From the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch:
Student-government leaders want Ohio State University to change the student government charter to permit University of Michigan students to join OSU student leadership…. “It’s the general feeling among most students that Ohio State should not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” said Micah Kamrass, president of the Undergraduate Student Government.
Well, not exactly; I made some of that up. Here’s what the article really said:
Student-government leaders want Ohio State University to stop allowing campus religious groups to ban gay people, non-Christians or others who don’t share their values…. “It’s the general feeling among most students that Ohio State should not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” said Micah Kamrass, president of the Undergraduate Student Government.
Is there any difference in the logic of these two scenarios?
January 25th, 2011 | 4:11 pm | #1
Perhaps the most interesting thing for me is why a homosexual (who knows that Christianity largely disapproves of the practice) or a non-Christian would even want to join a Christian group. While I won’t dive into any absurd conspiracy theories, to me it seems like a possibility for this is an attempt to water down Christianity; these members join the groups not because they believe the message, but so that they can point out the supposed “intolerance” of the Christians in the group and then subsequently demand an ultimatum: either defect or allow us in.
But here, yet again, is secular society acting as if Christians are narrow-minded bigots for opposing homosexuality, yet society itself does not recognize that it is forcing its own views upon us. By their logic, they themselves are no different. But hey, if there’s one thing we’ve learned from a lot of arguments against Christianity, logic isn’t necessarily involved.
But, to answer your question, Tom, no, there isn’t a difference.
January 25th, 2011 | 5:39 pm | #2
Nikolai Volk: humanists join these groups for the express purpose of sabotage.
Not just gays, but anywhere and everywhere humanism has waged war on – well, anything that isn’t humanism.
The real curiosity to me is why nobody retaliates.
Maybe the reason you don’t hear about conservatives trying to crash (or “troll”) the Unitarian church or the gay pride parades is because conservatives do not rely on judges and other authority figures (in fact, conservatives tend to have a lot of contempt for the way liberals interact with government the way spoiled brat kids interact with mommy and daddy. “Make him stop!” So maybe that’s why?)
January 25th, 2011 | 6:17 pm | #3
“Is there any difference in the logic of these two scenarios?”
Logic?
We’re talking about Liberals here.
Liberals don’t need logic. They just feel and emote. Personal Feelings and Emotions trump Logic and Objective Truth.
Tom Gilson, Silly Man.
January 25th, 2011 | 6:23 pm | #4
Tom, this is splendid! Thanks!
January 25th, 2011 | 7:01 pm | #5
Ironic, isn’t it, the way Christianity gets accused of being irrational.
January 25th, 2011 | 8:57 pm | #6
There is the obvious distinction that OSU is only responsible for students that pay tuition to OSU, and therefore do not have any obligation to other universities. They are of course responsible for preventing, if possible, on-campus discrimination against their own students. Odd that nobody seems to think this relevant.
Nikolai Volk, you ask ” why a homosexual … would even want to join a Christian group”. I find the answer fairly obvious. Most homosexuals consider themselves Christian-why would they not want to join a Christian group?
January 25th, 2011 | 10:48 pm | #7
“Most homosexuals consider themselves Christian-why would they not want to join a Christian group?
I would love to hear a statistical basis for that claim.
January 25th, 2011 | 11:19 pm | #8
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights
Quote: “A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today.”
Explicit number seems to be 70% in the survey.
January 26th, 2011 | 7:30 am | #9
AR, you have accurately identified two points where the analogy is imperfect. The first one, having to do with student fees, seems trivial to me. If I were a U of M student (perish the thought, I went to MIchigan State), I’d be happy to spend $25 to join OSU student government. It’s nothing compared to the travel time :) . The money is also trivial compared to the assault on freedoms that’s involved here.
Which relates to your second point. Now, do I think homosexuals can be Christian? Of course. Do I think it’s proper to endorse, support, or condone homosexual practice, gay “marriage,” etc.? Absolutely not, on grounds of biblical teaching. The campus ministry with which I’m associated would generally agree with both those statements.
Your comment entails the existence of two incompatible theological views: that homosexual practice (broadly speaking, including gay “marriage,” supporting or endorsing homosexual behavior, etc.) is not ok, on biblical grounds; or that it is fine, on biblical grounds.
