An interesting review of a new book entitled Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh, head of the Mediterranean Studies Program at the University of London.
Click here to read the review.
Daily Archives: August 3, 2006
On the other hand…
Read the previous post first. Ultimately, for me the issue and/or question deals with Christian mission and witness…
On the other hand, here is another quote from the Focus-on-the-Family (FoF) essay:
Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: “OSU Librarian Slapped with ‘Sexual Harassment’ Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen.†One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel “unsafe.†The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.
In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance—you might call it harassment—than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. “Soft†coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone’s conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people. (emphasis mine)
I have to agree with this! I cannot help but believe that those who do have a considered opposition to gay marriage have a right to make their points of view known. This is not an issue, for me, of an attempt to deny someone their right of free speech. I uphold the right of people in their work-place or in the public-arena to advocate for their position. But, this does not mean that their speech will be consequence free. What I appose is the misuse of data or the spinning of information disingenuously or dishonestly to support or promote one’s position. As difficult, frustrating, and repugnant as it may be, I do support the right of even white supremacists, for example, to advocate their position.
The problem I see, and I know this from experience, is that if the culture-war, politicized Religious Right groups like FoF have their way, they will not allow such a wide berth for the freedom of speech. They would ban books from libraries that portrayed positively gay relationships. They’ve already championed this position in libraries across the country, and in some places have won the removal of books. They would not defend the right of gay advocates to present their positions equally alongside anti-gay positions. They would not allow this kind of free speech because they believe that advocating such positions is contrary to the will of God, plain and simply.
In addition, I am in opposition to the way the FoF and like groups are dealing with the issue of homosexuality in our culture because of the impact it has on a predominately post-Christian populace. The data they use to support their positions can fairly easily be disproved. The spin they place on other people’s/groups’ studies to support their positions can be easily repudiated. This type of twisting of information and the bearing of false witness against a whole class of people will only bring reproach and disgrace to all of Christianity and the cause of Christ. Advocate your position, but do it honestly and forthrightly! If we are to love our neighbor, how else can be proceed?
Consistency, principle, and our speaking to the culture
I read an essay this morning from Focus-on-the-Family (FoF) concerning the effect a marriage between ‘Adam and Steve’ will have on society. The essay comments on Catholic Charities pulling out of adoption and foster care placement in Massachusetts because state law forbids state-sanctioned organizations from discriminating against a list of people groups, and same-sex orientation is on the list.
Because Catholic Charities will no longer provide such services as a result of their determination that homosexuals are ‘intrinsically disordered’ and cannot provide a good environment for raising children, FoF says that this is a perfect example of the damage same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws covering homosexuals will have on society. It is a broad accusation. I think it is more spin than anything, and I don’t agree.
Here is an excerpt from the essay:
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.
So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?”
You can read the entire essay here.
Realize, the Massachusetts courts or legislature did not forbid Catholic Charities from functioning in the state; they simply said that discrimination will not be tolerated among those entities that the state oversees.
Are the politicized Religious-Right organizations, like FoF, willing to be consistent in the application of their beliefs and with the ‘stuff’ they use to justify their beliefs? From my experience and observation, no they will not.
I agree, with reservations, with Lieutenant Gov. Kerry Healey, Republican candidate for governor in the coming fall elections, who said, “I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state, and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important.†(Quoted in Focus on the Family Citizen, from the Boston Globe, March 2)
The solution in a democratic society, of course, is to petition the state for relief, which Catholic Charities has done. The state has not acted as of yet, but Catholic Charities realizes it must live within a democratic system and if it cannot support or function under the laws of the state then it must cease operations. They are willing to pay the price under this system of governance and laws. I actually do respect Catholic Charities’ decision – they are taking a principled stand regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I absolutely do not accept FoF’s spin on the situation. It is a shame all the way around, but the fault does not rest with homosexuals, as FoF claims.
FoF and other culture-war religious organizations say that they, as religious institutions, are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so that they do not have to obey amendments or laws – national or state – that conflict with their beliefs. In this insistence, because they have a theoretical belief or biblical interpretive structure that claims homosexuals to be ‘intrinsically disordered,’ sinful and naturally dangerous to children, they claim the right to disobey laws and constitutions without consequence. So, on the pretext of religious freedom they claim the right to discriminate against homosexual families. (Of course, they would demand that homosexuals cannot have ‘families’ to begin with.)
Will they be consistent on the pretext of religious freedom, then, to demand that the Christian Identity Movement or the World Church of the Creator (the white supremacist group), have the same constitutional right to discriminate against Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or anyone who is not a white “Arian?” No, they will not. If they did, then what effect would non-discrimination laws have at all?
They claim that such a question is inappropriate because being homosexual is of a whole different order than an ethnic or racial identity. Homosexuality is purely and only a choice of behavior – heterosexual people who engage in same-gender sex acts. It is not the same as an unchangeable characteristic like ethnicity or race, they demand. The evidence is mounting against such a belief and homosexuals know it to be untrue of them selves, but it does not matter. The Religious Right groups are not interested in what reliable, verifiable, or appropriate-to-the-question studies show to be objectively true when the results differ from their already determined subjective ‘truth,’ or what personal experience witnesses to. They also readily misuse studies to attempt to prove their point – the Spitzer study is an example where they claim Spitzer’s study proves that a homosexual orientation can be change into a heterosexual one. (Go here for a decent overview of the Spitzer controversy.)
This leads to my next question concerning consistency – the use, interpretation, and application of ‘studies’ and the assertion of ‘facts.’
Are groups like FoF willing to be consistent in the use of a set of criteria to judge the reliability, verifiability, or appropriateness of any particular study that is claimed to address the question at hand? No, they are not. They reject out-of-hand any study that does not presumably support their already determined positions. They will not be consistent in reviewing studies that may disagree with their conclusions.
These are generalizations, of course, and I do believe that there are people who can have a principled stand on these issues, but groups like FoF tend not to. And, there are liberal groups that tend to do the very same thing concerning their own issues and presuppositions. All of this, however, only harms the claims of Christ’s Church as it attempts to engage the prevailing culture. If it is too easy to disprove the claims of Christians by generally accepted sources, how can the Church have any credibility when it does attempt to appropriately speak to the culture on important issues?