Part of me wants them to jump off.
A news story caught my eye a few days ago, and I’ve been quietly fuming about it for a few days without reaching any kind of reasonable conclusion regarding what, to me, seems to be a patently absurd and immoral outcome.
I’m getting ahead of myself, though. The story concerns a school teacher in Indiana. The teacher’s name is Amy Sorrell, and she was employed with a school district, and oversaw the publication of a middle school/high school student newspaper.
Sometime in March, a female student writer submitted to be published a short editorial. In this editorial (which was subsequently published), the girl reported that a male friend of hers had just told her that he was gay. She filled her editorial with calls that people be tolerant of other human beings who are different, and explained how she thought that the world would be a little better if people could learn to see other people as people instead of treating them as if they were evil. The piece is largely bereft of any arguments in support of her position and is generally filled with the sort of touchy-feely, “we’re all OK” type of sentimental drivel that is generally expected from average writers. Basically, her article is everything that I’ve come to expect from the pens of young journalists.
While I may respect her idealism (and her conclusions), mind you, I’ve got to admit that there was very little in that article that was worth taking seriously in any intellectual context. Nevertheless, despite the clear lack of academic rigor in her argument, the principal of the school in which the paper was published went crazy. Why anyone would go crazy over so inconsequential an editorial is beyond me, but that is clearly what happened.
The principal of the school suspended Amy Sorrell – that’s right, the teacher – for not getting his approval before publishing so controversial an editorial. He upbraided her for ‘exposing’ his students to such thoughts without his foreknowledge and consent. The teacher just had a hearing in which it was to be decided whether she was to be fired for this act. Because she was willing to apologize for ‘exposing’ the children to controversial material, she was only transferred to another school in the district. Crazy, right?
Alright, first of all… Controversial? I could understand if the girl had argued that society should permit gay marriage or allow gay couples to adopt children. While I feel these are areas in which there is a clear answer from an ethical standpoint, I can see that many people would disagree with me and should expect vigorous dissent for my views should I present them publicly. But this girl didn’t argue for anything like that – all she argued for is that people treat other people with respect and kindness, regardless of what they think of them privately. Since when is that so controversial a subject as to warrant a principal flipping out on a teacher?
Secondly, just how conservative a place is Indiana that ‘exposing’ children to the idea that they should treat people kindly is seen as radical? I mean, haven’t these children already been ‘exposed’ to murders and sexual situations on television? Haven’t they been through sexual education to learn about human reproductive physiology? Aren’t these children likely to have heard explicit lyrics in the music they listen to? Is it really going to damage their frail little psyches to hear a fellow student’s opinion that they should be nice to one another? It strains credulity to believe that this kind of backwards thinking still predominates in any part of the civilized world.
Doesn’t Indiana see that this sort of reaction is going to give them a bad stain on their reputation? Just like Kansas can’t live down the stain of our religious conservatism and their obsession with revising the educational science standards, Indiana is poised on the brink of a yawning cliff. If Indiana reacts one way, they will be seen as standing up for the principles of equality and dignity that mark the best things about our society. If Indiana reacts another way, they plunge down into the void filled with primitive superstitions – a place where it is seen as perfectly natural to think that there is a god so powerful that he could create the universe, but who is so neurotic that he is deeply concerned with consensual sexual practices that take place between human beings in private.
What sort of message does this give to anyone who is a little different from the majority? Young gay people in Indiana had better’d keep their secret to themselves, I suppose. After all, it’s apparently still ‘controversial’ to suggest (even in an immature way) that they be treated like human beings.
posted by The Academian | 8:50 AM
2 Comments:
So, would an omnipotent God who doesn't care about what His creations do in private make more sense to you?
I think that we have mis-communicated, anonymous comment-leaver. I don’t believe that I suggested that an omnipotent God wouldn’t be concerned about the actions of his creations. Rather, I meant to suggest that if such a thing as an omnipotent God existed, that he’d be concerned only about the kinds of things that matter. Of course, the very idea of an omnipotent God itself doesn’t make any sense (it’s the equivalent of asserting knowledge of the unknowable and expressing the unexpressable), but that’s not the question you asked.