The student government has come to its own opinion on that question, and has asked the university to support its position. One of those viewpoints will be discriminated against. It’s logically impossible—and ludicrous—to suppose that all discrimination can be outlawed. Kamrass is obviously wrong to hold that up as an ideal, for it is literally not possible.
Moreover, if the student government is proceeding according to the reasoning you’ve suggested, then it has made a theological determination and is asking the university also to make a theological determination: to tell the student Christian groups their theology is wrong. This is clearly a violation of religious freedom, and it is clearly discriminatory against a religious viewpoint.
If on the other hand the university keeps its nose out of it, then the university is not discriminating against anyone. The student Christian groups are. They have their reasons for it, and they have the right to have their reasons for it.
I laugh when I hear people say that discrimination will never be tolerated in any form. Everybody discriminates. That’s why we lock our cars and pocket the keys: we won’t let just anybody get in and drive them. OSU discriminates with respect to who may attend, who may teach, who may work in its labs, who plays on the football team (do they have one there?), and on and on and on. The question is whether the discrimination is taking place for proper and relevant reasons. If it is, then it’s fine. The other question in this case is whose decision that is. If the university says sexuality and its practice are irrelevant to Christianity, then it’s overstepping its bounds and violating proper student freedoms.
January 26th, 2011 | 12:49 pm | #10
“…I’d be happy to spend $25 to join OSU student government. ”
The minimum tuition and fees for OSU is about $10000/year.
” the student government… asking the university also to make a theological determination: to tell the student Christian groups their theology is wrong.”
I do not know the details of what OSU will adopt, but it is likely that it will be similar to UC Hastings’ all-comers policy; everybody is to be allowed to join any student club. And yes, this will mean that white supremacists can join black groups etc.
Now how would such a policy be making any comment about theology? In fact, it is very much the opposite, the university and the student government are doing their best to be completely uninvolved in details of student club membership. Calling this policy “discrimination” is completely backwards; the usual criticism is that it doesn’t discriminate enough.
There are two choices here: either the university-approved student clubs are allowed to discriminate as they please, and then we will have supremacist groups discriminating against blacks, or something like this all-comers policy needs to be adopted. The first option is not really open to a university which wishes to avoid bad press.
In any case, Christians are free to form associations and exclude gays from them- they simply shouldn’t expect the university to support them in this endeavor. So all this talk about violation of religious freedom is overblown.
January 26th, 2011 | 1:03 pm | #11
AR, problem though is what access the voluntary organisations have to the campus. If voluntary, non-supported ones are denied, then its apparent the choice is to cave into secular attempts to force a theological change, or be marginalized.
My guess would be that’s the point. The left in general tend to use the ability to marginalize speech to control, and this is just one more attempt at doing so.
January 26th, 2011 | 2:19 pm | #12
Tom Gilson: “I laugh when I hear people say that discrimination will never be tolerated in any form.”
Your laughing is so mean.
January 26th, 2011 | 3:14 pm | #13
Tom,
Thank you for the post. Quite informative.
But being from Wisconsin, I’d have to suggest that perhaps most of the homosexuals are already attending school and apparently playing football at …
… oh, never mind.
January 26th, 2011 | 3:24 pm | #14
AR, the $10,000 does not all go toward supporting campus clubs. I think you probably knew that.
Maybe the university will adopt an “all-comers” policy. That has problems, as Dblade already noted. Regardless, it doesn’t sound like that’s what the student government is asking for:
Kamrass is making a theological determination, which is not student government’s place.
January 27th, 2011 | 7:45 am | #15
“Is there any difference in the logic of these two scenarios?”
You’re expecting logic?
January 27th, 2011 | 10:50 am | #16
The $10,000 is a red herring. All it means is that the analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are — it doesn’t really affect the logic of the idea that people with no constructive reason for wishing to be a member of a group with which they do not share fundamental affinities should be permitted membership, lest discrimination be alleged.
January 27th, 2011 | 12:50 pm | #17
Pentamom, I would again point out that most homosexuals are Christian; they have a very good reason to want to be part of a Christian club.
While I don’t want to obsess about the $10,000, I think OSU only has a responsibility to its own students, which is usually defined as people paying full tuition.
