Friday, May 06, 2005

Clinton Really Did Appoint Activist Judges...

...but activist on the side of the Christian right. In Maryland, US District Judge Alexander Williams blocked a school curriculum that includes discussion of homosexuality, agreeing with the plaintiffs that such discussions gave preference to religions tolerant of homosexuality over those that reject it.

I suppose the next case will reveal that science curriculum gives preference to the religions that accept that the Earth is round over those that believe it is flat.

But other religious activists might want to jump on the bandwagon. Maybe the family of the late psychopathic serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer can sue the state of Wisconsin for violating his rights by imposing laws that favor those religions that reject murder and cannibalism over those that encourage them. After all, Judge Williams and the so-called "Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum" have just shown us that everything is an Establishment Clause issue.


Tim said...

I'm afraid the situation is a bit more complicated than this. A news story in the May 7 Washington Post, as well as Marc Fisher's column in the May 8 Post, reveal that in this instance, the RR critics of the sex ed. curriculum have a point, as much as some of us may hate to admit it. For instance, the proposition that homosexuality is a sin is labeled a "myth", and then followed by an irrelevant digression into past religious teachings on racial issues. Further, the curriculum tries to sort denominations into "good" (e.g., Quaker) and "bad" (e.g., Baptist).

It is a fact, not a myth, that Mormons frown on drinking coffee, and it is a fact, not a myth, that many denominations--indeed, most--frown on homosexuality. To answer the question of whether homosexuality (or drinking coffee) is a sin, all they had to do was to say, "It depends on which religion, if any, you choose to follow," and leave it at that.

Sven Sinclair said...


I read both articles and the greatest impropriety - if it may be deemed as such - clearly ascribed to the school board is the sentence "Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church." I would agree that the school would be very unwise and overly judgmental in calling a church "homophobic"; I also grant that it is best left to everyone to decide whether this is "fortunate". However, this is purely formalistic - drop one word and replace the other (with one of essentially the same meaning) and all the substance of the complaint is gone.

Other than that, I just see an enormous amount of bullshit in Fisher's article. I've never read his column before, so I don't know the usual quality of his arguments, but here he strikes me as a David Brooks clone. It would take way too much space and time even to list his preposterous logical fallacies.