Bible-Based Opinion on Racial Inferiority No Grounds for Discipline
Agape Press reports:
“My perspective on homosexuality is that it is wrong according to the Bible,” [Donna Reddick ] is quoted by the Miami Herald as saying [during an interview in a student television show broadcasts throughout the school]. “God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual sins, which included homosexuality.”
She may be disciplined, and she’s being defended by Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel:
[A]s for homosexual students who may have taken offense, he suggests the teacher’s comments should be viewed in the same light as a Christian student feeling uncomfortable hearing statements in support of homosexual rights.
What if the teacher said:
“My perspective on integration is that it is wrong according to the Bible ... God separated the races and made the sons of Ham inferior because of his dishonorable conduct.”
Would Mat Staver then say that “the teacher’s comments should be viewed in the same light as a white student feeling uncomfortable hearing statements in support of black Civil Rights”? Somehow, I doubt that either of these two would long be tolerated in current evangelical circles; 50 years ago, though, such opinions might have been treated as entirely normal. The immorality of both is roughly equivalent.
Mat Staver has a point in noting that if students are conducting interviews, they have to expect to hear opinions they don’t like; he’s wrong, though, when he says:
“This teacher was approached by a student, and this program was aired by this student organization over the airwaves,” he explains, adding that when a teacher is asked to express his or her personal opinion, the teacher has a right to do so. “She doesn’t have to simply say, ‘Well, because I’ve got personal opinions I can’t respond to your question specifically because my opinions are religious.’ That would be unconstitutional and certainly absurd.”
It’s neither unconstitutional or absurd. The teacher isn’t acting as a private individual when dealing with students — if the interview were done with random people on the street, Staver’s comments would be fair (but the students can be held responsible for their choices on which comments to broadcast). The teacher, though, is a representative of the state who is entrusted with the care and education of all students. She has an absolute obligation not to communicate any messages which suggest that anyone of them are less than equal in her eyes and in the eyes of the state.
So, yes, she should have declined to give her personal opinions because she knew that those opinions would have sent the message to students that she doesn’t seem them all as equals. Teachers don’t have a right to always express their personal opinions in school, whether it’s in the context of a classroom discussion or in a student interview.
Staver believes the school might end up facing a lawsuit if it chooses to take action against Reddick because some find her viewpoint objectionable.
Might? Staver will probably volunteer to take the case — but the record of his Liberty Counsel is pretty poor. As a matter of fact, his taking a case might reasonably be seen as a sign that the case has no merit.
Gay Rights & Gay Marriage:
- Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right?
- Gay Rights & Marriage News
- Gay Rights Polls
- Books On Gays, Homosexuality
- Gay Rights & Marriage Timeline
- Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
- Catholicism & Homosexuality
Arguments Against Gay Marriage:


Comments
There was an excellent editorial in the Seattle times by Leonard Pitts, Jr. addressing the bigotry of Ms Reddick.
“…I’ve had it up to here with the moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists.
By which I mean people like you, who dress their homophobia up in Scripture, insisting with sanctimonious sincerity that it’s not homophobia at all, but just a pious determination to live according to what the Bible says. And never mind that the Bible also says it is “disgraceful” for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband. Never mind that the Bible says the penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death. Never mind that the Bible says the man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.
I’m going to speculate that you don’t observe or support those commands. Which says to me that yours is a literalism of convenience, a literalism that is literal only so long as it allows you to condemn what you’d be condemning anyway and takes no skin off your personal backside…”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002857591_pitts12.html