The Georgetown Covenant
In our county there is a small group of folks who don't like gay people. Think they're evil, think gay people have an agenda, think it's their business to try to get people to live according to their own presumptions about what's right and what's wrong. It's kind of a desperate mission, especially in this community, but they insist they're duty-bound to keep doing it.
In arguing against the new sex-ed curriculum, they have made the point that the classes infringe on their religious beliefs; they believe it is their duty to save sinners, and therefore they need to have the right to speak out against anyone who does things that they consider sinful.
As you can imagine, some people don't really want to be told that they are sinners and need to change. Some gay people, even, feel perfectly comfortable with their sexual orientation, and it does not occur to them that there's something wrong with them. Actually, at least in our county, most people feel that way.
So I saw this interesting little story on the Washington Post blog the other day. Georgetown University is a Jesuit school. That means they're Catholic, and also the Jesuit education is known to be one of the most rigorous types of schooling that exists. They accept no waffling, you will look the truth straight in the eyes.
Even though it's a Catholic school, there are Protestants there, and they have their ministries on campus, and that has apparently been a problem. GU would like to be nice to them, but they just ... make themselves unwelcome.
So the school and the Protestant groups worked out a deal.
This seems like an eminently fair way to handle this. The University is making it clear that they have no intention of interfering with anyone's beliefs -- but they will not permit university-affiliated ministries to proselytize.
I appreciate the way they define that: any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalizes or deprives them of their inherent value as persons or the use of any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals which bypass a person's critical faculties or play on psychological weakness. And I appreciate the way they state without qualm that that sort of thing -- the kind of thing the CRC insists its children should be able to do in the classroom -- is "unworthy of Christian life." Very nicely put.
I have said here many times, we don't have anything against anyone's religious beliefs. I understand that strong religious beliefs can provide a sturdy framework for guiding a person through the temptations of life on earth. Personally, I may not agree with their beliefs, but it would never occur to me to criticize anyone for holding them.
Given that, it is quite a different thing to agree that people who have certain beliefs should be given free license to go around insulting everyone else and badgering them to live like they do. Some people don't want to live the evangelical lifestyle, and consider it rude when someone tries to bend their ear about it. They like to say that such people are "anti-Christian," but really they're just "anti-rude."
In arguing against the new sex-ed curriculum, they have made the point that the classes infringe on their religious beliefs; they believe it is their duty to save sinners, and therefore they need to have the right to speak out against anyone who does things that they consider sinful.
As you can imagine, some people don't really want to be told that they are sinners and need to change. Some gay people, even, feel perfectly comfortable with their sexual orientation, and it does not occur to them that there's something wrong with them. Actually, at least in our county, most people feel that way.
So I saw this interesting little story on the Washington Post blog the other day. Georgetown University is a Jesuit school. That means they're Catholic, and also the Jesuit education is known to be one of the most rigorous types of schooling that exists. They accept no waffling, you will look the truth straight in the eyes.
Even though it's a Catholic school, there are Protestants there, and they have their ministries on campus, and that has apparently been a problem. GU would like to be nice to them, but they just ... make themselves unwelcome.
So the school and the Protestant groups worked out a deal.
Following a dispute with several private Protestant evangelical campus ministry groups, Georgetown University this spring issued a "covenant" agreement such groups have to sign in order to operate on campus. Among the points laid out in the covenant was the subject of evangelizing:
"While zeal for spreading the good news of the Gospel is a most worthy Christian virtue, there is increasing agreement among Christians today that proselytism, defined as any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalizes or deprives them of their inherent value as persons or the use of any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals which bypass a person's critical faculties or play on psychological weakness, is unworthy of Christian life. Physical coercion, moral constraint, or psychological pressure and inducements for conversion which exploit other people's needs, weaknesses, and lack of education are not to be practiced by representatives of affiliated ministries." In Depth
This seems like an eminently fair way to handle this. The University is making it clear that they have no intention of interfering with anyone's beliefs -- but they will not permit university-affiliated ministries to proselytize.
I appreciate the way they define that: any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalizes or deprives them of their inherent value as persons or the use of any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals which bypass a person's critical faculties or play on psychological weakness. And I appreciate the way they state without qualm that that sort of thing -- the kind of thing the CRC insists its children should be able to do in the classroom -- is "unworthy of Christian life." Very nicely put.
I have said here many times, we don't have anything against anyone's religious beliefs. I understand that strong religious beliefs can provide a sturdy framework for guiding a person through the temptations of life on earth. Personally, I may not agree with their beliefs, but it would never occur to me to criticize anyone for holding them.
