A recent California law intended to address violence against homosexuals has led to a serious controversy bearing on the first principles of American life and liberty. The claimed purpose of the “California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000” is “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices.” The bottom line is that the law seeks to prevent violence against homosexuals by using the educational process to assault the moral conscience of California’s school kids.
As Dianna Lynne reported in her WorldNetDaily article of January 24, many Californians view the introduction of so-called “tolerance” propaganda into the curriculum as an attack on the moral welfare of California students, because of the offensive character of materials introduced into school curricula and libraries.
I think they are right, but there is a deeper problem. Mandating pro-homosexual material in the schools directly violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. That Amendment requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right. It includes the right to raise children according to the teachings of religious faith, as has been taken for granted throughout American history. Teachings about sexual morality and comportment are an essential part of every great religion. Religious liberty without freedom to educate children in sexual morality is a pipe dream.
It is entirely appropriate for the state to require that schools produce law-abiding, non-violent citizens who will respect one another. But dictating particular means by which that result is to be achieved is deeply wrong and dangerous. So-called consciousness raising is the wrong solution to school violence, and it is crucial that we understand why it is both wrong, and unnecessary.
The California law assumes that to keep people from committing violence against homosexuals, we must teach them to respect and accept homosexual practices. But is it true that to curb violence against individuals in the schools, we must let the state dictate the moral attitudes children take toward the important topic of sexuality?
My wife and I teach our children to disapprove of drug dealing and drug dealers, to shun the company of drug dealers, and not in any way to approve of or tolerate their behavior. But we also have successfully taught our children that it is not their right to do violence against drug dealers.
So why is it necessary to teach acceptance of homosexuality in order to stop violence against homosexuals? According to our principles as Americans, all human beings, even those who are guilty of the most serious crimes, have a kernel of dignity that must be respected by everyone else. None of us has the right to take the law into our own hands, even against people of whom we strongly disapprove. We should stop the violence by invoking the universal respect for the basic dignity of all human beings.
We teach our children to disapprove of homosexuality, to shun the behavior and those who would seduce them into it. We teach them that this is a necessary element of their conscience and of their adherence to religious faith. And these teachings are precisely what this curriculum of homosexual acceptance seeks to undo.
Freeing children from the disciplining authority of moral formation in such particulars, in fact, could lead precisely to rampant violence. Teaching children to disregard their consciences is the surest path to lawlessness.
What right do government-funded schools have to dictate the path of conscience by which individuals achieve the result of becoming law-abiding people? The state has the right to expect that we shall be law abiding and nonviolent. But our Constitution forbids the dictation of religious conscience to produce that result.
Going beyond the requirement of universal respect to the requirement of particular acceptance requires shocking religious conscience, and undermining the moral education that all parents are obliged to give to their children. It requires interference with the free exercise of religion in a way that destroys the meaning of the First Amendment.
It is possible to teach people to respect each other out of respect for God, for the Constitution, for the law and for the principle of human dignity without requiring acceptance of particular lifestyles and sexual behaviors as morally equal to others. In its zeal to prevent violence to the body, the state must respect the wisdom of its founders and refrain from committing more serious violence against the soul.
The buried secret of the U.S. Senate
Around the Web