Is UCLA violating the Establishment Clause?

Tue Jan 27 11:25:57 PST 2004

         Eugene is in best position to answer, but I think the chance of a 
fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible on homosexuality appearing on a 
UCLA website sponsored by a University department under the supervision of 
a Vice Chancellor is just about zero.

At 08:55 AM 1/27/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>It is not clear to me if this is from a student organization or from a 
>part of the university.  I am assuming from Eugene's comments that it is 
>from the university.
>
>
>At 08:22 PM 1/26/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>         The UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center 
>> -- which is apparently part of the UCLA administration, and not just a 
>> student group -- provides the material copied below, at 
>> <http://www.lgbt.ucla.edu/need_religion.html>http://www.lgbt.ucla.edu/need_religion.html 
>> .  I assume that this is pretty clear an Establishment Clause violation, 
>> since it expresses expressly religious views, endorsing some and 
>> disapproving of others.  Or am I mistaken on this?
>>
>>         Eugene
>>
>>Homosexuality and Religion
>>
>>All of God's promises are intended for every human being, including 
>>lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. How tragic it is that 
>>many religious institutions have excluded and persecuted people who are 
>>not heterosexual.
>>
>>We are all created with powerful needs for personal relationships. Our 
>>quality of life depends upon the love we share with others, whether 
>>family or friends, partners or peers. Yet lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
>>transgender people facing hostile attitudes in society often are denied 
>>access to healthy relationships. We are called upon to find ultimate 
>>meaning in life through our spiritual selves as well as our physical and 
>>emotional selves, which can bring healing and strength to all of our 
>>relationships.
>>
>>"The issues about homosexuality are very complex and not understood by 
>>most members of" religious organizations, according to Bernard Ramm of 
>>the American Baptist Seminary of the West. This evangelical authority on 
>>biblical interpretation says that, "To them, it is a vile form of sexual 
>>perversion condemned in both the Old and New Testaments." But as Calvin 
>>Theological Seminary Old Testament scholar Marten H. Woudstra says, 
>>"There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality 
>>as we understand it today" and as Southern Methodist University New 
>>Testament Scholar Victor Paul Furnish says, "There is no text on 
>>homosexual orientation in the Bible." Says Robin Scroggs of Union 
>>Seminary, "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to 
>>today's debate. They should no longer be used...not because the Bible is 
>>not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues 
>>involved...No single New testament author considers homosexuality 
>>important enough to write his/her own sentence about it." Evangelical 
>>theologian Helmut Thielicke states, "Homosexuality...can be discussed at 
>>all only in the framework of that freedom which is given to us by the 
>>insight that even the New testament does not provide us with an evident, 
>>normative dictum with regard to this question. Even the kind of question 
>>which we have arrived at ... must for purely historical reasons be alien 
>>to the New testament."
>>
>>Ideas and understandings of sexuality have changed greatly over the 
>>centuries. People in biblical times did not share our knowledge or 
>>customs of sexuality; we do not share their
>>
>>experience. In those days there was no romantic dating as we know it 
>>today; marriages were arranged by fathers. The ancients, as MIT's David 
>>Halperin notes "conceived of
>>
>>'sexuality' in non-sexual terms: what was fundamental to their experience 
>>of sex was not anything we would regard as essentially sexual. Rather, it 
>>was something essentially social - namely, the modality of power 
>>relations that informed and structured the sexual act." In the ancient 
>>world, sex was "not intrinsically relational or collaborative in 
>>character, it is, further, a deeply polarizing experience: It serves to 
>>divide, to classify, and to distribute its participants into distinct and 
>>radically dissimilar categories. Sex possesses this valence, apparently, 
>>because it is conceived to center essentially on, and to define itself 
>>around, an asymmetrical gesture, that of the penetration of the body of 
>>one person by the body, and specifically, by the phallus, of another ... 
>>The proper targets of sexual desire include, specifically, women, boys, 
>>foreigners, and slaves - all of them persons who do not enjoy the same 
>>legal and political rights and privileges that (the perpetrator) does."
>>
>>And yet in spite of all this, some preachers continue to use certain 
>>Biblical verses to foster and maintain discrimination against lesbian, 
>>gay, bisexual and transgender people. There are two verses that refer to 
>>male homosexuality - Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. "Abomination (TO'EBAH) is 
>>a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean, such as mixed 
>>cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It's not about a 
>>moral or ethical issue. This Holiness Code (Chapters 17-22) proscribes 
>>men "lying the lyings of women." Such mixing of sex roles was thought to 
>>be polluting. But both Jesus and Paul rejected all such ritual 
>>distinctions (Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20). The Fundamentalist Journal 
>>admits that this Code condemns "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial 
>>uncleanness" and concludes: "We are not bound by these commands today."
>>
>>These commands, of course, included eating sheep, goats, rabbit, pork, 
>>lobster, scallops, and shrimp; short hair on men, wearing two kinds of 
>>materials; and demanded circumcision on all male babies who were eight 
>>days old.
>>
>>Other Biblical Issues no longer relevant include:
>>
>>A stubborn or rebellious son shall be brought to the authorities and 
>>stoned to death (Deut. 20:11)
>>
>>The citizens of cities which surrendered during wartime are to be made 
>>slaves (Deut. 20:11
>>
>>If a man marries a woman and discovers she is not a virgin, she is to be 
>>stoned to death (Deut. 22:13)
>>
>>An unmarried man who sleeps with an unbetrothed virgin must marry her 
>>(Deut. 22:28)
>>
>>Wives must obey their husbands (Eph 5:22)
>>
>>People who divorce, then remarry, commit adultery (Matt 5:3, 19:9, and 
>>Mark 10:11)
>>
>>Slaves will always be slaves (Lev 25:44)
>>
>>Slaves must obey their masters (1 Peter 2:18)
>>
>>Slaves should remain slaves, and not be bothered by their condition (1 
>>Corinthians 7:21)
>>
>>The Bible has nothing specific to say about homosexuality. Surely, if 
>>homosexuality were so important, Jesus would have said something about 
>>it. But he did not. However, the Bible has plenty to say about God's 
>>grace to all people and God's call to justice and mercy. People of God 
>>are called upon by God to love one's neighbor as oneself. Perhaps it is 
>>that sense of self-love that needs to be sought before one condemns another.
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
         512-232-1341 (voice)
         512-471-6988 (fax)
         dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu