Christian Colleges Tangled in LGBT Policies.

[FireDragon76]

Christian Colleges Are Tangled In Their Own LGBT Policies

I was unaware that religious-oriented universities in the US could receive federal money of any kind, but apparently they can under certain conditions as long as they abide by Title IX prohibitions against sex discrimination. If Title IX applies to discrimination against sex, it should also apply to LGBT persons, since LGBT discrimination is in essence sex discrimination (discrimination based on perceived sex roles).

Title IX apparently has an exemption for universities if the law conflicts with religious beliefs. Some advocates want to pressure the Biden administration to move beyond just assigning blanket immunity to religious institutions without investigation.

LGBT students sue Education Department over Title IX religious exemption

 

[Arcangl86]

Yeah, they aren't going to succeed with that. SCOTUS didn't find a Constitutional protection against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, they just found that the CRA covered it. If Title IX has a specific exception in it, then that's that.

 

[HTacianas]

Christian Colleges Are Tangled In Their Own LGBT Policies

I was unaware that religious-oriented universities in the US could receive federal money of any kind, but apparently they can under certain conditions as long as they abide by Title IX prohibitions against sex discrimination. If Title IX applies to discrimination against sex, it should also apply to LGBT persons, since LGBT discrimination is in essence sex discrimination (discrimination based on perceived sex roles).

Title IX apparently has an exemption for universities if the law conflicts with religious beliefs. Some advocates want to pressure the Biden administration to move beyond just assigning blanket immunity to religious institutions without investigation.

LGBT students sue Education Department over Title IX religious exemption

And then when the next war comes along conscientious objector status will no longer exist.

 

[dzheremi]

And then when the next war comes along conscientious objector status will no longer exist.

I'm not sure I see the connection here.

 

[PloverWing]

This issue is one I've been watching in the last decade or so. It came especially to my attention ten years ago when the organization OneWheaton (OneWheaton - A Community of LGBTQs and Allies of Wheaton College, Illinois) was formed. I'm a Wheaton alumna, and Wheaton was a very good school for me. I also have close friends who are LGBT. I think the last paragraph of the NPR article is important.

I'd rather it not come to a direct clash of government law vs religious belief, if that's possible. Partly for the reason @HTacianas has given: some forms of religious dissent are morally positive and worth preserving. And partly because force doesn't really change people's minds on matters of deep conviction.

At my alma mater, several requirements of belief and action have changed since I graduated. Dancing is no longer prohibited, and faculty are no longer required to affirm premillennialism. The Evangelical community had a particular belief on those issues 100 years ago, and a century of theological reflection has taken place since then. My hope is that there can be thoughtful theological reflection on this issue as well.

 

[HTacianas]

I'm not sure I see the connection here.

We have a school seeking what is in effect conscientious objector status protection against some Federal mandate. In this case on religious teachings on sexual relations. To deny that status to one group against their deeply held religious beliefs is to deny the status to anyone for any reason based on deeply held religious beliefs. Apart from colleges and LGBTQXYZ+ policies, there is a movement to deny doctors and nurses exemptions from participating in abortion based on religious beliefs. If this goes that far, what is to protect a person against military service based on their deeply held religious beliefs?

Keep in mind that this is not based on any individual or any individual circumstance, but is based on principles of law. Once conscientious objector status is denied to any individual it can be denied to all individuals.

 

[HARK!]

LGBT isn't a sex. Why would one want to go to a Christian college anyway, if he rejects YHWH's word?

Let's call this for what it is. This is an attack on Christianity.

 

[Quartermaine]

We have a school seeking what is in effect conscientious objector status protection against some Federal mandate. In this case on religious teachings on sexual relations. To deny that status to one group against their deeply held religious beliefs is to deny the status to anyone for any reason based on deeply held religious beliefs. Apart from colleges and LGBTQXYZ+ policies, there is a movement to deny doctors and nurses exemptions from participating in abortion based on religious beliefs. If this goes that far, what is to protect a person against military service based on their deeply held religious beliefs?

Keep in mind that this is not based on any individual or any individual circumstance, but is based on principles of law. Once conscientious objector status is denied to any individual it can be denied to all individuals.

This has already happened just with a different minority. Schools cannot seek conscientious objector status protection against title VI

 

[Quartermaine]

LGBT isn't a sex.

But they are a minority

Why would one want to go to a Christian college anyway, if he rejects YHWH's word?

Let's call this for what it is. This is an attack on Christianity.

I've asked a similar question in the past: Why would an LGBT individual want to a college where were not safe from discrimination and violence?

 

[HARK!]

But they are a minority

Minority isn't a sex either.

