The first caveat is that this story comes from Canada, and of course legal systems vary greatly from country to country. I don’t know how their religious liberty protections compare to those in the United States. But this story definitely has some of my fellow Mormons worried, because they can’t help but note the parallels between Trinity Western University (a small, private, religious college in Ontario) and Brigham Young University (a large, private, religious college in Utah[ref]And Hawaii and Idaho.[/ref]
The story comes from the Ottawa Citizen, which reports that:
The Law Society of Upper Canada has voted against accrediting a private Christian university in B.C. that forbids intimacy outside heterosexual marriage… the vote means graduates of Trinity Western University’s future law school will not be eligible for admission to the Ontario bar.
The policy that triggered the backlash required that students
abstain from gossip, obscene language, prejudice, harassment, lying, cheating, stealing, pornography, drunkenness and sexual intimacy “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”
That’s a pretty basic statement of conventional Christian (and Jewish and Islamic) morality. I guess that renders traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims unfit to practice law in Canada. As I’ve written before, stories like this make me worried for the future of my kids.
If you’re looking for opposition, even censure, of “anti-gay”/”conventional morality” (the words are a rhetorical choice depending on your side of the question), then this story is one of many. It’s happening, it’s going to happen, it has happened, for all of my life and before, and I ‘m sure beyond. The issue du jour changes from time to time, but the discussion never ends. In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada, “tolerance of divergent beliefs is a hallmark of a democratic society”. There will always be pushing and pulling to make that work.
But this accreditation issue is not a sky-is-falling kind of event. As I understand the current score, the Ontario and Nova Scotia law societies have declined accreditation or approved on the condition that TWU drops the stated policy, while Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia (subject to s special meeting to reconsider), and other provincial law societies, and the Federation of Law Societies, have effectively approved or accepted accreditation. Ontario and Nova Scotia may be viewed as outliers–proof that the debate will continue but not a sky-is-falling alarm.
It is relevant that many view this as settled law in Canada (settled AGAINST the position the Ontario and Nova Scotia law societies are taking), citing a 2001 Canadian Supreme Court decision to the effect that the BC College of Teachers could NOT deny accreditation of TWU’s teaching degree because TWU insisted upon a similar covenant from its students. (The quote in my first paragraph comes from that opinion.)
If the offending language was removed, how would anyone’s ability to practice their religion be negatively affected? Christians are welcome to follow their beliefs with or without the rule. They only lose the ability to discriminate against people who believe other things.
Unlike religions that want obstructive things like not interacting with members of the opposite sex, it is no skin off your back to sit next to gay kids in class.
Chris-
Taken as individual events, a lot of the gay rights stories are not earth-shattering. To my mind, however, they constitute a trend. And the trend is one that concerns me. The reality is that the rhetoric of the gay rights movement, especially when it comes to the issue of marriage, is extremist and leaves no room for peaceful dissent to the view that anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage must be acting out of hateful bigotry. That’s why we ended up with the Eich situation, where a guy who has demonstrably worked in an environment that was very supportive of gay rights and pledged to continue that tradition was hounded out of a job for espousing a view that–at the time of the donations–was in line with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and basically every other major national Democratic figure but that, a couple of years later, is considered by many to be on-par with the KKK.
I think there is legitimate reason for all people from traditional religious faiths to be concerned.
Ryan-
What you’re dismissing so casually is also known by the term “freedom of assembly.” Part of religious freedom includes the right to congregate in groups. Your view leaves no room for religious expression to be anything other than a 100% private affair. It explicitly denies the right of religious people to engage in religious activity in the public sphere. It is precisely in that sense that secularism shifts from a kind of religious-neutral, tolerant society to an explicitly anti-religious, oppressive society.
Obviously the rights do not swing 180* in the other direction, either, and the right of public expression of belief and freedom of assembly has to be balanced with other concerns, like equal treatment.
But that’s just my point: it is a balancing act. Religions and religious people have more claim to liberty than only that which is allowed to any private individual acting in private anyway.
Just think about this: if the freedom of worship is only what freedom is allowed for anyone to believe any random nonsense in their private mind on their private time in their private home, then in what sense is there actually a freedom of religion, per se? It has to have an existence that is greater than what already exists as implied by other rights and civil liberties or it doesn’t actually exist at all.
Being a part of a religious institution that explicitly endorses traditional moral views, including bans on homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside of marriage, is within the legitimate interest of many religious faith traditions.
No one is denying you the right to be part of a religious institution. An institution that is a business, like this college, has different rules and is not solely a religious institution. You remain free to assemble, not free to deny business services arbitrarily.
In any case: What “legitimate interests” are you being denied by sitting next to unwed parents in class? This gets to the core of why you keep losing gay marriage cases: You can’t show harm.
In the same way that your right to swing your arm ends at my face, yes. Otherwise, swing away.
