The Left's Seminaries

This column was written by David French.

---

It is tough not to admire the campus Left's mental agility. In the past few decades, we have seen the architects of the free-speech movement become the authors of speech codes, and those who formerly glorified dissent clamp down on campus with a mind-numbing level of intellectual conformity.

Scientific inquiry is welcome, unless it results in tough questions about possible innate gender differences. Open debate is the hallmark of the academy, unless of course that debate intrudes into areas where policy should be settled and morality decided (like when dealing with race, class, gender, war, peace and sexuality).

Given the remarkable ability to reinvent its position on the free-speech clause of the First Amendment (from protesters to censors), it was only a matter of time before the Left began to rethink the religion clauses as well, especially the establishment clause. "Separation of church and state" has been a battle cry of the hard Left for many decades, but what if the Left ran the state — or at least dominated an important state agency? Would the Left remain dedicated to this allegedly bedrock principle?

In the university context, the answer is clearly "no." Faced with large and active religious student groups who are often engaged in public debate over the Left's currently fashionable civil-rights issue — homosexuality — public universities simply cannot restrain themselves. They are taking sides, not just politically, ideologically, and culturally, but religiously.

Take this official statement from the Georgia Institute of Technology (in its so-called "Safe Space" training manual):

Many religious traditions have taught, and some continue to teach, that homosexuality is immoral. These condemnations are based primarily on a few isolated passages from the Bible. Historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities.

Displeased that the State of Georgia is comparing those who hold traditional religious views of sexuality to slave owners?

At least Georgia does not make religious conservatives look as, well, silly as the University of Michigan does:

Some texts of the Old Testament are used to condemn homosexuality. Taken literally and out of context, Biblical passages can be used to justify slavery, prohibit the wearing of red dresses, and eating of shrimp and shellfish, and to reinforce the inferiority of women.

So there you have it. At Michigan, religious conservatives are not only like slave owners and misogynists, they also are as contemptible as those philistines who dislike Benetton's fall line.

But as any student of religion knows, abstract theological statements and insults of religious opponents are not by themselves enough to change hearts and minds. You also need good old-fashioned testimonials, like the following from the University of Texas:

Former youth activist Jamie Nabozny was raised Pentecostal and hoped to become a minister. But he was gay and thought the only worse thing he could be was Satan himself. So he tried too put his same-sex attractions aside until, one day, he could deny them no longer.

"I walked as far as I could into a big field. I was crying, praying and hollering at God. I said, 'I've read the Bible, I've prayed, I go to church three times a week. Every time I have a homosexual thought, I rebuke it in the name of God and yet still I'm gay. Either you're not there, or you don't give a damn that I'm gay.' It took me a little while but then I realized God was OK with it. The god I really believed in was not a God that hated or condemned people."

This is an experience some people go through. Faced with a conflict between their religion and their feelings, they come to realize that the God they truly believe in could never condemn people for loving.

To put this state religious activity in context, it must be compared to the most famous leftist establishment-clause case of this decade: The Dover, Pa., Intelligent Design litigation. In that case, the national media and the campus Left fretted over the coming dark night of theocracy because a school board required science teachers to read a brief statement that said "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view." Oh, and the nefarious statement also said, "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind." The horror.

So, with respect to a debate over the origins of life, a statement asking students to "keep an open mind" and noting the existence of an alternative view is just too coercive. But when the debate involves sexual morality, it is just fine to compare conservative Christianity to the theology of slavers and to pontificate on the nature of the "God they truly believe in." Censorship is now acceptable to the free-speech champions of the '60s, so it only makes sense that those who drove God from the public square are setting up state-run Sunday schools. Mental agility is a wonderful thing.


David French is a senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). ADF is challenging Georgia Tech's Safe Space Training program in federal court.
By David French
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online

[ademeyer]

Give me one instance when a right winger was banned from expressing his or her opinion.

If I have to put up with hearing from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and our so called born again President, every day, as if their religious viewpoint represents all Christians, which it doesn't, then you have to put up ith a few batty lefty professors and protesters.

This would be a great country if all the people who claim to be Christians practiced their faith. I don't see anything "Christian" in
Mr. French's article. He represents a right wing ideology that is all about power, not Christ. I don't see Christ in his viewpoint.

[alanrobisch]

I did not hear once in any news article the inference that pressure was being applied and conversion by coercion is not coming to know Christ. It would seem more pointedly that secular views no matter how anti-thetical to christians views can be discussed but when the shoe is on the other foot and you have a set of beliefs being expressed you resent it and try to ban it,

It would seem the free exercise of ideas should be allowed on both sides or are you fearful some may become christians from exposure to christs views.

[ademeyer]

"The people who used their free speech to intentionally hurt others most of whom did not do the things you mentionned hurt these people yet had the right to state those things yet when the shoe is on the other foot and you object or feel things are incorrect you and people who hurt the soldiers who fought in the vietamese war now wish to supress an alternate point of view. this is human but is hypocrisy"

I think I know what you are referring to, the case where it was discovered evangelicals were pressuring others to convert at an airforce base. You feel those instructors ere denied their fredom of speech when the military brass told them to knock it off.

