The Right To Not Tolerate?
| By FEM - Apr 11th, 2006 at 11:57 pm EDT |
"ATLANTA -- Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant. Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation. Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy."
We live in a country that protects Malhotra's choice to uphold her Christian faith but apparently this isn't enough for some extremists. I don't see how gay bashing and intolerance can be ideals that many religious groups would uphold as righteous and just. Certain groups feel as if "religion is under attack in this country," which seems simply absurd compared the oppression and daily harassment that the LGBTQ community has to endure. The article states that many still consider that "sexual orientation is different -- a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait." Churches and student groups already have the right to exclude whoever they wish from their denominations, but to go as far as to have school policy revoked for the sake of hatred is taking intolerance too far. As a heterosexual Christian student, Malhotra is politicizing her anti-homosexuality sentiments. She is using the freedom of religion fight to back up bigotry, simple as that. A letter sent to the Georgia Tech Pride Alliance states, "If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda." Is Malhotra's fight for the right to denounce homosexuals not political propaganda?
I am all for freedom of speech. I am appreciative of religious freedom. I am thankful for the American laws that protect differences in this country. But I hope that no one sees this fight for an unjust increase in oppression against an already oppressed community as a legitimate one.
Link
JW
We live in a country that protects Malhotra's choice to uphold her Christian faith but apparently this isn't enough for some extremists. I don't see how gay bashing and intolerance can be ideals that many religious groups would uphold as righteous and just. Certain groups feel as if "religion is under attack in this country," which seems simply absurd compared the oppression and daily harassment that the LGBTQ community has to endure. The article states that many still consider that "sexual orientation is different -- a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait." Churches and student groups already have the right to exclude whoever they wish from their denominations, but to go as far as to have school policy revoked for the sake of hatred is taking intolerance too far. As a heterosexual Christian student, Malhotra is politicizing her anti-homosexuality sentiments. She is using the freedom of religion fight to back up bigotry, simple as that. A letter sent to the Georgia Tech Pride Alliance states, "If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda." Is Malhotra's fight for the right to denounce homosexuals not political propaganda?
I am all for freedom of speech. I am appreciative of religious freedom. I am thankful for the American laws that protect differences in this country. But I hope that no one sees this fight for an unjust increase in oppression against an already oppressed community as a legitimate one.
Link
JW
!
Comments are closed for this post.
There's a similar issue with the Boy Scouts of America. At present, BSA policy is to exclude gays and atheists from their ranks (though in practice this policy is regularly overlooked). As a private organization, they have the right to control their membership in this way. The complication is that, as I understand, the BSA receives some federal money. Should they be allowed to be exclusive by sexual orientation and religious belief when partially funded by the government?
Should the Georgia Institute of Technology be allowed restrict free speech on its campus if they are receiving federal money?
The Georgia Institute of Technology (go ACC!) is one of the top PUBLIC schools in America.
If you're not going to be allowed to discriminate based on religion, which is almost certainly more of a choice than sexual orientation, why is this allowed? The hypocrisy is staggering.
If you're not going to be allowed to discriminate based on religion, which is almost certainly more of a choice than sexual orientation, why is this allowed? The hypocrisy is staggering."
In what way does this comment have anything to do with anything posted in this thread? The girl's point is that the prohibition of anti-gay speech at a public university is a violation of her first amendment rights. If she were inciting violence or disturbances through such speech, or if the only purpose of such speech were to accomplish such things, then her rights would be appropriately limited. However, if the first amendment doesn't protect someone's right to speak against homosexuality, then the first amendment has been skinned and gutted, and that scares me a lot more than some alleged "intolerant speech." C'mon guys, go read up on your con law before spouting nonsense.
If you're not going to be allowed to discriminate based on religion, which is almost certainly more of a choice than sexual orientation, why is this allowed? The hypocrisy is staggering."
In what way does this comment have anything to do with anything posted in this thread? The girl's point is that the prohibition of anti-gay speech at a public university is a violation of her first amendment rights. If she were inciting violence or disturbances through such speech, or if the only purpose of such speech were to accomplish such things, then her rights would be appropriately limited. However, if the first amendment doesn't protect someone's right to speak against homosexuality, then the first amendment has been skinned and gutted, and that scares me a lot more than some alleged "intolerant speech." C'mon guys, go read up on your con law before spouting nonsense.