So here’s something interesting, a religion can preach hate, but if you dare try and teach anyone in a class on that religion exactly what that religion preaches, guess what? You’ll get fired for “hate speech”. Confused? Yeah, me too.
Now granted, I don’t like what he’s teaching, but I didn’t like learning about my country’s stance on Indians, blacks or women for most of its history, either. I also didn’t care much for hearing what Hitler had to say, but all of that was part of the subject matter for the courses I took, so I can’t fathom how a teacher can’t teach you the Catholic stance on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
He went on to say, “[m]y responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches.” I would think so, regardless of how abominable it is. Should we censor the Catholic bible as well? How about the writings of popes, like Ratty’s declaration that homosexuality is an inherent moral evil? Furthermore, if all of this is hate speech, then isn’t the Catholic Church a hate organization? When is hate ok, and when is it not? I’m confused. is this like how if you string lights on a creche or include Rudolph, it’s no longer religious? Does adding a god make hate speech no longer hate speech?
According to this case, where a HP employee was fired for hanging anti-gay scriptures on the wall in his office, the god element isn’t enough, although the scriptures were declared “demeaning and degrading” in the ruling. No, you can’t just be a follower of a religion to be immune from repeating the hate speech of that religion, you have to be a leader of that religion for the immunity to kick in. Got that? A religious book with hateful content is ok, reading that content aloud or publicly displaying that content isn’t, but if you’re a religious leader it’s ok, although repeating what that leader said isn’t. Whew! It’s all thoroughly ridiculous, and to add to it all, I, an outspoken atheist and defender of the separation of church and state, find myself on the same damn side as the Alliance Defense Fund:
David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, “A university cannot censor professors’ speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech ‘offensive.’
It turns my stomach to be on the same side as those loons, but I don’t see how anyone couldn’t be in this situation. I’d really like to hear more of a response from the university, because things aren’t adding up. If this report is true, then all I can think is there was a lazy, knee-jerk reaction because it was merely an adjunct and not a full-time faculty member. What I find suspicious is Howell’s admission of telling his class he’s a Catholic. I don’t see why that’s necessary, and I can see that while in Catholic mode, he could very well of been dropping “the Catholic Church believes” prefaces to those anti-gay beliefs. Be that as it may, I still don’t see this as grounds for termination in a class covering Catholicism. Calculus? Ok, but not Catholicism class. Jesus Christ!