I don't think you are talking about freedom of speech, you are talking about power. You are not talking about religion, you are talking about politics. Right wing "Christians" have as much right to their beliefs as anyone else, however, they do not have the right to jam it down other people's throats, i.e. the children of Christians who do not believe in ID, or the cadets who do not subscribe to evangelicalism. As I said, we have freedom of religion here, and e have freedom from religion. Talk all you want, the people on the left do, but don't think you have the right to proselytize to unwilling cadets and other people's children.

[ademeyer]

I have no problem with discussing alternative versions of evolution. I do have a problem teaching it to seventh graders, in a science class. ID is not science, it is not tested and subjected to peer review. IDis a religious belief system. You have the right to send your kids to bible class where they can learn about ID, but until professional science journals see fit to accept ID as a theory on par with evolution, or even to publish one article on it, then ID should not be taught in our schools. Neither should the theory of re-incarnation, or the likelihood of an unending ocean of samsara.

On Vietnam: I remember those times. The people who "hurt the Vets" the most were the politicians and the right wing voters who put them in power. Some hippies said hurtful things to Vets? I think the immoral war they were sent to by a "silent majority" public hurt them, and the Vietnamese, a whole lot more.

[alanrobisch]

I think we are discussing colleges and the general public where professors my own often expressed their personal political views not just the subject. One of My history teachers was a marxist. He centered on these ideas in his history class. He taught american history from this point of view. should he have been barred from this

As far as allowing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternate theory I see no harm in it but it seems to frighten the secular world. It would seem the free discussion of ideas in your opinion is dangerous.

The people who used their free speech to intentionally hurt others most of whom did not do the things you mentionned hurt these people yet had the right to state those things yet when the shoe is on the other foot and you object or feel things are incorrect you and people who hurt the soldiers who fought in the vietamese war now wish to supress an alternate point of view. this is human but is hypocrisy

[ademeyer]

"I might remind you that the vietnam vets were badly treated by the same people who are now trying to prevent free speech by people who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God"

You are conflating two utterly different things. The same people who mistreated Vietnam Viets (I assume you mean some hippies who called all Vets baby killers, when only some of them actually murdered civilans) are, in your mind, the "same people" who believe evolution should be taught in science class. What do these people supposedly have in common? That they believe in telling the truth? The truth is, some Vietnam Vets did rape and kill during the war and the truth is the theory of evolution is the province of science, and therefore should be taught in science classes.

No one is trying to prevent people who believe in the Bible as the word of God from expressing their beliefs. This country has the greatest freedom of speech and worship of any on the planet. But just because we have freedom of religion doesn't mean we don't also have freedom from religion. Do you want Buddhists teaching the theory of re-incarnation to your seventh graders?

[ademeyer]

"I might remind you that the vietnam vets were badly treated by the same people who are now trying to prevent free speech by people who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God"

You are conflating two utterly different things. The same people who mistreated Vietnam Viets (I assume you mean some hippies who called all Vets baby killers, when only some of them actually murdered civilans) are, in your mind, the "same people" who believe evolution should be taught in science class. What do these people supposedly have in common? That they believe in telling the truth? The truth is, some Vietnam Vets did rape and kill during the war and the truth is the theory of evolution is the province of science, and therefore should be taught in science classes.

No one is trying to prevent people who believe in the Bible as the word of God from expressing their beliefs. The country has the greatest freedom of speech and worship as any on the planet. But just because we have freedom of religion doesn't mean we don't also have freedom from religion. Do you Buddhist teaching the theory of re-incarnation to your seventh graders?

[alanrobisch]

Note ademyer he does indicate that the teaching of intelligent design was banned and I know that expression of opinions by air force instructors was seriously constricted because they expressed religious points of view in the classroom

[alanrobisch]

yes if you read the bible as it states is as the inerrant word of god then the statements are to be taken at face value no matter how they came together since it was God's method to communicate with man.

No matter free expression is in our constitutiion and if every statement that was hurtful to another person was banned we might almost be rendered mute.

I doubt you found the gross parody of Jerry Falwell by Larry Flynt as wrong or improper no matter how hurtful it was to him. You would defend it as free speech.

Many liberals use the word nazis to describe republican politicians at times. They are using uneccesarily harsh words that can be hurtful yet they are allowed to because of free speech.

so essentially free speech can and is used to hurt other people intentionally and unintentionally. The founders of our country that the conflict of ideas would end up with the right winning. It doesn't always but that is the trust which was placed in us when they founded this country.

I might remind you that the vietnam vets were badly treated by the same people who are now trying to prevent free speech by people who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. they used their free speech to call them murderers. No one stopped them. No one should stop those who are exercisiong their rights to freely express their beliefs.

[ademeyer]

This article doesn't make sense because Mr. French can't provide any examples of the freedom of speech of right wing "Christians" being denied - no, what he is really complaining about is, when right wingers speak, everyone else doesn't shut up. He is confusing the freedom to speak with the power to make others be quiet. Its power he wants, not freedom.

Example: Mr. French thinks if "Christians" insist that the theory of evolution is untrue and shouldn't be taught in school, than the rest of us should just roll over and allow that assertion to stand unchallenged.

"Christians" most certainly have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have the right to challenge, and yes, correct them, when they are wrong.