In following the recent public
exchanges between Pete Buttigieg and Mike Pence over religion and public
policies surrounding LGBTQ matters, I have been reminded of an exchange I had
locally in Montgomery County more than fifteen years ago.
In January 2004, I was Chair of the Montgomery County Board
of Education’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human
Development. One of the Committee’s principal responsibilities was to review
secondary health education curriculum as it pertained to matters of sexual
orientation and gender identity – matters which at that time were absent from
the curriculum (or from any other discussion in the school system).
In the course of our discussions, two very conservative
members of the Committee offered materials from the Corporate Resource Council,
which asserted that homosexuality was a disease and should not be viewed in
anything other than a negative light. Michelle Turner, a newer member of the
Committee (who I knew saw herself as a devout Christian) told me that she
thought we should follow the advice of the Corporate Resource Council. At that time, I did not know how fully formed
her views on sexual orientation were.
Below I reproduce the response I sent to her.
She was not convinced, and she later revealed herself to be
a principal anti-gay activist, and ally of Phyllis Schlafly, among others.
After thorough examinations by the entire Committee, her and the other two
conservative members’ views were rejected.
The Committee made recommendations to follow the wisdom of every
mainstream American medical and mental health professional association in this
area. After an initially-successful
attempt by the Alliance Defense Fund to derail the effort, the school system
added useful material in 2007 and, in 2014, implemented a more wide-ranging
approach. See https://pflag.org/blog/curriculumvictorymontgomerycounty
I found my January 23, 2004 exchange
with Michelle (with home I always got along with personally), and thought it is
at least somewhat a propos to the current “controversy.” Here it is:
From
my 1/23/04 E-Mail to Michelle Turner
The Corporate Resource
Council is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, which describes itself as
"a unique Christian legal organization that works to protect and defend
traditional family values...." It
was founded in 1994 by a group including James Dobson of Focus on the Family. (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org)
Focus on the Family
states its position
on homosexuality as follows:
"Are people born
gay? Shouldn't we be tolerant of everyone? Can people change? Should they? Amidst the barrage of questions, we must
first turn to God's Word -- our ultimate authority -- for answers. While the Bible clearly states that
homosexuality runs contrary to God's plan for relationships, those who struggle with homosexual feelings are still God's children, in
need of his forgiveness and healing.
Therefore, parents, families and churches have a responsibility to love the homosexual while clearly denouncing this
lifestyle."
While the constitutional doctrine of separation of church
and state requires that we not impose a theology in our public
schools, the religious values
each of us have certainly inform
our views. Without getting into a long-winded discussion
of at
what point religious views are
or are not appropriate in
developing public school
programs, I offer the following for your consideration in answer to the Focus
on the Family statement, which, it seems to me, undergirds most of the
materials submitted by Retta and Jackie that we have not yet voted on.
In an old story, two cynics are said to have approached the
great Jewish philosopher Hillel and challenged him to summarize the whole Torah
(the Jewish holy books) while standing on one foot. Hillel replied, "What
is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary. Go and learn."
The two most often cited Biblical texts concerning
homosexuality are both found in the book of Leviticus, where they are in the context
of a larger section directing sexual behavior. First, it is written: "Do
not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence."
(Leviticus 18:22) The second citation is from Leviticus 20:13, where we read
that "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them
have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their blood guilt is
upon them."
If Focus on the Family (FOTF) purports to follow the
precise word of Scripture, then
presumably it should be
advocating capital punishment
rather than "forgiveness and
healing." Unless, of course, FOTF is limiting
forgiveness and
healing to those who have
"struggled" with homosexual feelings, but have never acted upon
them. Yet, I suspect that FOTF is not advocating
-- and would not advocate -- that we should execute anyone engaging in
homosexual activity. But if FOTF does
not so advocate, then it cannot say that it is simply turning to God's Word for
the definitive answers.
What it comes down to is this: None of us really take every word of
Scripture literally, and each of us who accept the Bible as part of our faith
tradition must make a determination as to what in Scripture is useful and
humane and, in the broadest sense, Godly.
This does place a great responsibility on every human being. Freedom is a scary thing sometimes, but it is
what America is based upon. We cannot,
in good conscience, simply say, "well, the Bible says so," without
further exploration unless, for example, we are ready to execute anyone who has
engaged in homosexual activity. We
really have to use the brains God has given us.
For what it is worth, my view is that the basic teachings we get from
the Judeo-Christian tradition are the various versions of the Golden Rule
("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "What is
hateful to you, do not do unto another"). I think that what we personally accept or
decline to accept from words written down by people many centuries and even millenia
ago should be dependent upon whether they comport with that Rule.
A century and a half ago, even in America, a large number of
people assumed that slavery was acceptable; and people used Scripture to
justify it.
A century ago, even in America, most people assumed that
women should not be allowed to vote or have equal rights with men; and people
used Scripture to justify it.
A half-century ago, even in America, a large portion of our population
believed that segregation of the races was the right thing to do; and people
used Scripture to justify it.
As we learn more and more about the human condition, if we
are wise, we adapt our thinking to expand freedom and happiness in concert with
the Golden Rule.
All the rest is commentary.
No comments:
Post a Comment