Given that, it is quite a different thing to agree that people who have certain beliefs should be given free license to go around insulting everyone else and badgering them to live like they do. Some people don't want to live the evangelical lifestyle, and consider it rude when someone tries to bend their ear about it. They like to say that such people are "anti-Christian," but really they're just "anti-rude."
posted by JimK at 8:38 PM
13 Comments:
I wonder if Georgetown allows a GSA? Catholic doesn't, though there is an underground group there for queer students.
On another topic, I found this article about the Alliance Defense Fund intervening for PFOX, this time about the trashing of their flyers at one of the schools. PFOX seems to love thinking about suing MCPS. Looking for those activist judges again, since they lost the legislative fight.
I note they keep talking about hate emails they receive, but they focus only one one email from one teacher. I still assert they published that letter on the CRC website (apparently PFOX and CRC are interchangeable) in a dispicable effort to cause that MCPS employee harassment at his place of work. What, oh what, would Jesus do? Anyway, here's the article I found:
"Employees of a school district in Maryland have been accused of viewpoint discrimination for censoring and limiting the speech of a religious group on school grounds.
The Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) sent a letter to the Montgomery County school board on Monday to address the issue, stating that religious group Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays (PFOX) have a right to hand out materials to students on campus.
This is the same county that is currently in heated debate with parents over a new pro-homosexual sexual education curriculum that was recently passed.
“Christian groups should not be treated as second-class. Indeed, they cannot be under the school district’s own policy,” explained David Cortman, Senior Legal Counsel for ADF, in a statement. “School officials do not have the right to engage in censorship of viewpoints they don’t like. The board has a policy permitting the distribution of literature by outside organizations and community groups, and it is unconstitutional then for district employees to single out certain organizations for censorship.”
For some time now, PFOX has been distributing Christian information to students within the Montgomery County school district. Their efforts have recently increased over opposition to a pro-gay sex-ed health program that the county school board approved in the beginning of July.
Several faculty in the district have strong feelings against PFOX, however, and have tried to stop the group from distributing their literature. Angry emails have been sent to the group telling them to not to set foot on campus.
“Stay out of our schools and leave our children alone!” wrote one teacher from Wootton High School in Rockville, Md. “[Your group] is like the KKK but only in the form of religion.”
Employees at Winston Churchill High School located in Potomac, Md., went so far as to place the PFOX’s name on its trash cans and encouraged students to place the fliers in the receptacle.
Attorneys from ADF have explained that this kind of behavior is viewpoint discrimination, however, since the school allows other non-profit groups to hand out literature to its students. Two different cases towards the Maryland school district by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit have solidified this First Amendment Right of religious speech, they argue.
The lawyers have noted in the letter that if the Montgomery County school board does not act to stop the opposing actions, they will recommend PFOX to file a civil legal lawsuit against the board.
The Montgomery County school officials are already in an argument with local families and pro-family groups after it passed a pro-homosexual sex-ed curriculum that would force eighth and tenth graders to learn about altered sexual orientations and acceptance of alternative lifestyles. It would also have a DVD on the correct use of a condom for the sophomores.
Several groups are contemplating filing a federal lawsuit to challenge the school board’s passing of the curriculum, noting that parents should have the final say in their children’s upbringing. They do not feel that they “must bend to the State's duty to educate its citizens,” as county school officials argued.
“The school is not only engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, but clearly it has also displayed an obvious desire to indoctrinate students with a radical, pro-homosexual agenda,” concluded Jeremy Tedesco, the ADF Legal Counsel who wrote the letter to the school board, in a statement. “Montgomery County children deserve a better education than this.”
Here's the URL for the ADF letter sent to MCPS BOE and two HS principals Monday:
www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MontgomeryCountyLetter.pdf
Is PFOX the same as PFOX.org? At the PFOX.org website it says "PFOX conducts public education and community-building activities to further compassion and respect for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. PFOX envisions communities characterized by more stable families and a tolerant understanding of sexual orientation...PFOX is not an anti-gay organization "
If they aren't anti-gay, why are they fighting against the curriculum that says "stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior?"
PFOX is in fact PFOX.org. They're schtick is that they advocate for the "ex-gay" community, support efforts to engage youth in reparative therapy and transformation ministries, and encourage parents not to accept that they're children may be openly gay. They have always opposed policies and curricula that express acceptance of LGBT people, ostensibly on the basis that these policies and curricula do not include "ex-gays". They have opposed LGBT-inclusive books in school libraries, and sued or threatened to sue a number of local school districts.
I personally would classify PFOX as an anti-gay organization, regardless of what they claim about themselves.
rrjr
you are really out there jim.
