Should BYU continue receiving federal funding and participating in NCAA while being anti-LGBT?

[drumdude]

nothing could have prepared BYU's football players and coaches for what they would encounter on Oct. 18, 1969 when they arrived at War Memorial Stadium in Laramie, Wyo.
On the eve of the game, 14 Wyoming football players, all African-Americans, were kicked off the team by Cowboys coach Lloyd Eaton for threatening to wear black armbands to draw attention to the fact that the LDS Church did not allow black males to hold its priesthood.

The church continued to discriminate for nearly another decade after this.


https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?re ... i_13728556

[Kishkumen]

I don’t see how this gets resolved. The more I learn about the issue, the less simple it becomes in my mind. I would like to see the LDS Church abandon its current position, as it seems to me to be unnecessary and harmful, but that won’t happen in this generation.

On the other hand, I don’t agree with how easily and sloppily terms like homophobia are thrown around. I guess it achieves its purpose in characterising those who oppose certain gender ideologies in very shaming and unflattering ways, but it is also intellectually lazy to the point of being hard to take seriously.

For example, there is something to the fact that marriage in the West was traditionally a certain kind of institution. To say so is not “homophobic,” it is just a historical argument. The real argument to be had is over whether tradition is a sufficient argument in favor of something staying the same. At least that is something to argue over and not simply an insult. One can counter the argument for tradition by noting that Western marriage was also clearly about companionship, and not just about procreation. Of course, procreation was not a negligible part of the equation either.

Marriage and its history are complicated topics that people can have different opinions about. Is it necessarily obvious that everyone who wants to be married should be able to be married? What are the limits? Who should get to decide? Should anyone get to decide?

I don’t think these things are clear. But I do know I will not send my kids to a private religious school. I prefer operating in a world where there is greater freedom and acceptance.

[MG 2.0]

Where does religious freedom come in? What does religious freedom really mean if it doesn’t apply to schools that have certain religious ideals that they live by?

Should they be persecuted for that? If the government and/or NCAA prohibits participation of religious institutions isn’t that a form of religious persecution?

Just how important is the Free Exercise Clause?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause

Does it apply in the instance that you are concerned with?

Regards,
MG

One thing we know is that the Constitution's guarantee of the free exercise of religion is not absolute -- this is true of all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. So, it's a question of line drawing. Start at the core -- the government can't throw you in jail for being a member of the LDS church or for worshipping in your meeting house. You may take that for granted, but it's a pretty big deal. Go back to the original colonies and look at the persecution of some religious sects by others that controlled the government. Look at other countries around the world where certain sects are outlawed and actively persecuted.

An important part of that freedom is also the ability to exclude. Mormons get to set the boundaries on who gets to be a part of their religion. Per the Supreme Court, the government can't get involved in defining who gets to belong to the church, who gets to run the church, who gets to hold the priesthood, etc. This freedom is also not trivial. And, unlike other entities, groups of religious folks are free to discriminate on any basis they choose: race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Government regulation of churches, under current law, can happen only if the regulations are generally applicable and are not targeted specifically at religion. So, Native religions cannot legally use marijuana or peyote as part of their religious ceremonies because of drug laws that apply to everyone and are not targeted at natives.

But beyond that core, the notion of what should constitute the "free exercise of religion" becomes debatable. Why should we consider running a school the exercise of religion? Why should we consider the owning of a hospital the free exercise of religion? Why should we consider owning a for-profit business the free exercise of religion?

Once religion moves away from its core of being able to worship your God of choice without interference from the government, the right of free exercise runs smack into other rights of other people. In the case of the NCAA, we're talking about the right of free association, another right guaranteed by the first amendment. As an association, the NCAA has the right to determine who can be a member and who cannot. And it has ever right to say, if you don't treat your students according to the rules we set, you can't be a member. Just as the LDS church can decide its own rules for how it will treat gay or non-binary folks, other organizations get to decide how to treat organizations they believe discriminate against gay or non-binary folks. People are free to be intolerant in their free exercise of religion, but that doesn't require other people to be tolerant of that intolerance.

You can cry persecution all you want. If you want to play that card, the LDS church persecutes gay and non-binary folks. The free exercise clause doesn't shield religions folks from criticism or force other folks to associate with them.

My concern lies with the opening sentence of the opening post of this thread:

Will religious universities continue to be permitted to set their own behavioral standards for students (and, for that matter, for faculty and administrators) if those standards conflict with Western society’s rising orthodoxy on gender and sexuality?