For instance, it’s awfully hard to take seriously a God that decrees a moral rule stating that nobody is allowed to engage in business on one day during the week, arbitrarily sets that day the same for all of us, and declares that anyone who violates that edict is subject to the death penalty. It’s hard to take seriously a God that sees no problem eating meat, generally, but forbids its consumption on particular days. It’s hard to take seriously a God who has believed that wearing different kinds of cloth together was an offense serious enough to merit burning someone alive for all eternity in a pit of blood and bile. It's hard to take seriously a God who chooses what liquids you may boil a goat in, or who decides whether you can plow your field with two different types of animals. It’s hard to take seriously a God who decides what haircuts and facial hair men should wear. At some point, one simply has to stop and ask A) what business is it of God’s if I choose to be clean-shaven as opposed to wearing my beard long, and B) isn’t that a bit too much micromanagement of things that are utterly irrelevant to someone’s moral worth?
Take these examples however you like, but the simple fact is that philosophy and theology have long recognized that human actions fall along a continuum. Some actions are morally obligatory (perhaps there is a duty to aid others who are suffering). Some actions are morally permissible, but not obligatory. Some actions are amoral (meaning that they have no moral significance one way or another (sleeping at night or eating lunch are amoral actions, for instance). Finally, some actions are morally impermissible (murdering innocents). The lay conception of the Christian God reveals a God with tremendous power, but absolutely no idea where to place human actions along this continuum. (For examples and laughs, check out www.thebricktestament.com, and read some of 'the law')
If you doubt that claim, consider the following: Suppose that Bob decides that he desires his neighbor’s possessions, so in the middle of the night sneaks into his neighbor’s house and stabs him to death in his bed. Suppose also that Tom drops a hammer on his foot and mutters “Ouch! God damn it!” Despite the fact that these actions are leagues apart in terms of their moral permissibility, both earn the identically same punishment – an eternity of burning in hell, with no reprieve or respite.
The Christian God (as revealed through the Bible) is an entity which serves as no particular moral guide. Certain racial groups cannot ever be saved and go to heaven (See, Deut. 23:3-8). Men who have injuries to their genitals cannot ever be saved and go to heaven (See, Deut. 23:1).
Slavery is condoned, men are ordered to marry their sisters-in-law, and gives precise directions on how long to leave someone in the tree who has been hanged. Young girls who are raped must marry their rapists (an obligatory duty), and women who cannot prove their virginity on their wedding nights will be stoned to death at the city gates. No matter how you interpret these and other passages, it is clear that the lay conception of God has no understanding of what constitutes what category of human action. Things which are abominable are made obligatory. Things that are obligatory are made impermissible.
There is a strong argument here (which raises serious controversy) and a weaker version of the same argument (which is less controversial). The strong argument is that, even if the people of Indiana believe the absurd moral propositions espoused by their conception of a God (propositions like ‘homosexuality is a sin’), the government (the principal and superintendent who supported the principal) has an obligation to take no notice of these beliefs because they are clearly false (the morality of the lay conception of God is more aptly suited to the bronze-age from which it came than for the modern era in which has been made serious progress in all disciplines, ethics included).
The weaker argument is simply that while the individual Indianans can believe whatever bizarre things they wish to, the moment that their beliefs reasonably impact other people negatively, the government has a duty to step in and prevent such harm from occurring on account of people’s beliefs.
For instance, we can argue over whether abortion is abominable, but regardless of the morality of abortion, the government has a duty to step in to prevent people from assassinating doctors who perform abortions. People who believe God told them to kill someone do not get a free pass to kill again, and neither should people who believe that God tells them that homosexuals are evil get a pass to treat homosexuals in an evil manner. This kind of belief is inimical to modernity, and it must pass away just as have our beliefs about flat-earths, talking snakes, giants, unicorns, cockatrices, dragons, and magical elves (fun fact: only one of these is not mentioned in the Bible!).
To the extent that the people of Indiana wish to mire themselves in the stagnant philosophy of their bronze-age mythologies, that may be their business. However, they have absolutely no rightful authority to hold their nutty beliefs over the rest of us in the world. It is no coincidence that the rejection of these very mythologies and the authority structures that imposed them on society sparked a continuing and rapid source of improvement in human quality of life, lifespan, science, technology, and thought. The sooner the bronze-age relics realize that truth, the better off society at large will be.
Post a Comment
<< Home