If I read your article correctly, Georgetown has said that protestant faiths can't preach while at a catholic school, only catholics can. this is a private institute, on private grounds.
and you someone think this has bearing on freedom of speech on public property ?
my daughter, when challenged that homosexual behavior that "people are just born that way" - simply replied "i don't belive that they are behaving in a way that god intended or designed people to behave".... that would be rude for her to declare while in a public school... is that your point ?
Yes, my daughter should have a right to state that. That is freedom of speech - pure and simple. of course, you only believe that freedom of speech is okay when it is viewpoint you agree with.
Unbelievable Jim, and your logic is , shall we way - "non sequiter"
"While zeal for spreading the good news of the Gospel is a most worthy Christian virtue, there is increasing agreement among Christians today that proselytism, defined as any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalizes or deprives them of their inherent value as persons or the use of any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals which bypass a person's critical faculties or play on psychological weakness, is unworthy of Christian life. Physical coercion, moral constraint, or psychological pressure and inducements for conversion which exploit other people's needs, weaknesses, and lack of education are not to be practiced by representatives of affiliated ministries." In Depth
The following few paragraphs demonstrate JK's bias against religion:
"This seems like an eminently fair way to handle this. The University is making it clear that they have no intention of interfering with anyone's beliefs -- but they will not permit university-affiliated ministries to proselytize."
Actually, they said nothing about "interfering with anyone's beliefs". They affirmed the value of evangelizing but also, correctly in my view, distinguished that from certain practices that aren't biblical.
"I appreciate the way they define that: any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalizes or deprives them of their inherent value as persons or the use of any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals which bypass a person's critical faculties or play on psychological weakness. And I appreciate the way they state without qualm that that sort of thing -- the kind of thing the CRC insists its children should be able to do in the classroom -- is "unworthy of Christian life." Very nicely put."
I haven't heard anyone from CRC suggest that their children be free to use any of the practices banned by Georgetown. If you have, let's see some documentation. Evangelizing and proselytizing are completely different. Furthermore, no one has suggested that the children even evangelize but, rather, that they not feel they need to hide any beliefs for fear that voicing them would be deemed discriminatory. The curriculum discriminates by falsely asserting that certain biblical truths have been invalidated by science.
"I have said here many times, we don't have anything against anyone's religious beliefs. I understand that strong religious beliefs can provide a sturdy framework for guiding a person through the temptations of life on earth. Personally, I may not agree with their beliefs, but it would never occur to me to criticize anyone for holding them."
And yet you do feel that you have the right to keep them from voicing what they believe. That's unreasonable and discriminatory.
"Given that, it is quite a different thing to agree that people who have certain beliefs should be given free license to go around insulting everyone else"
The idea that moral issues can't be discussed is backward and regressive. Schools should encourage the exchange of ideas.
"and badgering them to live like they do."
No one has done that or suggested doing it.
"Some people don't want to live the evangelical lifestyle,"
And knowing that some people do isn't really a hindrance to that desire.
"and consider it rude when someone tries to bend their ear about it. They like to say that such people are "anti-Christian," but really they're just "anti-rude.""
It's anti-religious because you don't apply this to anyone else's viewpoint. Most people don't want gay advocacy groups bending their ear either but no one is suggesting a gag rule.
back in February 2007 PFOX asked:
Calling all ex-gay organizations to distribute flyers at local high schools!!
_________________
Can anyone say just how many phantom "exgays" showed up to hand out the fliers?
Ted
"The curriculum discriminates by falsely asserting that certain biblical truths have been invalidated by science."
Please point us to the part of the curriculum that discusses "biblical truths." The suers would like nothing better than to introduce what they believe to be "biblical truths" e.g., holy matrimony and sin, but schools can't do that because of the separation of church and state.
"Most people don't want gay advocacy groups bending their ear either but no one is suggesting a gag rule."
No one? The suers most certainly do want to gag MCPS from implementing this curriculum. That's why they hope to sue and are asking for national groups to help them stop the curriculum from going forward. They still want to gag MCPS even though the State Superintendent and State Board of Education have ruled that their arguments fail.
"No one? The suers most certainly do want to gag MCPS from implementing this curriculum. That's why they hope to sue and are asking for national groups to help them stop the curriculum from going forward. They still want to gag MCPS even though the State Superintendent and State Board of Education have ruled that their arguments fail."
Typical rhetorical dodge by TTF. We were discussing whether students should be free to discuss their religious beliefs in classroom discussions not what the proper curriculum for the students should be. Obviously, the curriculum doesn't represent an exercise of free speech by MCPS. It is a community matter.
Joe, you are the one who said "The curriculum discriminates by falsely asserting that certain biblical truths have been invalidated by science."
