Christian lawyers claim religious persecution: How I would resolve this lawsuit using secular terms

[emilynghiem]

Before I venture tomorrow to call in to a conference call with Christian pastors and lawyers, addressing concerns that courts are upholding fines and penalties against Christians for their beliefs excluding homosexuality and same sex marriage,
I looked around online for other lawsuits going on where Christians are complaining of discrimination or penalty due to their beliefs they have the right to exercise.

(I remember a case in Texas where a ruling went in favor of a Baptist school that had a policy based on their beliefs that a woman should not be a teacher over men, but only a male teacher could hold such a position.)

I found this case that many groups are watching:
Christian Lawyers Claim Religious Persecution

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a case closely watched by both the religious right and civil liberties advocates. At issue in the case is whether the Hastings College of Law, part of the University of California system, violated the CLS’s First Amendment rights by requiring that the Society comply with the school’s non-discrimination policy in order to receive official school recognition as a club.

The “Homosexual Agenda” v. Religious Freedom?

Hastings, a state-funded institution, requires school clubs, in order to receive the benefits of official recognition, to adhere to the policy which prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other things, religion and sexual orientation. CLS, which requires members and those wishing to hold leadership positions in the club to be professing Christians and to disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” requested an exemption from these provisions in 2004, which Hastings refused. Although Hastings never denied CLS access to and use of school facililities, the decision meant CLS could not make use of benefits offered to official school clubs, including limited funding from student activity fees. CLS sued in October 2004, lost both at the trial and appellate court levels, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

CLS’s mission, according to its Web site, is “to inspire, encourage, and equip lawyers and law students, both individually and in community, to proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law, the provision of legal assistance to the poor, and the defense of religious freedom and sanctity of human life.” Through its Law School Ministries, it “encourages students in faith, connection with Christian mentors, professional development, exposure to other Christian students, and future employment. As many secular law schools have abandoned traditional education concerning the origins of law, increasing emphasis is placed on the foundations and practices which integrate faith and practice.”

What I would offer to such groups in conflict over ideologies are possible alternatives to how the policies are WORDED and support to MEDIATE and resolve the conflicts so a consensus is reached that satisfies BOTH.

Example
1. instead of requiring that officers be "professed Christians" if that violates school policy,
If the club would spell out in terms what are their SPECIFIC principles they want to promote,
there is nothing wrong with requiring members and officers to sign onto those guiding principles.

For example if the club members agree that the real issue of faith that makes a difference (in whether people can reconcile and serve all others universally as Jesus Christ did) is whether people believe in Restorative Justice, and the power of forgiveness to heal and restore mind, body spirit and relationships, then this should be spelled out as the mission of the club, and then the members and officers can be required to pledge to commit to that mission.

2. for the issue of morality and sexual relations, again, this can be worded where the club membership lives by the policy of respecting unique spirìtual relationships between committed partners monogamous for life,
and renounces sexual relations outside lifelong committed relationships between spiritually unique partners "created at birth to be joined as one" (or whatever SPECIFIC language they use that describes the principle).

If it is worded correctly, it excludes any and all forms of adultery, fornication, etc. regardless of orientation
so there is no discrimination or targeting of one type over another. All people would be offered the same standard, where the person either agrees or doesn't agree with that policy so it's their choice to join or not.

Either sexual intimacy occurs within a spiritually committed relationship between lifelong partners,
or it is outside those bounds.

These are examples of how the club could word their policies and principles to ensure that their members and officers agree to the same values. Each group would work out their own solution; it depends on the mediation process what they come up with as an agreed policy, where the point is to follow the school rules without compromising their own beliefs either.

A. I also believe the ordinances about orientation and discrimination could be better worded to respect all beliefs, such as by giving people of conflicting beliefs the option of agreeing NOT to conduct business together if they cannot resolve their differences.

B. And the issue over transgender people and restrooms is better resolved with unisex facilities that don't require anyone to change their beliefs to accommodate others.

C. for issues like using the words "under God" -- if any group objects, why can't they pay to print and distribute alternative translations such as "one nation for the greater good" which is one way of
translating the meaning into equivalent secular terms (although only ONE meaning of God, among many).

If there are ballots printed in Spanish and Vietnamese because of language differences, why can't other terms be translated to include members of the public otherwise excluded because of "language"?

D. same with disagreements over prayers at schools or other public events: why not agree in advance how a benediction is written, or agree to "take turns" and vote to select different people to give invocations, so that particular school district and its population is represented by a series of speakers.