Once again, I don’t know what OSU will do or has been asked to do. I would agree that if their only action is to force the Christian group to admit homosexuals, that would not be right, but it is very unlikely that they would do that since they were already targeted by a lawsuit a few years ago. OTOH, if they adopted an all-comers policy, I would not call it discrimination. I don’t see any problems with the all-comers policy pointed out by Dblade, who seemed to be addressing another of my comments.
January 27th, 2011 | 3:33 pm | #18
I think the Hindu student union should admit that Muslims are right and I also believe Muslims should provide tracts that prove the deity of Christ and that campus atheist groups should have altar calls for people to accept Buddha as their personal savior.
In a show of solidarity, the young campus Republican group should vote for Democratic candidates.
January 27th, 2011 | 4:26 pm | #19
AR writes:
“Now how would such a policy be making any comment about theology? In fact, it is very much the opposite, the university and the student government are doing their best to be completely uninvolved in details of student club membership. Calling this policy “discrimination” is completely backwards; the usual criticism is that it doesn’t discriminate enough.”
It’s worse than that AR. The university is in fact teaching its students that the essence of rationality itself–the making of distinctions–is not to be recognized in the formation of communities within its jurisdiction. It is epistemological promiscuity, and an affront to the purpose of education.
It is also anti-liberal, since it demands of its community unanimity on the nature of associations and their purpose. If, for example, the university were to ban the Catholic club because its priesthood does not allow women, atheists, or Methodists, we would not see this as an advancement of freedom, but rather, a totalitarian imposition on religious liberty. What business is it of the university that it concern itself on the Catholic rules of ordination? Will the university force Orthodox Jews to serve ham, since it implicitly marginalizes ham eaters and makes them feel like outsiders? If you want to fund groups, then fund them. But don’t try to change their internal purpose and then call them “different groups.” That’s false advertising. They are not different, and they don’t represent diversity. They are all the same, and are coerced to uncritically parrot Leftist pieties or lose their funding. How can anyone defend this pile of intellectual goo with a straight face?
To toss a carnard often tossed at defenders of traditional marriage, how is the Christian Legal Society’s moral rules affecting your private life? The CLS is not the state, and it doesn’t and can’t stop you from doing anything you want to with anyone with whom you consent. All that it asks is that you show respect for its standards, that you not claim to be a member while living inconsistently with it. Why is that wrong?
This seems so obviously right, so eminently liberal, it is a scandal that you have to actually argue for it.
January 27th, 2011 | 7:57 pm | #20
“How can anyone defend this pile of intellectual goo with a straight face?”
Dear Francis, did you mean to write “poo” instead of “goo”?
But anyway, to answer your question, there most certainly are liberals who can defend this pile of intellectual goo or pile of intellectual poo with a straight face.
January 28th, 2011 | 5:51 am | #21
Why just talk about homosexuals? They’re not the only ones who might want to redefine Christianity to suit their id’s pleasure.
Gays are not the only people who get angry when their unusual sexual desires are questioned or rejected or denigrated, rather than being accepted and affirmed as normal or healthy. They are not the only group that uses the word “ought” when speaking about our culture’s sexual attitudes.
Once Christianity is forced to accept that feeding one’s sexual appetites is normal and healthy – and should not be a cause for shame – what on Earth makes anyone think that gays are going to be the last ones wanting to “correct” Christian doctrine?
We have accepted as “normal” that each generation has a moral obligation to shock their elders.
(IMO if their motives were truly related to a desire to be Christian, they’d form their own group, instead of waging war on the existing group. I notice the ones with the “Coexist” bumperstickers are the ones least willing to do so…)
January 28th, 2011 | 9:54 am | #22
True, but this is the point of attack. The universities are not passive, but rather are active participants in this agena. What we see in the universities is LGBT, not LGBTH, where H would be the advancement of Heterosexual immorality directed specifically against Christian morality, or LGBTM, where M would be Materialism versus the Christian ethic.
Seems to be the whole point right there.
January 28th, 2011 | 10:21 am | #23
“Pentamom, I would again point out that most homosexuals are Christian; they have a very good reason to want to be part of a Christian club. ”
What reason do they have to wish to be part of a Christian club that includes in its tenets that homosexuals cannot be fully recognized as practicing Christians?
