I want to add a thought to Greg Baylor’s excellent post below on Changes in Religious Organizations and the Government. There is a big, huge Establishment Clause issue here, too. Ponder for a moment what the University of California-Hastings in effect said in its brief to the Supreme Court: “We wouldn’t be having this case if the Christian Legal Society would adopt the theological views on homosexual behavior and the definition of marriage that some liberal seminaries hold.”
Here we have a governmental entity implying heavily that a private religious organization (CLS) should adopt the “favorable” theological viewpoints of other religious groups. Why are the “strict separationists” not sounding the alarm?
ADF successfully convinced a federal district court to strike down Georgia Tech’s ”Safe Space” program that similarily listed religious groups that had the “correct” views on homosexual behavior, and those religious groups that held the “wrong” views. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing the religious beliefs of certain faith groups, and opposing the religious beliefs of other groups. UC-Hastings has come alarmingly close in the Martinez case to doing what the Establishment Clause forbids.
Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpU