there are problems between the two, it is because the spiritual world is not satisfied with remaining spiritual but must pretend that there is evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old, or that evidence to the contrary is actually a supernatural being testing the faith of his creation.

I suspect we are also miles apart, since I don’t believe in any mythologies, including the leading popular ones of today. They are nice stories, often imparting wisdom, but to me, that’s it.

AlapinVariation - actually, I believe the Shakers did try to do that. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

PUBLIC schools do ban things all the time - the military academies ban smoking, drinking, sex, holding hands on campus, sex of any kind, having a car on campus. You name it, it is banned. At other public schools, smoking is banned, alcohol in dorms or on campus, drugs even if allowed by state laws. And the applications keep rolling in. Private schools ban things all the time, especially religious schools. At BYU, premarital sex is banned, smoking, drinking. Again, lots of applications every year. If you aren’t a member of the LDS, you still have to agree to follow the handbook and the rules, and you pay more tuition to do so.

I highly suspect that people actually know this and really just choose targets they know they can get away with trying to get them (the targets) to go against their beliefs. I saw this first-hand when I lived just outside of DC, and it is eerily similar to this Erkine College because it was nothing new and had been known.

One year, there was big dust-up about this religious (Christian) school did not have an LBGT chapter and the school cited religious grounds and the belief of one man - one woman. The school had been like this for decades since its founding and pretty much out in the open that they followed their religion seriously. LGBT students could attend, but it was understood that the clergy would speak against homosexuality and gay marriage. The entire darn area knew this; no secret going on here and students applied knowing this. Anyway, people who called themselves tolerant were up on arms, called the school bigots and carried signs in front the school. The school never gave in, at least when I lived there.

Here is the kicker - an islamic private school, just across town, had (and still has obviously) the exact same ban on homosexual groups. However, that ban was even more strict, as one could not and cannot even exhibit a hint of homosexuality. But, what was happening in front of that school in terms of demonstrations - nothing but crickets. Why? The islamic clerics made it clear to the community that they would not take that nonsense in front of their school. Plus the school had its own private security force - interesting deterrent.

The people who did not like the policy at the Christian school must of figured out that it was wise not to show up there even though, like the Christian school, there was no LGBT chapter for religious reasons. But, of course, it was no problem to call out Christian religious school to try to get them to change.

My point is there is a lot of duplicitous actions by many who say one thing to one group but are deathly afraid to say the same to another - pretty inconsistent there. It will interesting to see how these people react when certain religions get more popular in this country and those religions end up making this Christian college look like nice choir boys. But, I suspect again they will not be telling those other religions to change their beliefs, as I have seen how they quickly back down in the face of people who have to issue taking them head on.

Basically, this southern Christian college is easy to pick on because it is safe to pick on. Tells you pretty much all you need to know about how deep the protesters convictions really go.

IrishMomof2 - the neat little boxes you would like to draw around science and religion, while convenient, just don’t work. They don’t work because all religions make truth claims regarding the natural, measurable, observable universe. Those truth claims aren’t consistent or reconcilable to one another, therefore they can’t all be true. And if those truth claims can’t be reconciled with science (the natural, measurable, observable universe) then it becomes difficult for any rational person to accept any tenet of that religion, spiritual or natural.

Linking intelligent design to a belief that that the universe is only 6000 years old is a straw man argument. Intelligent design doesn’t present that at all. It is merely the courage to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the best explanation for what is natural, measurable and observable is that an intelligent being was the cause, then we don’t have to ignore or suppress the implications of that. If we find a watch in the woods, and we have to give an answer as to the origin of the watch, we are free to believe that an intelligent creature was involved in the design and manufacture of the watch. We aren’t forced to reject the obvious, rational conclusion in favor of some other explanation about how a watch could come to exist without a designer.

Take it up in theology class. Not science class.

“My point is there is a lot of duplicitous actions by many who say one thing to one group but are deathly afraid to say the same to another - pretty inconsistent there.”

Maybe they’re deathly afraid because Charlie.

But in all seriousness, the liberals who would critique Erskine’s policy also object to, say, Saudi Arabia’s intolerance of homosexuality.

…and this is why it is called faith. Some things are accepted as true, even if not fully understood or explained by the limited knowledge of man.

As for science and intelligent design, here is an article which puts the science behind the possibility of intelligent design in some perspective. This shows that even the most ardent “Big Bang” scientists give pause to their own data trying to prove it is all by chance. Simply, even they reluctantly are accepting their math does not work.

Re intelligent design, the really brilliant people are clearly not as confident as the less brilliant populous that this is not the case.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

I never said they did not object to the Saudi policy as well.

What I said was, for example, we will see no demonstrations in front the Saudi school, no newspaper articles calling Muslims bigots and demanding they change their ways, and no newspaper articles saying Muslims are stone-age freaks and that they encroaching on others freedoms. We will see none of that directed at Islam and Muslims by the people demanding Erskine change.

