2008 Woodie Awards
Constitutionally protected hate
Can religious belief justify intolerance of homosexuals?
Samuel E. Lavalle
Issue date: 4/25/06 Section: Arts and Entertainment
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Recently, Ruth Malhorta of Georgia Tech took the University's administration to court on grounds that its' policies requiring tolerance of homosexuality prevent her from freely expressing her religious beliefs.
Malhotra, a senior at Georgia Tech and president of the College Republicans on campus, believes that banning hate speech and requiring diversity-training programs violates the religious free exercise clause of the first amendment.
Malhorta is not alone in her struggles; the movement has been backed by a group of judges and lawyers, appropriately named the Christian Legal Society, which seeks to overturn tolerance policies in court.
Interestingly, Malhorta in particular is notorious for controversial demonstrations of intolerance. In the fall term of 2004, she wrote a letter to the gay/lesbian rights activist group Pride Alliance, citing the gay rights movement as a "sex club… that can't even manage to be tasteful."
She accused openly homosexual people as putting the campus under "a constant barrage of homosexuality," and asked that the group knock off its political propaganda if it expected to be tolerated.
While an ACLU spokesman accused the Christian movement as trying to "develop a persecution complex," the university added that it has encouraged open debate of the issue as long as the demonstrations do not encourage violence or harass anyone.
At issue here, is how central hate speech against homosexuals is to the Evangelical Christian faith, versus how compelling the state's interest is in preventing discrimination?
Even though the Christian faith does not believe that homosexuality is morally right, the deliberately hateful letter written to the Pride Alliance will not advance her in the eyes of God.
What happened to "love thy neighbor?" While the Christian movement claims that they only want to "model a virtuous lifestyle," it operates on the false assumption that its view of a "virtuous lifestyle" is the only view, or the most pertinent.
Malhotra, a senior at Georgia Tech and president of the College Republicans on campus, believes that banning hate speech and requiring diversity-training programs violates the religious free exercise clause of the first amendment.
Malhorta is not alone in her struggles; the movement has been backed by a group of judges and lawyers, appropriately named the Christian Legal Society, which seeks to overturn tolerance policies in court.
Interestingly, Malhorta in particular is notorious for controversial demonstrations of intolerance. In the fall term of 2004, she wrote a letter to the gay/lesbian rights activist group Pride Alliance, citing the gay rights movement as a "sex club… that can't even manage to be tasteful."
She accused openly homosexual people as putting the campus under "a constant barrage of homosexuality," and asked that the group knock off its political propaganda if it expected to be tolerated.
While an ACLU spokesman accused the Christian movement as trying to "develop a persecution complex," the university added that it has encouraged open debate of the issue as long as the demonstrations do not encourage violence or harass anyone.
At issue here, is how central hate speech against homosexuals is to the Evangelical Christian faith, versus how compelling the state's interest is in preventing discrimination?
Even though the Christian faith does not believe that homosexuality is morally right, the deliberately hateful letter written to the Pride Alliance will not advance her in the eyes of God.
What happened to "love thy neighbor?" While the Christian movement claims that they only want to "model a virtuous lifestyle," it operates on the false assumption that its view of a "virtuous lifestyle" is the only view, or the most pertinent.
Be the first to comment on this story