Via Frank Beckwith, disturbing news about a petition academic philosophers are circulating among the American Philosophical Association membership. From the petition:
Many colleges and universities require faculty, students, and staff to follow certain 'ethical' standards which prohibit engaging in homosexual acts. Among these institutions are Azusa Pacific University, Belmont University, Bethal College, Biola University, Calvin College, Malone College, Pepperdine University, Westmont College, and Wheaton College. All of these institutions advertised in 'Jobs for Philosophers' between 2006-2009. Further, none of these institutions were listed as censured institutions.The American Philosophical Association professes to uphold the following anti-discrimination policy:
The American Philosophical Association rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional activities in which APA members characteristically participate. At the same time, the APA recognizes the special commitments and roles of institutions with a religious affiliation; it is not inconsistent with the APA's position against discrimination to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school's religious affiliation or purpose, so long as these policies are made known to members of the philosophical community and so long as the criteria for such religious affiliations do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement. Advertisers in Jobs for Philosophers are expected to comply with this fundamental commitment of the APA, which is not to be taken to preclude explicitly stated affirmative action initiatives.
The APA Board of Officers expects that all those who use the APA Placement Service will comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable regulations concerning non-discrimination, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action.We, the undersigned, request that the American Philosophical Association either (1) enforce its policy and prohibit institutions that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from advertising in 'Jobs for Philosophers' or (2) clearly mark institutions with these policies as institutions that violate our anti-discrimination policy. If the APA is unwilling to take either of these measures, we request that the APA publicly inform its members that it will not protect homosexual philosophers and remove its anti-discrimination policy to end the illusion that a primary function of the APA is to protect the rights of its members.
In other words, no Christian or other religious schools that live by their religion's teaching on human sexuality, and in particular homosexuality, are to have a place at the professional philosopher's table, should this petition succeed.
So, according to this petition, Christian institutions are morally required to act as if their beliefs are false, even if these institutions, its founders, its members, and its constituencies all believe they have good reason to believe that their beliefs are true.In the name of standing against discrimination based on sexual orientation, this group of philosophers is demanding that the APA discriminate against institutions that do not embrace one particular, and far from established, view of sexual orientation and human sexuality.
The persecution of serious Christians is no longer a "slow train coming," to quote Bob Dylan, it is picking up speed.
Doesn't Frank know that it's gauche to talk about this, that it's just not done to point out the ways that the gay rights movement, not content with mere tolerance and actual diversity, is marginalizing and proscribing traditional Christianity (and, for that matter, Judaism)?
I'd mentioned before, I think, about young Christian secular-media journalists I know who deliberately avoid writing in any critical way about homosexuality in their work, because they understand that there could be a serious professional price to be paid for it. And now, if this petition succeeds, philosophers who work for traditionally Christian colleges and universities, even if they happen to privately disagree with the school's policy on homosexuality, will find themselves relegated to outsider status within their profession, and may prudently conclude that they should seek work elsewhere so as not to damage their career. Which is precisely what these gay activists and their fellow travelers seek: to destroy these schools and their Christian commitment.
I understand what they're after and why they're after it, and I also understand why they have to use the language of liberalism to advance their illiberal goals. But what I don't understand is why so many Christians seem unaware of and unconcerned with what's happening here regarding the fast erosion of religious liberty in America.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Miss California did the unthinkable! When asked her opinion on gay marriage, she acknowledged that her personal opinion is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. How dare she express anything but the socially required view on gay marriage? Absolutely no tolerance will be allowed for her views! Freedom of expression? Forget it! There is only one view allowed! A woman is not permitted to give her viewpoint unless it is the pre-approved one.
No one really wanted to know what Miss California thought. They wanted her to submissively parrot the required viewpoint. Where is the outrage from the feminists? Where is the outrage over Perez Hilton calling Miss California a ‘dumb bitch’? How does he get lavished with praise for his message of hate? Who does he think he is? Are men allowed to abuse women in this way without public consequence from the media? Evidently, some men get a pass.
The “champions” of tolerance strike again. Don’t be fooled. Militant homosexuals like Perez are some of the most hateful, spiteful and angry people you’ll meet. Just cross them and you’ll find out. Evidently hate is acceptable if aimed at certain people.
I thought tolerance was the ability to treat respectfully those with whom you strongly disagree. What we’re witnessing in our culture is tolerance redefined into a kind of intolerance. We’re seeing a lot of this: “Agree with us, or else!” mentality. But this is the depth of hypocrisy for a group always crying for tolerance.