I've asked a similar question in the past: Why would an LGBT individual want to a college where were not safe from discrimination and violence?

Do you have any stats to prove that violence on LGBT is at elevated levels at Christian colleges?

 

[FireDragon76]

This issue is one I've been watching in the last decade or so. It came especially to my attention ten years ago when the organization OneWheaton (OneWheaton - A Community of LGBTQs and Allies of Wheaton College, Illinois) was formed. I'm a Wheaton alumna, and Wheaton was a very good school for me. I also have close friends who are LGBT. I think the last paragraph of the NPR article is important.

I'd rather it not come to a direct clash of government law vs religious belief, if that's possible. Partly for the reason @HTacianas has given: some forms of religious dissent are morally positive and worth preserving. And partly because force doesn't really change people's minds on matters of deep conviction.

At my alma mater, several requirements of belief and action have changed since I graduated. Dancing is no longer prohibited, and faculty are no longer required to affirm premillennialism. The Evangelical community had a particular belief on those issues 100 years ago, and a century of theological reflection has taken place since then. My hope is that there can be thoughtful theological reflection on this issue as well.

I get that. I have given up on changing peoples minds. And I don't want to live in a country where the government checks peoples private beliefs.

But why should my tax dollars pay for anti-LGBT indoctrination and discrimination? It seems unjust when I and alot of other people consider it wrong to discriminate aganist gay people or treat them as having less dignity.

LGBT isn't a sex. Why would one want to go to a Christian college anyway, if he rejects YHWH's word?

Let's call this for what it is. This is an attack on Christianity.

I don't. I don't want my tax dollars paying for that education, though. That's wrong and it violates my rights, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson, I shouldn't have to pay a dime for a church's religious indoctrination.

 

[HARK!]

I get that. I don't want to live in a country where the government checks peoples private beliefs.

But why should my tax dollars pay for anti-LGBT indoctrination and discrimination?

Why should my tax dollars pay for pro-LGBT indoctrination in a setting where Christians must be subjected to unholy teachings in order to get a degree?

 

[FireDragon76]

Why should my tax dollars pay for pro-LGBT indoctrination in a setting where Christians must be subjected to unholy teachings in order to get a degree?

Because it's a secular school and all the basis for discrimination against gays is rooted in religion, not science.

 

[HARK!]

Because it's a secular school and all the basis for discrimination against gays is rooted in religion, not science.

I don't approve of secular unholiness. All the basis for discrimination against gays is no more rooted in religion; than all discrimination against the religious is rooted in homosexuality. That statement is rife with bigotry.

Having an identity crisis is not rooted in science.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't approve of secular unholiness.

A public school takes public money and the 1st Ammendment has widely been interpreted to say that the government has no business establishing a particular religion. The government has to be religiously neutral.

All the basis for discrimination against gays is no more rooted in religion; than all discrimination against the religious is rooted in homosexuality. That statement is rife with bigotry.

No, it isn't. There are no good secular arguments against homosexuality, they have all been dismissed in court.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Why should my tax dollars pay for pro-LGBT indoctrination in a setting where Christians must be subjected to unholy teachings in order to get a degree?

How do you equate non-discrimination and indoctrination? Seems a stretch.

 

[HARK!]

A public school takes public money and the 1st Ammendment has widely been interpreted to say that the government has no business establishing a particular religion. The government has to be religiously neutral.

The notion that homosexuality is normal, is built entirely on a belief system. I don't subscribe to that belief system.

No, it isn't. There are no good secular arguments against homosexuality, they have all been dismissed in court.

Non sequitur, red herring.

It appears that you can neither back your assertion, nor refute mine.

 

[FireDragon76]

The notion that homosexuality is normal, is built entirely on a belief system. I don't subscribe to that belief system.

You ought to recognize that other people disagree, and we shouldn't have to pay for religious indoctrination we consider abhorent.

Non sequitur, red herring.

It's not a non-sequitur. The arguments against homosexuality have been found wanting by the courts in our country, which is why homosexuality has effectively been decriminalized for almost two decades.

 

[HARK!]

How do you equate non-discrimination and indoctrination? Seems a stretch.

If someone tried to convince me that it's OK to throw virgins into a volcano; as one of discriminating moral values, I would reject that doctrine.

 

[Quartermaine]

Minority isn't a sex either.

A minority is a culturally, ethnically, religious or racially distinct group that has a shared sense of collective identity and community that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group with socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not.

so yes LGBT individuals are a minority

Do you have any stats to prove that violence on LGBT is at elevated levels at Christian colleges?

Sure.

2017 National Crime Victimization report compiled by National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 36% of students on Christian campuses were the target of some form of anti gay attack in the prior school year as compared to 5% of students on secular campuses.