The Supreme Court of the the United States is hearing oral arguments in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Hastings. Which at issue in this ca
se is whether the Christian Legal Society at the University of California - Hastings Law School should be defunded because of it's refusal to recognize gay and unbelieving students into its leadership. Based on the school's policy of nondiscrimination, the law school argues that it should be. This ruling will be of great importance to all civic recognized institutions which comprises it's membership or leadership by a common set of exclusionary beliefs or convictions. At the heart of these arguments is the question of which doctrines will supersede. Will the Court hold that anti-discrimination laws or policies trump religious liberty and the freedom of association? Or will it affirm that matters of religious liberty and the freedom of association are exempt from such policies.
Unfortunately logic is on the side of discrimination but our culture is certainly not. To deny discrimination is to deny good judgment. We discriminate against child molesters as babysitters, against embezzlers as accountants and children as licensed drivers, right? The problem we face is that as a people we have been found to be morally bankrupt at times and have robbed ourselves of the right to discern or should I say discriminate in our decision making. From a purly logical standpoint anti-discrimination is no more sound than tolerance. As a position you cannot remain tolerant in that you will have to ultimately tolerate those who are not tolerant. A policy of anti-discrimination immediately discriminates against those who would hold to an opposing belief system.
Discrimination is good. "Discriminating moms agree." If our discrimination is based on scripture (discernment) than we are morally and ethically out of step but ultimately pleasing God. Jesus was very discriminating when he said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
se is whether the Christian Legal Society at the University of California - Hastings Law School should be defunded because of it's refusal to recognize gay and unbelieving students into its leadership. Based on the school's policy of nondiscrimination, the law school argues that it should be. This ruling will be of great importance to all civic recognized institutions which comprises it's membership or leadership by a common set of exclusionary beliefs or convictions. At the heart of these arguments is the question of which doctrines will supersede. Will the Court hold that anti-discrimination laws or policies trump religious liberty and the freedom of association? Or will it affirm that matters of religious liberty and the freedom of association are exempt from such policies.Unfortunately logic is on the side of discrimination but our culture is certainly not. To deny discrimination is to deny good judgment. We discriminate against child molesters as babysitters, against embezzlers as accountants and children as licensed drivers, right? The problem we face is that as a people we have been found to be morally bankrupt at times and have robbed ourselves of the right to discern or should I say discriminate in our decision making. From a purly logical standpoint anti-discrimination is no more sound than tolerance. As a position you cannot remain tolerant in that you will have to ultimately tolerate those who are not tolerant. A policy of anti-discrimination immediately discriminates against those who would hold to an opposing belief system.
Discrimination is good. "Discriminating moms agree." If our discrimination is based on scripture (discernment) than we are morally and ethically out of step but ultimately pleasing God. Jesus was very discriminating when he said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
No comments:
Post a Comment