(by "fornication" i simply mean pre-marital sex.) On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote:
> I appreciate Marty's respect for the beliefs of those like myself who > oppose same-sex marriage. > > I think Marty's distinction-- between opposition by individuals and > opposition by organizations-- will provide little comfort to us. To accuse > an organization of abandoning doctrine is to accuse a large portion of > individuals in that organization's faith of abandoning doctrine (Would > Notre Dame be taking the stance it takes on LGBT issues if 70% of American > Catholics opposed same-sex marriage instead of 60% supporting same-sex > marriage?). > > Traditional religious believers (the 20% Marty and Alan seem to agree will > continue to hold traditional beliefs on morality) will continue to want to > ban together. If those 20% happen to be concentrated in 5-6 major faiths, > then those faith's organizations will continue to uphold traditional > morality. > > So an assumption Marty relies on is that all religious groups will have > majorities or near-majorities supporting same-sex marriage in 20 years; > otherwise, the universities they form will continue to oppose same-sex > marriage. I find these statistics on the present proportion of members of > various faiths who support same-sex marriage revealing: > > > http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational-family/ > > For many believers, beliefs on heterosexual activity and homosexual > activity are intertwined-- because of our views on marriage and > fornication, we lack an internally consistent way to allow homosexual > relationships. Because of this intertwining in our own faith, we will > assume (correctly or not) that those schools who are LGBT-affirming will > also be fornication, etc. affirming. We will want to provide our kids who > don't wish to be in that environment, universities that uphold traditional > morality. > > Speaking only for my own faith tradition, we have 4 universities (three > integrated with our church; one not) and one college that provide about > 50,000 slots for education. These universities, while not as central to > our faiths' theology as our beliefs on family, provide an environment for > uniformity in doctrine. Our faith is consistently growing which indicates > our faith will make a greater portion of the 20% that oppose, which will > make our objections to same-sex marriage as organizational matters a > continuing issue if one day the IRS, accreditation boards, or misinformed > private citizens (think Indiana) decide we shouldn't operate universities > that have morality requirements. > > While Mormons seem to have done a better job than some faiths of > explaining to our members why we toe the line on this issue, we are > continuing to grow and it is possible our university and colleges > associated with morality codes will increase (our flagship school has > become much more competitive over the last 8 years). > > When you think that in my tradition alone, attacking these universities > will attack somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 students, that makes the > assumption that " 'very few' of today's religious *organizations* will be > 'legally and socially marginalized' because 'they will have voluntarily > ended *their discriminatory practices' " * unpersuasive. > > So Marty in 20 years, 60,000 Mormon youth will be attending our > universities, and they still will hold traditional moral standards about, > inter allia, homosexuality. This is why we doubt very much that this issue > will go away if the remainder of society places a greater and greater > premium on LGBT rights (Cf. Indiana). > > Like Alan, I've taken time I don't have to write this, but I think, at its > core, that the distinction between organizations and individuals will not > work as religious traditionalists band together. > > I hope this helps explain why this issue is not just a "small handful" of > colleges, but major universities who may have their tax-exempt status > threatened.. > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Alan: Thank you for that very thoughtful and candid reply. >> >> >> >> I apologize if my wording in response to Eugene's post was infelicitous, >> or insensitive, in any way. I was trying to be very careful *not* to >> suggest that all religious objectors would "change their minds." I agree >> with you that some will not. >> >> >> >> And I certainly did not write, and did not mean to suggest in the >> slightest, any of the following: >> >> >> >> -- that religious beliefs are "simply" a "product of time and culture" >> >> >> >> -- "that religious beliefs opposing same-sex sexual relationships are >> purely an irrational bias" >> >> >> >> -- that religious beliefs on this question are dependent upon, or >> necessarily reflect, "bigotry" (or "animus," for that matter) >> >> >> >> -- that anyone "misunderstands" their own religion >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> -- that conservative Christian teachings about sex have the same place in >> the church that former teachings about race did. >> >> >> >> Indeed, I don't *believe *any of those things to be true, and so I >> surely would not argue for them or intend to suggest them in this thread. >> >> >> >> Of course, as your response acknowledges, religious beliefs of many >> individuals (not all)--and of many religious institutions--do change as a >> result of shifts in social practices, which tend to be followed by shifts >> in understandings of human nature. These shifts sometimes occur even with >> respect to theological commitments that have long been viewed as based in >> transcendent truth. The examples are legion--within my faith, the Catholic >> Church, the LDS, etc.; I know I don't need to belabor the point. The Notre >> Dame video, making great efforts to attract LGBT students, is merely the >> latest example. But it's of a piece with many, many other, similar >> trends. Even so, I agree with you that after a rapid change in the views >> of most people, some portion of the population is likely to maintain its >> religiously grounded views about homosexuality. (Your 20% seems like a >> reasonable guess about that number.) >> >> >> >> The point I was trying to make, however, was not about the cause, or the >> rate, of changes in individuals' religious beliefs. What I wrote was that, >> if and when antidiscrimination laws are extended more broadly to sexual >> orientation, "very few" of today's religious *organizations* will be >> "legally and socially marginalized" because "they will have voluntarily >> ended *their discriminatory practices*." Indeed, as I emphasized in >> later posts, even today there are very few such organizations that openly >> engage in such discriminatory practices (other than as to ministerial >> positions). And that number will only diminish--probably to a small >> handful--by the time Congress gets around to amending Title VII and Title >> IX to cover sexual orientation. >> >> >> >> I hope that better explains what I was getting at. I certainly did not >> mean to disparage or trivialize anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs. >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> Marty >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Alan Hurst <alan.hu...@aya.yale.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks to Marty and everyone else for the discussion here. I'm finding >>> it very informative. >>> >>> I wanted to respond briefly, however, to Marty's wager below: >>> >>> And Eugene, I'd be willing to wager that very few of today's >>>> conservative Christians' organizations will be "legally and socially >>>> marginalized" at that point, because by then they, too, will have >>>> voluntarily ended their discriminatory practices. >>>> >>> >>> I have two quick thoughts about this. First, I think you should consider >>> a bit more carefully how that argument sounds to someone whose religious >>> beliefs include the rejection of same-sex sexual relationships as immoral. >>> "You shouldn't worry about the long run because your religions will just >>> change their minds on this issue anyway" suggests at least one of the >>> following two ideas: >>> >>> --that religious beliefs are simply a product of time and culture, with >>> no basis in any transcendent truth and no capacity to resist broader >>> cultural movements. >>> >>> --that religious beliefs opposing same-sex sexual relationships are >>> purely an irrational bias and, like religious opposition to interracial >>> marriage, will gradually vanish as gay marriage becomes commonplace and >>> believers' aversion to gay relationships is worn down by familiarity. >>> >>> You may in fact believe these two ideas, and although I don't, I'm >>> certainly not going to change your mind here. But I do hope you'll consider >>> for a moment how they sound to believers who disagree with you. In essence, >>> when you say, "Your religion will change on this issue," you're saying >>> either, "The beliefs you've built your life on have no basis in reality" or >>> "Your bigotry has led you to misunderstand your own religion." True or >>> false, these two thoughts are quite the opposite of comforting to a >>> believer who worries about this issue. They do as much as anything to >>> persuade believers that people like you really don't understand religion >>> and really are out to get them. >>> >>> Second, if I were a betting man, I'd take your wager. Partially I'd take >>> it because, well, the analogy between religious racism and religious >>> heteronormativity is at most superficially accurate. Conservative Christian >>> teachings about sex just have a much different place in the church than >>> American Christians' teachings about race ever did--theologically, >>> functionally, socially, historically, etc. These things are simply not the >>> same. Douthat wrote briefly (but I think accurately) about this here: >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/rosss-douthat-interview-with-a-christian.html?_r=0 >>> >>> And partially I'd take your wager because religion has always been an >>> international phenomenon, and like everything else it's getting to be more >>> so. The heart of Christianity is moving from Europe and North America to >>> Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Within a few decades, China may be home to >>> more Christians than any other country. American Catholicism has never been >>> centrally important to the Catholic church, and even we Mormons now have >>> more members outside the U.S. than inside. Unless the gay marriage movement >>> catches on in a lot of places where it's not yet had much traction, I think >>> these Christians abroad are going to give some ballast to American >>> Christian opposition to gay marriage. To some extent it's already >>> happened--see, for example, the ties springing up between conservative >>> American Episcopalians and African Anglicans. >>> >>> My prediction? I think religious opposition to gay marriage is going to >>> be like religious opposition to premarital sex. The polls will move more >>> rapidly than anyone once thought possible, and in a decade or two only 20% >>> of Americans will think gay marriage is immoral. And then the graph will >>> bottom out, and you're going to have about 20% of Americans still thinking >>> that for a long time. >>> >>> So, no, I don't think these issues are going away. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> (My apologies, but I took an hour that I didn't really have to write >>> this, and I don't know when I'll be able to post again. But Marty, if you >>> respond, I promise I'll get back to you eventually.) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >>> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> > > > > -- > Michael Worley > J.D., Brigham Young University > -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