That’s *precisely* where it’s a theological problem — the university wants the right to tell the club that “homosexuals cannot be fully recognized as practicing Christians” is an “optional” part of its belief system. But to do so is in fact to dictate or make judgments about the content of the belief system.
January 29th, 2011 | 1:49 am | #24
I don’t think that allowing homosexual members into their club is the same as confirming homosexual’s validity as an optional sexual preference within the Christian community. Assuming that the club is non-denominational, admitting a Calvinist member into the club does not suddenly change the denomination of the club or set the content that the club will cover, or the theology that the club adheres to.
One can argue that the school’s administration has no place to decide that admittance of the club, but saying that admitting gays into a Christian club is forcing Christians on campus to accept homosexuality as moral is simply outrageous and unfounded.
The situation is not a matter of whether homosexuality is acceptable or not, but it is whether the school should have a policy regarding the admittance of clubs. Either the school holds a policy that there can be no discrimination of any kind for club admittance, or that clubs have the ability to decide their member body with their own discretion.
Gays that believe that homosexuality is compatible hold their own theological view of Christianity. Many in the Christian community believe that this is wrong and that homosexuality is sinful. This is a heavily debated and I believe wrong view of theology, however it is still a Christian perspective. Similarly, Quakers deny the idea of original sin. Many disagree with this theology, but it is still a Christian theology.
Essentially, much of the logic that is being proposed, and I will use specifically the example of orthodoxdj (hey adams!!!), is that the admittance of personell of the group is what decides the theology or purpose of the group.
I think the Hindu student union should admit that Muslims are right and I also believe Muslims should provide tracts that prove the deity of Christ…
If this logic is the case (that accepting members into a club with different theologies is the same as the club admitting all theologies correct), than accepting quakers and calvinists into the group would also mean that the club denies original sin and simultaniously believes in TULIP. Also, if the club were to admit Catholics, than the whole club also believes in transubstantation and the club should be asking for funds from the school for confessionals.
So I think that the issue is whether the school has the authority to tell clubs who they can or can’t admit. If the school tells clubs that they must be open to everyone, than it should be consistent and the club should not discriminate on the admittance of it’s members. This may have muslims coming to Christian groups, and the Muslim will be likely be told by other members that they disagree with Muslim theology. This may spur debate within the club, but it does not force the Christian club to accept Muslim theology.
OR, the club could say that it is up to the club’s discretion on the admittance of it’s members. However, I believe that since the club provides the funds and often facilities of the clubs, than the school has the right to say that membership should be open. As I pointed out above, saying that a club must admit all applicants is not the same as saying that a club must AGREE with all of the applicants.
On a side note, I find it odd that a Christian club of all things would deny homosexual membership. Obviously, the club does not agree with homosexuality. So the thought process of the club is: “Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore homosexuals are sinners. You are a sinner. You cannot join the club.”
—Hardly a position I would like to associate with Christianity. Once my church takes this position, that sinners are no longer allowed, than I will gladly leave my church with a smile on my face.
January 29th, 2011 | 1:50 am | #25
Sorry about the last comment, I forgot to spell check it. My apologies.
January 29th, 2011 | 6:08 am | #26
Livingston,
The campus ministry with which I am associated welcomes homosexuals as members. The line is drawn at the point where welcoming them as members would also mean (a) endorsing, supporting, or condoning homosexual practice, and/or (b) placing anyone in leadership who is either practicing or promoting it. The Bible is clear about these things. We have the same policy toward heterosexual immorality.
January 29th, 2011 | 12:28 pm | #27
I believe it goes rather more like this:
“Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore unrepentant homosexuals are sinners. You are an unrepentant sinner. You cannot join a club composed of Christians, who are (in part) identified by their repentance from sin.”