That opens a can of worms. Who is going to be the final arbitrator of whether or not "rising orthodoxy" may be in error and/or rejected by many?

Is it going to be might makes right and so religious institutions will be persecuted because they're not towing along with that societal orthodoxy?

That seems like a dangerous game. Winners and losers.

There should not be societal pressures (especially when we can see that those pressures may be a result of small but organized factions of leftists let's say) that inhibit full exercise of the rights covered under the Free Exercise Clause.

Special interests, woke or not, should not have the power to determine how freedom of religion is exercised and/or be penalized for that belief.

The first clause, in short, merely declares that the national government must tolerate all religious beliefs--short of such fanatic beliefs.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constituti ... d-religion

And who is going to define "fanatic"?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don’t think these things are clear. But I do know I will not send my kids to a private religious school. I prefer operating in a world where there is greater freedom and acceptance.

And the interpretation of what that means is the big bugaboo when it comes to some of the things at play which I mentioned in my previous post.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

This is like asking cannibals to shift their god-given dietary habits for the sake of some federal funding!

[toon]

One is, in our great country, free to be as bigoted as they like. But institutions like the federal government and NCAA do not have an obligation to engage with it and support it. And I would argue they have a strong moral obligation to disconnect themselves from it.

agreed. BYU has no obligation to participate in NCAA sports, or take federal money, if they want to have rules that violate the policies of those institutions. insisting that they be allowed to benefit without being willing to follow the rules of the NCAA is an unrealistic and immoral expectation. It is not removing "religious freedom," it is a natural consequence of being included in that group.

Hillsdale College opted out of receiving any federal dollars in order to not be boing by Title IX. Not my cup of tea, but I can respect that. BYU wants it both ways.

[drumdude]

agreed. BYU has no obligation to participate in NCAA sports, or take federal money, if they want to have rules that violate the policies of those institutions. insisting that they be allowed to benefit without being willing to follow the rules of the NCAA is an unrealistic and immoral expectation. It is not removing "religious freedom," it is a natural consequence of being included in that group.

Hillsdale College opted out of receiving any federal dollars in order to not be boing by Title IX. Not my cup of tea, but I can respect that. BYU wants it both ways.

Exactly.

BYU would likely put money and status before their "deeply held religious" convictions when push comes to shove.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t see how this gets resolved. The more I learn about the issue, the less simple it becomes in my mind. I would like to see the LDS Church abandon its current position, as it seems to me to be unnecessary and harmful, but that won’t happen in this generation.

On the other hand, I don’t agree with how easily and sloppily terms like homophobia are thrown around. I guess it achieves its purpose in characterising those who oppose certain gender ideologies in very shaming and unflattering ways, but it is also intellectually lazy to the point of being hard to take seriously.

For example, there is something to the fact that marriage in the West was traditionally a certain kind of institution. To say so is not “homophobic,” it is just a historical argument. The real argument to be had is over whether tradition is a sufficient argument in favor of something staying the same. At least that is something to argue over and not simply an insult. One can counter the argument for tradition by noting that Western marriage was also clearly about companionship, and not just about procreation. Of course, procreation was not a negligible part of the equation either.

Marriage and its history are complicated topics that people can have different opinions about. Is it necessarily obvious that everyone who wants to be married should be able to be married? What are the limits? Who should get to decide? Should anyone get to decide?

I don’t think these things are clear. But I do know I will not send my kids to a private religious school. I prefer operating in a world where there is greater freedom and acceptance.

I agree with you that it’s complicated and that oversimplified terms can obscure the complexity. But I’m not sure we can realistically expect any kind of resolution. Culture changes over time, with portions changing at different rates. Conflict is part of the process.

To the extent marriage has legal effects, then those that enact and apply laws will decide. To the extent there are religious impacts, religious leaders or bodies will decide. To the extent that it affects interpersonal relationships, the involved parties will decide. I don’t think we should expect them all to align.

[Moksha]

There should not be societal pressures (especially when we can see that those pressures may be a result of small but organized factions of leftists let's say) that inhibit full exercise of the rights covered under the Free Exercise Clause.
Regards,
MG

This could be a two-edged sword, those leftists in their societal zeal might allow LDS polygamating to once again commence. Joy would certainly flow on the streets of Provo if that happened.