My previous comment somehow lost the link to the quote:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/05/05/trinity_western_debate_not_a_conflict_over_competing_rights.html
Ryan-
The thing that is important for you to understand, is that harm-based morality is not some kind of objectively superior paradigm for evaluating these kinds of claims. When you insist on that particular standard, you are in effect imposing your own paradigm first and then appearing perplexed when someone who operates in a different paradigm can’t defend their position. Of course they can’t. It would be like saying, “OK, let’s start by ruling out some of the key principles that are inextricable to your world view. Now that we’ve refused to allow you to refer to your core beliefs, please justify your world view.” That’s not a neutral question. It’s an act of cultural imperialism.
The reality is that commandments for ritual purity (which, by the way, is not at issue here in my mind) and distinctive identity (which is) are a part of all religious traditions. These principles have nothing to do with harm per se. To deny their legitimacy is to, as I’ve said, fundamentally bias society against religion.
What “legitimate interest” does a Muslim or a Jew have in not serving pork? What “legitimate interest” do Mormons have in banning alcohol from their universities? What “legitimate interest” do Quakers have in refusing to participate in armed conflict?
The fundamental principle here is that religious people should not be required to check their religion at the door before entering the public sphere. Requiring that they demonstrate harm or comply is just another way of insisting that they do just that. It is a way of insisting that if religion cannot pass a secular test, it is not valid, which is not even a subtle way of removing religious rights as religious rights in practice.
Nathaniel:
Your first conclusion is hyperbolic and surely incorrect as a matter of current rules and practice. (“I guess that renders traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims unfit to practice law in Canada.”) Your second conclusion (in comments) makes sense and I agree. (“I think there is legitimate reason for all people from traditional religious faiths to be concerned.”)
What I find interesting for discussion is the trending. I do not see or sense a trend in terms of debate and challenge and extremist positions, and people being criticized, censured and even privileges removed for being on the “wrong” (read “losing”) side. We’ve always had extremists and we always will. I DO sense a trend with respect to “traditional” religious or “traditional” moral positions.[fn] The adjective “traditional” is a way of asking for and expecting a privileged position in debate–an assertion that “traditional” is presumptively legitimate (if not presumptively correct). In my view, more and more (hence trending) this is not the case, and “traditional” views have to fight for position and hearing just like non-traditional views.
[fn] “Traditional” really should be unpacked a bit more. It’s a relative term, very much subject to time-and-place considerations. Imagine a discussion about sharia law in Michigan as an opener.
The harm-based morality comes into play when a religion’s needs harm someone who has not opted-in to that religion. Again, you can swing your arms all you want until you swing it at my face. This is pretty simple. All the examples you give are ones where the religious person is not harming anyone. Are there examples from the US or Canada where a religious practice causes harm and is still allowed?
Denying services when alternatives exist is frankly a weak example of harm. Other law schools exist, and are probably cheaper than this private one. I think the accrediting body should have offered a warning or probationary period before pulling the plug like this.
The single sentence summary is that a religious person’s “legitimate interests” are trumped when practicing those interests causes harm to others. Not harming others is very different from the hyperbole of checking your religion at the door.
What is an objectively superior paradigm to harm-based morality? What religious practice is so important it is worth harming others?
Ryan-
I don’t think you really understood my point about harm-based morality, so I’ll clarify. What I mean by “harm-based morality” is a moral system that sees only harm as a valid basis for moral reasoning. In such a case, principles like purity or sacredness that do not bear directly on harm have no place. Harm-based morality has deep problems of its own (which I won’t get into now) but it is particularly antithetical to all religious systems, which incorporate moral principles other than merely direct harm.
By insisting that religious institutions and religious people can only reference harm as a morally relevant basis for their actions, you’re not actually giving religion (any religion) a fair hearing. You’re starting from an anti-religious point.
And no, I do not think that there is some other objectively superior paradigm we can reference instead of harm. All I’m asking is that we have an authentically pluralist view of society, and realize that we’re going to have not negotiate between paradigms that are fundamentally incompatible. Specifically, I’m suggesting that freedom of religion has to mean more than just “freedom to exercise religion as long as it is protected by other civil liberties” or there is, in fact, no such thing as religious liberty. If religious practice cannot be defended in ways that non-religious practice can be defended, then religious liberty no longer exists.
As to this particular case, you said it yourself: “Denying services when alternatives exist is frankly a weak example of harm. ” So there’s very little harm. On the other side, there’s the question of religious liberty. Should a religion be allowed to operate in such a way that it preserves a sacred status (by its view of “sacred”) when that exercise causes harm to others that is “weak”? As a general rule: yes. This is pretty much the definition of religious liberty.
Obviously religious liberty is not absolute. There is no such thing as an absolute civil liberty. Where religious conviction incurs serious harm (obvious example: human sacrifice) it must be curtailed. But what you’re trying to do is say that people are free to exercise religion as long as it falls within the umbrella of other rights (e.g. “do what you like as long as it effects no one else”) which is in effect to deny that religious liberty as a separate and independent principle exists at all.
