Homosexuality and Religious Toleration

Hindus: Say that a few Hindus are hired as teachers in a public school district; and that some people start to complain. Hindus, they point out, routinely and unabashedly violate three of the Ten Commandments (they worship other Gods, they create images of their Gods, and they don't observe the Sabbath). What's more, the Hindus would therefore be bad role models for children: Some kids, seeing the teachers' example, might be drawn towards Hinduism; and other kids, seeing some nearby authority figures who aren't Christian, might have their belief in Christianity undermined -- and of course the results of that would be truly dire, since they would jeopardize the children's salvation. Therefore, the people argue, the school must refuse to hire Hindu schoolteachers.

My guess is that such an argument would be pretty broadly condemned, even by many conservatives and Christians (and for that matter conservative Jews and members of other religions; I focus on Christians here simply because their views are especially salient in American public debates). Religious freedom, those people would point out, means (among other things) that we tolerate religious differences, and that we don't discriminate against people in government employment just because of their religious beliefs.

We may earnestly believe that they're wrong -- whether they're non-Christians, heretics, apostates, agnostics, atheists, or what have you. We may believe that they'll go to Hell for their errors (though we may sincerely regret that). We may want our children not to make these errors. But we ought not legally punish people, or deny them access to jobs and other government benefits, because of their violations of certain religious laws, even some of the laws in the Ten Commandments. (I'm sure that some people don't take such a tolerant view, but I believe that many conservative Christians would quite sincerely endorse it -- I certainly know some such people personally.)

Of course, this hasn't always been so: Historically, religious discrimination, intolerance, and persecution has been the rule rather than the exception; and even in the U.S., various groups -- Catholics, Jews, atheists, and others -- have in the past faced substantial governmental discrimination, though generally less than in other countries of the time. But today, the general view, again, seemingly shared by a broad range of people, including many devout, conservative Christians, is that toleration is the more just approach. And, in particular, this means that People's failure to obey religious laws -- even three of the Ten Commandments -- is not by itself reason enough to punish them, or deny them equal access to government benefits.

The risk that others will follow this bad example is also not reason enough to punish the violators of religious laws (here, the Hindus), even if we sincerely believe that following the example will lead to eternal damnation.

Some religious laws, including some of the Ten Commandments, are matters to be enforced not by man but by God. So my question, as many of you might well have guessed, is: Why shouldn't devout conservative Christians apply the same principles to homosexuals that many of them would to Hindus? (I'm not asking whether the Constitution should be interepreted as compelling this -- my question here has to do with what's right, not how the Constitution should be interpreted.) It's true that homosexuals are, in the view of many conservative Christians, violating a Biblical command. But so are the Hindus, and yet we tolerate them -- quite rightly, I think. Naturally people who disapprove of homosexuality (or Hinduism) on religious grounds should be free to say so, and to try to persuade others of these views. But if those people have (quite laudably) come to tolerate other religions, even though they think those religions violate Scripture, why shouldn't they equally tolerate homosexuality?

1. Magnitude of sin. One possible reaction is that homosexuality is an "abomination," and as such a greater sin than the Hindus commit. But can that be right? First, as I understand it, even eating shellfish is condemned as an "abomination" by the Bible; modern Christian practice suggests, therefore, that the label "abomination" isn't terribly significant. Second, the perceived sins of the Hindus would be violation of three of the Ten Commandments -- seemingly pretty important stuff, no?

2. Conduct v. belief. Another reaction is that homosexuality is conduct, and therefore the proper subject of man's law, while belief is not properly governed by man's law. But Hinduism involves more than just disbelief in the Christian God, and belief in other gods; it also involves the conduct of creating graven images, and breaking the Sabbath. What's more, as I understand it, from a Protestant perspective, belief in God is at least as theologically important as conduct, and perhaps more so. The Ten Commandments, as we see, command belief as well as conduct. If the justification for outlawing homosexuality, or firing homosexual teachers, is simply that it violates God's law, then how does importing the conduct/belief distinction fit with such a justification?

