Liberal indoctrination

BOTW

The Washington Post reports that a federal judge has issued an injunction against a public-school sex education program on the ground that it improperly brings religion into the classroom. What makes this interesting is that the school district in question is in ultraliberal Montgomery County, Md., and the religious views it seeks to inculcate are liberal ones.

Eugene Volokh points to Judge Alexander Williams's opinion in Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Public Schools (PDF), which quotes from a handout that is part of the curriculum:

Myth: Homosexuality is a sin.

Facts: The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality. Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and earing [sic] shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century. Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral--despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else.

As Volokh notes, "this material, which the school would apparently be conveying as its own views":

1. Describes one interpretation of the Bible as "myth."


2. Suggests that the most important question in interpreting the Bible is what Jesus said, and that the Bible's use of "abomination" in different contexts should lead us to think that the items thus labeled are morally equivalent--not implausible claims about Scriptural interpretation, but nonetheless claims about Scriptural interpretation.


3. Implicitly--but I think quite strongly--suggests a particular reading of the Bible is theologically correct.


4. Condemns particular religious groups by name, not just as part of a discussion of history, but in an attempt to discredit the present religious teachings of at least some religious groups (quite possibly the same ones).


5. Specifically praises by name certain denominations--again, not just in a context which seems to be describing the facts, but one which suggests that their theology is more sound.

Volokh notes that the Supreme Court "has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause bars public schools from endorsing and disapproving of theological beliefs. . . . Schools are not free to express views on how the Bible should be interpreted, what is or is not sin from the Biblical perspective, and which religious groups have good interpretations of the Bible and which have bad ones."

That is as it should be. Kudos to Judge Williams, who has struck a blow for religious pluralism.