DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHRISTIANS
by Gary L. Morella
he freedom of religion clause in the Constitution guarantees that people of
faith will not be discriminated against. This is exactly what is happening at
Penn State. There is no difference between the university allowing the
desecration of a Roman Catholic icon and the university locking out my computer
accounts to keep me from exercising my right to free speech in response to
university issues which are anathema to my Faith. It's discrimination by any
definition.
In the first instance, absolute rights which don't exist are conveyed to the
artist. Her rights stop when they infringe on the rights of Christians
guaranteed persecution free practice of their religion. If nativity creches
aren't allowed on university property for the celebration of CHRISTmas, an act
looked upon as promoting religion, how can desecrations of religious icons be
allowed which attack religion? You can't have it both ways.
In the second instance, absolute rights are conveyed to the promoters of the
homosexual, alternative lifestyles on this campus by suppressing the right of
those who would disagree - the promoters being unashamedly favored by the
University given the many references to conferences, meetings, and classes
highlighted in the faculty paper INTERCOM and the student paper COLLEGIAN.
Most recently, the celebration of "gay pride" month was held at Penn State for
the first time in the history of the University. Again, said absolute rights
don't exist as they conflict with a large segment of the campus community who,
on religious grounds guaranteed by the Constitution, object to same. The right
of free speech exists to voice objections to public forums either in the same
forum or directly to the people involved. To say that you cannot respond
directly to something objectionable in the free press is a violation of free
speech. Anyone who chooses a public forum to promote a special agenda de facto
accepts the consequences of hearing from those tho don't hold to that same
agenda. To prohibit someone from using e-mail to do this is no different than
prohibiting someone from using the U.S. Mail.
The argument has been made that one is using university property and, as such,
the university can dictate who speaks and who doesn't, i.e., can dictate your
rights. Universities who receive federal and/or state funds such as Penn State
have a difficult time making this argument because they are being subsidized by
taxpayers who find themselves paying for the promotion of special agendas
counter to their Faith. It's not the president of Penn State, Graham Spanier,
the board of trustees, the faculty and students who own Penn State, it's the
entire citizenry of the Commonwealth. It does not sit well in Harrisburg or
Washington when funds are being doled out to institutions that have
demonstrated an ability to discriminate against a large segment of their
constituencies.
In the case of so-called "gay rights", a line has been crossed where behavior
has erroneously been equated with skin color and ethnicity - the former being
changeable, the latter not. The government, state and local, doesn't recognize
this with the DOMA act passing both legislatures overwhelmingly as the prime
evidence. Yet, Penn State has no problems promoting the virtues of the
homosexual lifestyle by giving domestic partner benefits to a special group
claiming civil rights where none have been held historically. (Reference the
most recent decision by Penn State to allow domestic partner benefits to the
homosexual community in regard to the sale of athletic tickets as reported in
the COLLEGIAN.)
I have never initiated any correspondence with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgendered (LGBT) Alliance or sympathizers to same. Rather, I've only
responded to their propagandizing in University publications or publications
reporting on University news. This is not harassment. This is the exercise of
my free speech to do so. To have a member from this group send e-mail to the
effect that they don't want to hear from me anymore has been respected with a
caveat in two instances - reminding said individuals that I have a God given
right to respond to them. To use this caveat as an excuse for the harassment
that I and my family have been put through as a result of Penn State cowering
to the unreasonable demands of representatives and/or backers of the LGBT
Alliance is cruel, and to the point, a violation of my constitutional rights.
I consider the actions of this group in threatening my free speech rights as
harassment by them. I consider their pontificating on the "virtues" of the
homosexual lifestyle as harassment to the Christian Faith of my family and to
the Faith of the Christian community on this campus. I consider what Penn
State has done to me as harassment of a Christian member of the faculty who was
exercising his right in legitimately responding to University issues.
When you stifle dissent, you destroy democracy. You destroy the very fabric
for the existence of universities like Penn State that pride themselves on
being tolerant of all with, apparently, one exception - people of Faith. When
you do this you create an unhealthy atmosphere where intimidation by a radical
minority becomes possible. Witness the president of a proposed new campus
group called STRAIGHT to combat the promotion of homosexuality on campus, in a
recent COLLEGIAN article, being told by the LGBT Alliance that any faculty
member considering advising STRAIGHT would be "committing career suicide."
Is this the United States of America or is it something unrecognizable
because of the state imposed religion of secular humanism being forced on the
citizenry by an activist judiciary counter to the tenets of the Founding
Fathers who wanted freedom of, not from, religion? Do the deaths of all of the
people who fought in America's wars still mean something?
For the president of Penn State, Graham Spanier, to direct the Communications
Security Officer, Ms. Katherine R. Kimball, to lock out my computer accounts
per a telecon that I had with Ms. Kimball on Sunday January 26, doesn't speak
well for the state of democracy and free speech on this campus. It is pure and
simple discrimination to squash opposing views to university policy. In my
case, it is religious discrimination as I did nothing other than to defend the
beliefs of my Roman Catholic Faith which are being constantly assaulted by
those promoting the homosexual lifestyle on this campus. It is a violation of
my right to free speech. In summary, it is ILLEGAL and will be challenged.
Penn State has shown a callous disregard for people of Faith by its nonaction
in regard to the desecration of a statue of the Mother of God despite
nationwide revulsion. Furthermore, judging by the tenor of the reports from its
various news sources and statement of policy regarding the allowance of
domestic partner benefits to homosexuals for athletic events, it has created an
atmosphere of hostility to Christians on campus by blatantly promoting
lifestyles which are counter to Judeo-Christian principles. Christians, to
quote a recent issue editorial in the COLLEGIAN, would be described as
"ignorant persons" since "by opposing homosexuality all you do is expose
yourself for the ignorant people you are." The irony is that it is these very
same Christians who are showing the most charity and love to homosexuals by
caring enough to tell them the truth as opposed to the lies emanating from our
institutions of higher learning. You don't even have to be a believer to see
the truth of the Natural Law. The consequences for ignoring same are well
documented by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta.