Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Barrel fish

I've been watching the "counter petition" (here) and thought I'd comment on some of the comments its supporters have written.

I find objectionable the intentions, speech, and actions of those above who would discriminate against certain religious institutions for exercising their set of religious and moral beliefs. Those who oppose such religious institutions do not understand their own position to be contradictory: they are filled with the very same kinds of hatred and bigotry they claim to oppose. They hate those they see as discriminating against homosexuality; however, what they fail to see is they themselves discriminate against certain persons with certain religious beliefs. That is discrimination based on religion. The APA specifically forbids such discrimination. This is a contradiction.


I think the practice is best kept as it is, for it respects the notion that private religious colleges can set their own behavioral standards, and that these standards can be defended or made explicit on a case-by-case basis to prospective applicants. The APA need not involve itself in enforcement (or approval) of such institutional policies.

Better, but no. The original petition is not saying that these institutions cannot set their own standards, but that these institutions cannot have it both ways. They cannot discriminate against members of the APA and expect to use the APA's publications to advertise for jobs without censure.

As thoughtful evangelical Christians, we desire to respectfully participate in the public square discussions of major social/political/ethical issues of the day. While we are firmly committed to the foundational beliefs that define our faith, we also respect the right of others to hold differing views.

Interesting. So, the right view to take is that we should respect the rights of evangelical Christians to participate in certain discussions and for that reason (?) protect their "right" to publish in the publication put out by a second party but there are not similar rights that homosexuals have that protects them from discriminatory hiring practices. Again, I'm sure that whatever rationale there is for saying that homosexuals do not have the right to demand that these private institutions modify their employment and hiring practices just is the rationale for denying that these evangelical institutions have the right to demand that the APA modify their practices when it comes to deciding who gets to advertise in the JFP.

The APA should be in the business of helping its members, and that business only. In philosophy, ALL issues are open, and values are not to be dictated.

Really? The capitalization suggests that the author is quite prepared to bite some bullets, and so it seems the author is defending the view most seem to think is the view we can't charitably ascribe to those who sign the counter petition. Does the author honestly believe that the APA should let schools that discriminate on grounds of race or sex use the JFP? Does the author believe that this would help its members? I can imagine it helping some.

C'mon. In philosophy, some "issues" aren't issues. There's not an "issue" as to whether racial discrimination is wrong. This is just dumb.

roger scruton

True conservatives capitalize. wtf.


Degenerate & Close Personal Friend said...

"True conservatives capitalize. wtf."

Dude, true conservatives don't use the shift key--that'd change the natural order of the keyboard. . . .

Jean K. said...

It's touching the way they're worried about being discriminated against, isn't it? I suggest this compromise. We'll let them have their anti-gay orientation, but we won't allow them to ever act upon it. That is, they must not speak up about their bigotry or try to impose it on anyone else.

By the way, I was not impressed with the fella at Prosblogion who doubted my EEOC's friend's grasp of the act/orientation business. After 20 years as a lawyer there, I'd say her points are worth a listen.

Anonymous said...

There's not an "issue" as to whether racial discrimination is wrong. This is just dumb.

But there are good reasons to think that racial discrimination is permissible. It's all about culture. If I want to found a university dedicated to preserving the culture of the white man, it would be idiotic and counter-productive for me to hire a black guy. Ditto for gender.

So there is no need to balk when it comes to religious institutions.

I respect the right of the APA to mark off those institutions that don't conform to their own particular policies, but that seems indicative of a strong confidence that homosexuality is permissible which is just a bit odd. The permissibility of homosexual practices is a live issue. It's strange for the APA to take what seems like such a dogmatic line on the question.

lance said...

Or black colleges hiring blacks, or Jewish colleges hiring Jews, or chicano studies departments hiring, surprise, Hispanics . . . racial discrimination is rife and perfectly legitimate. Discrimination is all around us, it's called diversity.