January 29th, 2011 | 5:19 pm | #28
Gilson,
I understand the first point that you are making, however I believe that the point that I made was that I don’t really understand where you can make the connection that allowing homosexual members means endorsing it. You claim that
The campus ministry with which I am associated welcomes homosexuals as members. The line is drawn at the point where welcoming them as members would also mean (a) endorsing, supporting, or condoning homosexual practice
Yet you never in any sense provide a bright line as to when allowing homosexual members into a club suddenly becomes endorsing their practices. You said that the ministry welcomes homosexual members. The you go on to say that welcoming them somehow ALSO becomes endorsing them? I fail to see where you draw this “line”. In what circumstance does admitting homosexual members become endorsing their practice? Similarly, at what point does admitting Catholic members into the group mean that the club endorses transubstantiation? The school never says “Christianity needs to endorse homosexual practice” The school instead says “Your club needs to open to EVERYONE, including homosexuals”. It’s not the fact that they are homosexuals that they should be allowed in the club, it is because they are a student.
In addition, the club is never commanded to tell the homosexual members that their ministry agrees with their lifestyle. A homosexual member can be admitted into the club and be made well aware by the other members that the club strongly disagrees with his or her theological position.
To your second point about leadership: I agree to the point that you make. I also believe that homosexuals should likely not be in a position of leadership, especially of the club feels that homosexual practices are immoral. However, I ask if the leadership of the group is determined by the school? Or by the club members? Or maybe the leadership is appointed by the former leader? In all of these cases, I would doubt that the school administration determines the leadership of the club. I may be wrong, that’s just an educated guess after being involved with two campus ministries, and if the school ministry DOES in fact determine leadership of the group, than there is an issue in that case.
But if NOT, than the leadership point you made doesn’t have any relevance to the discussion. The members of the group determine the leadership, and the club can create by-laws to prevent homosexuals from becoming leaders of the group. The school, in this scenario, is determining the criteria for entry to the club, not the leadership.
Pentamom,
Homosexuals don’t follow the logic of “We know homosexuality is a sin, we just don’t care”. They take the position of “homosexuality is not a sin”. Though I personally disagree with this, the case comes down to a different theological view, not necessarily refusal to repent for sins. In other words, homosexuals similarly identify with repentance of sins, they simple don’t believe homosexuality is a sin.
In a similar scenario, Christians are also identified by the grace that they receive from God. Even more so, I would argue, than repentance from sin. Catholics believe that the seven sacraments are necessarily for salvation, for they are necessarily to receive their respective modes of grace. So if we are to follow the logic that a member must have consistent “identifying” Christian traits, than the club should additionally catholic members, because their identification of grace through God comes through the seven sacraments, and very few protestants share this view with the catholic church.
January 29th, 2011 | 8:22 pm | #29
“Though I personally disagree with this, the case comes down to a different theological view, not necessarily refusal to repent for sins.”
Yes, that’s how those who wish to join view it. But you seemed to be criticizing the group for excluding the people on the basis that they were sinners, when that’s not the point — they’re excluding people for being unrepentant, and even if they are unrepentant because of a putatively false belief about the wrongness of homosexuality, that’s still non-repentance from the POV of the current group members.
At any rate it’s either “I want to join a group with whom I disagree about something they consider fundamental to the group’s identity,” which is odd, or “I want to join a Christian group that considers me to be unrepentant of sin and therefore not a Christian at all” which leaves one wondering again, why — what kind of fellowship they think they have with people who deny that they are Christians?
In either case….why? In either case, they are wishing to be part of something that denies that they, as they are, are entitled to be a part of it. It would be like Sarah Brady wanting to join the NRA — as a matter of law I suppose she’d be allowed to, but people are entitled scratch their heads over what the purpose of it could be, and whether any purpose would be served by forcing the NRA to admit her should they wish to exclude her?
January 30th, 2011 | 7:22 am | #30
Mr. Dell,
First some context: in a similar situation in California, the school required the group to admit persons of contrary viewpoints not only to membership but to positions as voting officers. Astonishingly, the school’s right to do that was upheld in court. I don’t know if OSU would make the same requirement or not. Having no specific information, it’s impossible to dismiss the possibility.
Second, let’s recognize that your comment has taken us down a bit of a side trail. The original blog post was about a university’s attempt to restrict freedom of religion and freedom of association. Your comment was about Christian groups’ attitude toward homosexuals. Those are two different questions. Though your comment was slightly off topic, it was close enough to it that I thought it worth noting that at least one Christian group is quite free of the ungracious attitude you warned against. I hoped that might address and help alleviate the concern you raised.