I hope that most reasonable people will not support the angry homosexual militancy in our culture. I have interacted with people who identify themselves as homosexual but are embarrassed by the militancy of a radical fringe.
I also hope that many will see through the false comparison of the fight for gay marriage with past battles for civil rights. The victories won for race and gender are simply not logically comparable to the special laws asked for by people who chose to engage in homosexual behavior.
Civil rights and minority oppression cannot reasonably include sexual preferences. If one is wrongly treated for being known as homosexual, existing laws should be applied to provide protection. I believe it is absolutely wrong to hate or hurt people based on such differences. But evidently, hate is permissible on some accounts as Miss California is learning the hard way.
Steve Cornell
58 West Frederick st.
Millersville, PA. 17551
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/god-government-gays/
Little upset Steve? :-)
I just wanted to add a note to your comment "I thought tolerance was the ability to treat respectfully those with whom you strongly disagree." It would be worth your time to reflect on the fact that most of your opponents here have no tolerance for homosexuals (odd thought, ain't it?). Consider: do they strongly disagree with homosexual lifestyles? Of course not.
So many odd conclusions follow. One, those who preach tolerance for homosexuality the most typically exhibit it the least (because they lack the requisite "strong disagreement"). Two, those who preach tolerance for homosexuality are, in effect, demanding that those to whome they preach maintain the requisite attitude of "strong disagreement." And three, those who preach tolerance for homosexuality can neither exhibit tolerance toward homosexual lifestyles nor (if one is to judge by their actions) can they exhibit tolerance towards those who oppose them. In short, hypocrisy.
Steve Cornell wrote: "I thought tolerance was the ability to treat respectfully those with whom you strongly disagree. What we’re witnessing in our culture is tolerance redefined into a kind of intolerance. We’re seeing a lot of this: “Agree with us, or else!” mentality. But this is the depth of hypocrisy for a group always crying for tolerance.
I hope that most reasonable people will not support the angry homosexual militancy in our culture. I have interacted with people who identify themselves as homosexual but are embarrassed by the militancy of a radical fringe."
I have a few questions... Do you see how the exact same attitudes of intolerance and angry militancy are also coming from the "religious right?"
Now, I will receive a lot of hate responses here, but I must speak up.
I am a Christian; in fact I am what one might call an evangelical Christian and minister, however I am also Gay! I am greatly appalled by the extremes of intolerance and hypocrisies put forth by both the gay extremists and the religious right. Is there no middle ground? Are people evil or wrong just for being who they are, and not having some messed-up agenda?
I know many people who simply just want to live in peace and work-out their "sole salvation" with God.
The comment was made that the fight for gay rights cannot me paralleled with the civil right movement of blacks and women. I must disagree.
I am a black man, which makes my being gay even more of a problem for me. While I understand is meant by if people are harmed for being gay the laws we have now should be enforced, but that does not cover other forms of discrimination and harm that is not so different to that which has happened to Blacks and Women.
For example; it would be considered very wrong now if a Black man was told he was fired from a job (say a school teacher) just because he was black. However in most states a person could be fired simple because they are gay; even though they have done nothing wrong, or remotely inappropriate. Most states have no laws to prevent this. In this fashion the laws are inadequate to stopping a type of discrimination that should not happen, regardless of one’s personal or religious stance.
If this kind of discrimination is allowed, then how long before Christians are dismissed for being Christian?
Um, I fail to see what the big deal is or how this counts as a new form of "persecution" against Christians. What the petition would do is either i) prohibit certain Christian institutions from advertising in the APA, or ii) if they do advertise, it would ensure that these ads are marked with some sort of notification that they are not tolerant of homosexual activity amongst their faculty members. I really don't see what's so objectionable about that, or how this somehow "marginalizes" Christian philosophers. After all, aspiring gay tenure-track philosophy professors should be made aware, at the outset, of the school's policy in the matter, shouldn't they?
This article is just as bigoted as the the people you're attacking! Merriam-Webster defines Philosophy in many ways, among them are:
1. : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts
2. a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.
This means that Philosphy is subjective and not for ANYONE to say what is right and what is wrong. If a school chooses to have a certain core of ethics, regardless of my or your beliefs, it is their right. You can disagree w/ a lifestyle- any lifestyle and still not hate. You are showing your hatred by wanting to censure Christanity. That is not very open minded...It's actually quite ugly.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.