As far as I can tell, that basically is your point: there ought to be no such thing as freedom of religion, except as it derives from more general principles of civil liberties. Religion per se, deserves no special status in your view. Is that a fair reading?
Chris-
Based on the quotes in the original article, it’s not at all hyperbolic. The idea is that a university that contradicts Canada’s particular vision of human rights (which includes gay marriage) is incapable of producing lawyers who can operate in the Canadian system. But the very same logic would say that any lawyer who belongs to a traditional religion (and thus has the same standards that got the university dis-accredited) would be subject to the same criticism.
The trend seems pretty obvious to me. 10 years ago no one was considered a “bigot” in the general public for opposing gay marriage. As recently as 2012 no one was calling President Obama a bigot for staking out that position. But in 2014 Eich gets booted from Mozilla for bigotry. I realize that’s one stark example, but in basically any discussion you want to have, if someone takes the position that marriage should be a heterosexual institution the first thing that someone says is that they are bigoted / homophobic, etc. Their rationale is irrelevant. The position itself is taboo.
You’re starting to see some small backlash within the gay rights community (e.g. Andrew Sullivan), but people who are speaking up for the right to disagree about gay marriage without being labeled a hateful bigot appear to be in the minority, and are certainly not dominant.
I honestly think it’s rather foolish to suppose that the clear and obvious trend is going to stop any time soon. It seems much more likely that all religious institutions will come increasingly under the kind of toxic scrutiny that you once only heard from the most shrill and unreasonable fringes of the New Atheism movement.
I agree with your depiction of the way “traditional” works, but I also strongly agree that that’s how it should work. This is probably definitional to being a conservative, but the principle is defensible on pretty objective grounds. Social institutions exist the way they do for a reason. Those reasons are not always good reasons but, especially when the institutions are particularly old and the reasons for them particularly inscrutable, caution and deference seem advisable before one simply dismisses them out of hand.
I absolutely do think that in the contest of ideas an idea that is thousands of years old and which maintains a current broad base of popular support absolutely deserves a greater initial level of deference than the most recent ideological fad. I realize “fad” is pejorative. What I mean is that it will take time to separate the new fads from the new traditions, by definition. Age is absolutely a relevant (but not determining) factor.
Nathaniel:
“any lawyer who identifies” is a long long way from a minority position contrary to established law refusing accreditation for a school with a particular rule. Certainly it is possible to draw a line from one to the other, but it’s a long line. Your statement is an exaggeration for effect. That’s hyperbole.
As for trends, I think I see what you do (except that I would call on more than 20 years on same-sex marriage, and also race and gender issues before and after and continuing). But I’m pretty sure we are using different meanings for “trend”, labeling the same thing in different ways, or different things with the same word. That’s OK, but suggests there’s no point in further teasing out the differences.
Finally, just because you imply agreement that isn’t there, I do not agree that “traditional” deserves deference. It’s a longer discussion, beginning with the enormous problems of definition and agreement about “traditional” . . . problems that lead me to believe that “traditional” is usually a rhetorical device without substance, but sometimes a shorthand (but without a consensus definition) for something substantive. There is substance in there as you argue (I’d start with long experience, consensus, tried and tested, etc.), but to get at the substance the language shifts. And then some positions labelled by some people in some places as “traditional” turn out to have substance, and some do not.
My use of the term is based on harm as a trump card over other valid concerns, such as purity.
I am only referencing harm as a basis against actions. A religion’s basis for its practices is not my concern.
The facts of this particular case make the question muddy. Who is harmed more: The qualified student who is kicked out of law school for doing something they knew was forbidden, or the school that would be disallowed from expelling such a student? Both have been harmed. Clearer examples include: The harm imposed on a child bride trumps a faith’s claim that this practice is sacred. The harm imposed on people whose beliefs are not represented by the creche on the governor’s lawn seems to me wimpy enough it doesn’t trump that sacred space. The gray areas are why I’m glad I’m not a lawyer.
Do what you like so long as it harms no one else would be a better characterization. Some level of effect that does not reach harm is certainly tolerable.
In my view, religious activity is community-building activity plus magic. Most religious activity is fabulous and most magical claims are helpful.
What I don’t want is to allow things in the name of religion that wouldn’t be allowed for secular reasons. Only the most egregious medical harm done in the name of religion is prosecuted. If your group is religious, you’re not taxed, even if you’re for-profit. Illegal drugs (peyote) may be used by drivers for religious reasons though it puts other people on the road at risk. Animals may be slaughtered in awful, inhumane ways for religious reasons that wouldn’t be allowed if the reasons were purely traditional. In all these examples, significant harm is done to those outside the religion. A secular group with similar social and historical gravity would not be allowed to get away with any of those examples.
There are compelling social, historical, and public health reasons for the law school that started this debate to make the rules it made. I don’t understand why an appeal to a special category beliefs is necessary or helpful. Values like purity and sacredness can easily exist independent of the associated religious aspects.
Why does a religious organization deserve more rights than an otherwise identical secular organization?