Instead of backing up your statement that the curriculum has anything to say about "biblical truths," you claim no one was discussing "what the proper curriculum for the students should be."
I agree, as does the State Board of Education that the curriculum is a community matter. Read the letters to the editor in today's Gazette to get a feel for the community's view of the curriculum.
http://gazette.net/stories/071807/montlet221748_32372.shtml
You might want to have another cup of joe, Joe.
Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer (Old news, but highly relevant today!)
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | November 1, 2006 | Staff
Posted on 07/16/2007 5:09:32 AM PDT by GFritsch
Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer Trial begins over death of Christian who questioned homosexual lifestyle choice.
Mary Stachowicz was attacked with such ferocity the assailant's hunting knife blade was bent, but a defense attorney for her alleged attacker is painting her with the blame, saying it wasn't a "hate crime" and it happened because her comments about his "gay" lifestyle assaulted the man.
And since it was only a routine murder case, not a "hate crime," the story is getting almost no coverage from mainstream media outlets, several conservative groups have noted.
The murder trial for Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, in Stachowicz' 2002 death has begun in Chicago, where prosecutor Jim McKay described the viciousness of the attack on the 51-year-old mother of four and faithful Catholic Church member.
She was stabbed, strangled, raped and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment, he reported.
But the suspect's attorney, Crystal Marchigiani, alleged in her opening remarks that it was Stachowicz who attacked Gutierrez, and her verbal assault was what sparked his response.
"It happened because she could not leave him alone in his (homosexual) lifestyle," she said, describing the apparent confrontation between the two at the Sikorsky Funeral Home where Stochowicz worked and where Gutierrez lived in an apartment with his partner, Ray.
"The Gutierrez defense team's Politically Correct courtroom ploy ought to be called the 'Anti-homophobe Panic Defense,'" said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a pro-family organization. "Marchigiani's is an ugly attempt to exploit the liberal caricature of Christians who oppose homosexuality as crazed haters with a penchant for aggression."
"So here we see a new defense tactic: stoking the flames of anti-Christian bigotry to save a 'gay' murderer from the punishment he deserves," he said.
According to a report from the Culture and Family Institute, weblog postings after the murder were full of anti-Christian hate statements.
"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her," said "Iris" in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.
"Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to 'help' homosexuals," said "Silence Dogood" on the same forum.
"The mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz's murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it," said Allyson Smith of the CFI.
She noted that there was no condemnation of the murder from Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance or the Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
One pro-homosexual group, Soulforce, which works in churches to oppose traditional Christian views of the sexual lifestyle, did make a statement to a newspaper, even though it did not release a press statement.
"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, but "a hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people."
Chicago police reported that on Nov. 13, 2002, an argument broke out between the two and when Stachowicz asked why Gutierrez had sex with "boys instead of girls," he erupted in rage, punching, kicking, stabbing and strangling her.
He later led police to the body and confessed.
National Review Online writer Rod Dreher has lamented that the media buzz about the case has been deafening by its silence.
According to Dreher, "One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of 'gay' blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling: 'The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.'
"I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves," wrote Dreher.
The Culture and Family Institute also quoted the victim's friend, May Coleman, who said, "Those of us who knew her (could) hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."
Regional media outlets reported on the attack, but notably left out words such as "gay" or "homosexual," the institute said.
Catholic League President William Donohue said the murder is not listed as a hate crime, and won't be, even though she "was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."
"Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is."
LaBarbera said the woman "is a modern day martyr who died because she told the truth to a man caught up in homosexuality. Her compelling story is largely unknown to Americans, because the same media that devoted millions of print column inches and broadcast minutes to covering the Matthew Shepard murder case have largely ignored Mary's story."
"The reality today is that growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'prejudice, intolerance,' or worse, 'hatred.'"
Dreher wrote that the similarities in the cases couldn't be ignored.
"Where have we heard this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive," Dreher said.
He said there is no moral difference between Stachowicz' attack and the one on Shepard.
"Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity, but the Stachowicz case, like the case of Jesse Dirkhising earlier, is being largely ignored," Dreher wrote. Dirkhising was a 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured and strangled by a gang of "homosexuals" in 1999.
One researcher reported that in the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories were available about the death. However, "in the one month after Dirkhising's case, there were 46 stories."
"In Canada," Dreher noted, "Christians are having their freedom of speech and worship taken away by hate-speech laws designed to protect homosexuals from having their feelings hurt."
Comments ?
Ok, here's a comment. It takes a special kind of person to obsess about "old news" like this at 2:47 in the morning.
Leave it to the Jesuits to be progressive, fair, and to show intellectual integrity! (FYI--I'm a non-Catholic.)
Post a Comment
<< Home