3. The Constitution. The Constitution, of course, mandates religious freedom, and has been interpreted (correctly, in my view) as barring the government from discriminating based on religion; not so for sexual orientation. But I would hope that many people's attachment to religious freedom is deeper than just "Well, the Constitution requires it, so we have to reluctantly adhere to it." Religious freedom is often described as a broader ethical principle -- a principle that people should be tolerant of those of other religious groups, and should treat them equally (at least in allotting government jobs) even though they disagree with that religion. I would hope that many people would take this view even if somehow they could avoid any constitutional rules that mandate such an approach; I do think many people say that they endorse religious freedom on this ethical level. If so, why shouldn't they equally tolerate those people who violate the sexual rules of Leviticus, rather than three of the Commandments?

4. Greater secular harm. Now some people might argue that homosexuality causes secular harm to society -- for instance, because it undermines family structure, or spreads sexually transmitted diseases -- and that homosexuals should be punished or discriminated against because of that. One can likewise argue, for instance, that extending marriage to same-sex couples is socially harmful (or at least not socially beneficial). My argument in this post does not respond to this sort of point; I'm speaking here only of arguments that are founded on the Biblical prohibition, rather than on secular harm. But note that the secular harm argument requires its proponents to defend their position in secular, empirical terms, something they might have a hard time doing (especially since the question will be not just whether homosexuality causes secular harm, but whether it causes enough such harm to justify the prohibition of homosexual conduct or discrimination against homosexuals). The claim that "The Bible says its immoral, and that's reason enough for me to support its being outlawed" -- the claim I'm discussing in this post -- would be unavailable here.

5. The importance of religion in people's lives. Some people might defend people's freedom to be Hindus -- even if, in the observer's view, this violates several Commandments, and might by bad example lead people into damnation -- by stressing that religion is just so important in people's lives. It's just too oppressive, the argument would go, to try to coercively pressure people into changing their views (and actions) related to something that's so important, and unfair to discriminate against them on these grounds. But surely people's loves -- and recall that anti-homosexuality laws and policies apply to serious, longterm romantic commitments as well as to more casual affairs -- are also extremely important in their own lives. (In fact, to some people, a romantic commitment to the person who they think God chose for them is a religious sacrament.)

So this is all a long way of arguing that the three principles I mentioned above -- principles on which, I think, there's broad agreement even among cultural conservatives -- apply equally to homosexuals: People's failure to obey religious laws -- even three of the Ten Commandments, or some of the laws in Leviticus -- is not by itself reason enough to punish them, or deny them equal access to government benefits.

The risk that others will follow this bad example is also not reason enough to punish the violators of religious laws (here, the Hindus or the homosexuals), even if we sincerely believe that following the example will lead to eternal damnation.

Some religious laws, including some of the Ten Commandments and some parts of Leviticus, are matters to be enforced not by man but by God. Again, this doesn't tell us what the constitutional rule should be -- but it does suggest that, as a matter of justice, even those who sincerely believe that Hindus and homosexuals are violating God's law should not see this as sufficient justification to punish them or discriminate against them.

And this also helps explain, I think, why some people are so troubled by religious arguments in favor of the government punishing and discriminating against homosexuals -- if those arguments are accepted, then this undermines our traditional of religious tolerance as well as preventing the development of sexual orientation tolerance.

Say that a few Hindus are hired as teachers in a public school district; and that some people start to complain. Hindus, they point out, routinely and unabashedly violate three of the Ten Commandments (they worship other Gods, they create images of their Gods, and they don't observe the Sabbath). What's more, the Hindus would therefore be bad role models for children: Some kids, seeing the teachers' example, might be drawn towards Hinduism; and other kids, seeing some nearby authority figures who aren't Christian, might have their belief in Christianity undermined -- and of course the results of that would be truly dire, since they would jeopardize the children's salvation. Therefore, the people argue, the school must refuse to hire Hindu schoolteachers.

Not only that, but back in India, they routinely persecute and kill people of other religions.

Here in America they assume a different posture since they are a religious minority themselves. Amazing what minority status will do for your level of tolerance.

Why shouldn't devout conservative Christians apply the same principles to homosexuals that many of them would to Hindus?