However, we will see such newspaper articles against Erskine and other Christian schools because it is safe to do so, not because of the strength of the conviction. It is selective outrage at the safest targets, not all or the most aggregious targets.

Christians are in the same boat as white men in this country: they are fair game for many because they are seen as the “privileged” majority.

Are (outside) people demanding Erskine change, or are they expressing the view that in their opinion it’s unfortunate Erskine thinks that way? I see those as two different things.

Boy, do I love the smell of false equivalence early in the morning. There is so much one could say here, and so little of it that would be appropriate for CC, but all I will note is this: When a school I care about very deeply recently announced modest, positive steps to encourage and accommodate moderate Islam – something the world desperately needs to do – the same cable news mentality was full of shouts about capitulation and the caliphate.

Back to the issue at hand, I would probably agree that folks ought to pay less attention to Erskine, which, frankly, is statistically and socially irrelevant in American society, and more attention to the treatment of gays in Uganda or one of the other 76 countries that still criminalize homosexuality. But Americans never have been particularly good at caring about anyone other than Americans.

My experience living one state away from Liberty is this: People in fundamentalist Christian churches and/or social circles see Liberty as a wonderful place to go. They hire Liberty graduates and they want to send their children there. However, the vast majority of people, including mainstream Christians and even including those who are more conservative but not fundamentalist, do not believe that Liberty is a place to go to get a real college education. This isn’t because of the rules for behavior (most people can find both good and bad in those rules), but about what passes for the science curriculum. The fundamentalist perspective is pervasive throughout other departments as well and affects the quality of the curriculum. Read The Unlikely Disciple by Kevin Roose.

A couple of high-ranking students from our high school are at Liberty. Their teachers pleaded with them to consider other colleges, but that was to no avail. The students do seem very happy there. That was the atmosphere that they wanted. In this area, though, a diploma from Liberty will certainly limit their employment options.

I am a Christian, and I am very familiar with Christian colleges. Liberty is in its own category.

SomeOldGuy – Here you go again, making me actually agree with a Dukie (note the respectful spelling). Spot on.

No worries. You’ve got a couple of days to get over it and get some good clean hate on for the weekend.

Bay, that’s because they are privileged. Seriously. If you can’t see that, you’re not paying attention. Not all Christians, not all white men, but the ones who take it upon themselves to speak for their groups. And it’s not just that they are privileged, they act as if they deserve that privilege, and as if their privilege extends to schooling the rest of us on their superiority. I’m tired of this manufactured “victim” narrative that those who are insulted by their lack of absolute control have come up with. Fact: if you’re white, you are more likely to get away with minor crimes than if you’re black. Fact: no other religionists are trying to foist their beliefs on others. The most other religions in this country ask for is acknowledgment that they exist. Fact: if you wander around with a gun in plain sight, and you’re black, you’re more likely to get shot than if you’re white. Hell, even if you’re not carrying a gun, you’re more likely to get shot if you’re black than if you’re white, even if you’re a child.

And intelligent design is not science. Creationism is not science. For scientists to admit we don’t know everything yet is not the same as denying all that we do know, because faith. A science class should consist of teaching what we have so far determined, through scientific method, to be truth; the nature of science is that that knowledge is constantly being extended, altered, developed, abandoned, refined. No good teacher tells her students that knowledge is finite and complete.

I would point out that religion isn’t constant, either. What the Church fathers said in 240 CE was different from what they said in 1240 CE, and 1540 CE, and 1940 CE. What was doctrinal, what was heretical, what was unthinkable, have all changed, many times. Jesus and his followers, Paul and his followers, all thought the world was going to end any minute, and said so repeatedly. When it didn’t, the Church adapted. Jesus had brothers, but Mary was declared, hundreds of years later, to have been a virgin all her life. In 1531, in England, Bilney was burned at the stake for beliefs that, ten years later, were being preached in every church; fifteen years after that, he would have been burned again, and five years later, the pendulum had swung again. That’s extreme, but take another example: predestination was central to both Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine, bedrock. No one could be saved who hadn’t been chosen before birth by God for salvation. No such thing as conversion; either you were or you weren’t, and no point talking about how “Jesus loves you.” Few American Protestants nowadays even know of this idea, and even fewer subscribe to it, yet they consider themselves Protestants. Today’s fiercely-held beliefs have always been susceptible to change, which ought to engender at least a little bit of humility in the faithful.

Churches, all of them, choose to emphasize certain teachings over others. The current obsession of Catholic bishops with birth control and abortion ignores many other important foci that Catholics have traditionally been concerned with, as the Nuns on the Bus have tried to point out. The obsession with homosexuality and same-sex marriage comes at the expense of real and present dangers to the institution of marriage, such as domestic abuse, wage inequality and inadequate childcare (money problems are at the bottom of most marital disputes). Churches could choose to address those things–and, to do them justice, sometimes do, but not as loudly and sternly and absolutely–and politically.