Today the Supreme Court will hear a case that will determine whether colleges and universities can deny official status and subsidies to student groups that bar homosexuals and other groups from membership. At the heart of this case… you guessed it, a Christian organization that denies membership to LGBTQ persons and “those who advocate or participate in pre-marital sex.”
The Christian Legal Society of Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco lost its sanctioned status (as well as its funding) because of the groups exclusive bylaws. That’s because for over 20 years Hastings College has honored an “all-comers policy.” “Any student group is entitled to official school recognition, as long as the group accepts all comers.” The Christian Legal Society obviously is not doing that, and the loss of their funding and sanctioning has prompted them to protest that they are the newest example of organized discrimination against freedom of religion. “The core of Monday’s case is whether religious beliefs can trump a neutral school policy that applies equally to everyone.”
This is nothing new. Remember last year’s blow up on the same issue: yes, Carrie Prejean? She suggested the same thing.
Carrie Prejean
She said on stage at the Miss America Pagent that she believed marriage was exclusive to the union of a man and a women. Perez Hilton was not happy. Prejean was quickly not awarded the coveted tiara, and she suggested that the reason she did not win was because she was Christian. She subsequently went on a Palin-like tour bemoaning the loss of Christianity and freedom to express those Christian rights to dehumanize others. How unfair, right?
I mean, what’s the point in being Christian if you can’t demonize others?
It’s up for debate which of these cases has more impact on our wider society obsessed with pop culture. You’d think Supreme Court, but then you would underestimate the influence of the Miss America Pagent. No, seriously.
What I hope Carrie and the Christian Legal Society might one day see is that it is not Christianity that is under attack but their ideological exclusivity that dehumanizes others all to stroke a misguided egoism, which is trimmed in Christian language but not at the heart of Jesus’ message.
Even further, the continued media equation of belief systems like Prejean’s and Palin’s with some kind of mythical univocal “Christianity” lends credence to folks like Christopher Hitchens. The Christian left needs to be clear that people are politically leftist and liberal BECAUSE we are Christian, not IN SPITE OF that fact.
This may be a bit unpopular, but when will ideologues want realize that taking a stand has consequences? To be fair there are several beliefs that I hold where many would say that I am an ideologue. But the difference is, I work hard to accept the consequences of my beliefs. If Ms. Prejean truly did lose the coveted title and scholarships from the Miss America Pageant organization because of her statements and beliefs, that is the judges’ right to do so. If there is a policy to allow all comers as a prerequisite to funding, then it is obviously not a policy created just to persecute this one campus Christian organization. All throughout Christ’s ministry he walked away from crowds, politicians and even those in his hometown because they disagreed with him. But he continued engaging those who wanted to hear, those who wanted to listen. If student groups are truly into cultivating their Christianities, funding from the school should not be a deterrent. We believe, we witness, we stand by our convictions until we are convinced otherwise or grow into a new understanding. Religious freedoms (separation of church and state) were created originally in this country to not to access government but to protect religious traditions for spiritual edification and the persecution of those who are denied access to God’s Kindom.
Carrie Prejean deserves to have her crown. She is beauiful and is also entitled to her own opinion about gays. ‘-
Genital acts outside the union of husband and wife violate the sixth commandment and are objectively immoral. Affirming that basic moral truth is hardly “dehumanizing.” If we were not human it wouldn’t matter.
Sexual acts outside the union of husband and wife violate the sixth commandment and are objectively immoral. Affirming that basic moral truth is hardly “dehumanizing.” If we were not human it wouldn’t matter.
You say, “I mean, what’s the point in being Christian if you can’t demonize others?”
Isn’t that precisely what you’re doing — demonizing others?
Anyway, affirming the truth about immoral behavior, sexual or otherwise, cannot possibly be “dehumanizing”. If we were not human, it wouldn’t matter.
Christianity may not be “univocal”, but Jesus was pretty clear about the dignity of marriage, and the central reality that we are created male and female for a purpose.
j.a.m.
Thank you for offering a differing perspective on this issue. While I respect that we do differ in our outlooks, I am concerned with the manner in which you’ve chosen to use a scripture that we hold in common. The sixth commandment against adultery does not directly address non-marital unions at all. Adultery is extra-marital sexual relations engaged in by a married person. If we’re going to strictly construe the meaning of an ancient text and apply it to a modern situation, then the prohibition on adultery does not apply to two partners who are not married to anyone at all. No marriage, no adultery.
Further, as to Jesus speaking clearly on the dignity of marriage, he spoke on the subject to clarify a point about Jewish law and divorce. The most stringent prohibitions on divorce from the entire New Testament come not from Jesus but from Paul. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality or same-sex relations of any sort anywhere in the Gospels: only Paul did that. If same-sex relations are so horrific in the sight of God, then why did God not see fit to speak of them through Jesus?
Can’t we take God seriously in the matter of priorities? Jesus spoke about charity and loving community; he spoke about reaching out past narrow legalistic guidelines in a spirit of other-embracing love. The number of times Jesus admonishes his hearers in the stories of the New Testament to love one another viewed against the fact that Jesus never once mentions same-sex relationships makes me honestly believe that the latter are given undue emphasis by many Christians.