The Constitution prohibits discrimination in public institutions based on religion, as it should. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Homosexuality is different. It is not a lifestyle that upholds society and they do actively recruit. The entire case that there is no choice involved rests on one single discredited study of identical twins.

Recruitment into homosexuality places kids at increased danger for a fatal disease an for other problems. It is a very bad idea to expose kids to this.

Say that a few Christian teachers started to be open about how Christ made a difference in their lives; and that some people start to complain. Christians, they point out, routinely and unabashedly violate the "separation of church and state" (which was once mentioned in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson). What's more, the Christians would therefore be bad role models for children: Some kids, seeing the teachers' example, might be drawn towards Christianity; and other kids, seeing some nearby authority figures who aren't atheists, might have their belief in socialism undermined -- and of course the results of that would be truly dire, since they would jeopardize the children's brainwashing. Therefore, the people argue, the school must refuse to allow Christian schoolteachers to freely exercise their religion (which was once mentioned in the US Constitution).

It's true that homosexuals are, in the view of many conservative Christians, violating a Biblical command. But so are the Hindus, - Let us not forget that religion has nothing to do with sexual orientation. and yet we tolerate them -- quite rightly, I think. Naturally people who disapprove of homosexuality (or Hinduism) on religious grounds should be free to say so, and to try to persuade others of these views. But if those people have (quite laudably) come to tolerate other religions, even though they think those religions violate Scripture, why shouldn't they equally tolerate homosexuality? - Because Homosexuality is an act amoung men that is offensive. Hinduism is not.

Homosexuality can be viewed as a crime, yet a religion is not. Homosexuality hurts physically, it is unatural and all are affected by it's effects, AIDS/HIV, other diseases, Hemmoroids, prolapsed anus and other torn rectal tissues.

The Hindu religion has yet to cause any of these, nor does any other religion.

Why does "man" not tolerate homosexuality and not feel entirely the same about religion? The same reason you may not like tapioca pudding as to banana pudding.

There is a difference between tolerance and affirmation. We can tolerate homosexuals and homosexuality, but we need not affirm or elevate it.

This is really the heart of the issue. The author of the article apparently is arguing that homosexuals should not be stoned. Homosexuals are the only group of sinners who feel their sin should be "legitimized". The author's analogy should not have been about Hindus as teachers. He should have asked "should a Hindu be consecrated a Bishop in a Christian Church?".

Tolerance is merely 'sowing the wind'
we are reaping 'the whirlwind'
because of our 'tolerance'
God is not tolerant...He just seems that way as He gives us enough rope to hang ourselves
Its His patience that makes us think He is tolerant...
History says otherwise

"Some religious laws, including some of the Ten Commandments and some parts of Leviticus, are matters to be enforced not by man but by God."

Since many years BC, God has made man responsible for societal laws.

Eugene Volokh had better hope God does not do the enforcement of His mandate against homosexuality. When He did it in the past, the area containing Sodom and Gomorrah was annihilated.

It's obvious that Mr. Volokh has no knowledge of God at all if he is serious about his article.

My argument in this post does not respond to this sort of point [secular harm];

But that's the point. It is only those whose religion is secular humanism that think you can have a fulfilling society separate from a moral base. He's begging his own question here. It's because you can show secular benefits to doing what the Bible says that all Americans can embrace that moral system, even if they don't embrace the underlying faith.

A stable, enduring marriage commitment that can provide (assuming fertility) and provide for children (therefore: a union of a man and a woman) is best for children. That's a secular benefit that is embedded in the Biblical definition of morality. There are a lot of benefits in this world - as well as Paradise in the next - if you accept His plan for us.

If Hindus, or any other religious doctrine, advocated a belief system that demonstrably caused secular harm - as the homosexuals do - then there would be a valid basis for excluding them.

And there is an angle that people are missing in the "gay bishop" saga. The guy left his wife and kids to take up with his homosexual lover. Now, if a clergyman had abandoned his wife and children to take up with another woman, do you think he would have been made a bishop or even gotten anywhere near it? Do you think he'd still be a clergyman? Yet if you're gay, it's OK.

This is the sort of thing I object to. It's the rankest double standard.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.