Note, however, that your question was essentially theological in nature, and I continue to hold that this is precisely what the university should keep its nose out of. Suppose the student government were to discover what you wrote here, and then they went to InterVarsity or Campus Crusade or the Christian Legal Society and said, “Look, if you follow [Mr. Dell's] approach, that’s fine, because [as Mr. Dell pointed out] that’s really being Christian.” I hope you can see that would be wrong. It’s not the Student Government’s place to determine what’s really Christian, and it’s not the university’s either.
January 30th, 2011 | 5:05 pm | #31
Tom,
I’m sorry my side note was slightly off topic, as was my response to Pentamom, however I feel that my original response that was posted was very much on topic. My original post, or at least the first 2/3 of it, was about the claim that you and several other posters of the blog were making about accepting homosexuals into the group.
Specifically Moreover, if the student government is proceeding according to the reasoning you’ve suggested, then it has made a theological determination and is asking the university also to make a theological determination: to tell the student Christian groups their theology is wrong. This is clearly a violation of religious freedom, and it is clearly discriminatory against a religious viewpoint.
This where I made the point that I don’t feel like the school is making a theological statement at all. If this was the case, than the school would say “You need to accept homosexuals because they haven’t done anything wrong”, instead the school is saying “You need to admit homosexuals into your club because they are a student, and on this campus all clubs are open to students.”
I fail to see the connection that you made about how admitting a certain person suddenly changes the theology of the club or challenges the theology of the club.
In addition I don’t feel like this was discrimination against religion. If that was the case than ONLY religious groups would have to be open to everyone, but instead every club on campus must have an open member policy. In fact, in this regard the club (and extended religions on campus) were in fact receiving special treatment over other clubs on campus because they were allowed to exclude members. I feel that in this case it is the school being consistent with it’s policy and not discriminatory.
January 30th, 2011 | 6:35 pm | #32
Did you mean to say (as you did), “You need to admit homosexuals into your club because they are a student, and on this campus all clubs are open to students,” or did you mean to say, “You need to admit homosexuals into your club because they are a student, and on this campus all clubs are open to all students, regardless of the student’s relationship to the club’s purposes or distinctives”?
January 30th, 2011 | 6:48 pm | #33
Further, you wrote,
Religion is not only a matter of belief, it is also a matter of practice, including the practice of assembly. These practices are theologically formed and informed. Maybe that is what makes it hard to see the connection: if you do not see the intimate link between theology, belief, and practice, you might think that requiring a Christian group to change its practice has no impact on its theology. This is just wrong.
It is in fact a matter of theology that belief and practice are matters of theology, so if the university were to say, “Your policies concerning who joins your club are not part of your Christian theology,” the club could say, “There you go again: you’re making yet another theological statement that is not your place to make. Our policies are tied to our theology, and that very fact itself is part of our theology.”
Suppose the club makes a theological statement of the sort that Pentamom laid out: “Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore unrepentant homosexuals are sinners. You are an unrepentant sinner. You cannot join a club composed of Christians, who are (in part) identified by their repentance from sin.”
If the university contradicts or overrides that, then they are imposing their version of what is correct policy concerning assembly. That policy has a contrary impact on theologically-informed club policy. It is thus an infringement of religious freedom, and it is also an authoritarian imposition on the theology behind club policy.
January 30th, 2011 | 10:05 pm | #34
I could have written that last comment simpler. You said,
If the club has a theologically-formed policy of not admitting “certain persons,” then being required to admit those persons obviously challenges its theology.
January 30th, 2011 | 10:46 pm | #35
Would allowing the Klan to march in a Gay Pride parade affect the ability of gays to celebrate “diversity”?
Would allowing neo-Nazis to join an ethnic rights group affect the group’s ability to define and defend equality, fairness, and justice?
Would forcing the organic gardening club to accept students who define “organic” in a way that includes Round-Up change the organic gardening club’s ability to promote their hobby?
February 5th, 2011 | 9:56 pm | #36
Don’t waste your time. The drivel written here trying to justify squelching the religious freedom of campus groups in favor of a secularist, homosexualist, agenda is nothing more than sophistry parading as an argument. I wouldn’t bother addressing it at all.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact