Yeshiva University

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

News about transgender issues tends to deal with women’s athletic competitions and shelters, pronouns, girls’ locker rooms, public school sex education, competing rights claims (with parents on both sides of the dates) and resulting political and legal disputes.

There’s been less coverage of medical morality, especially concerning under-aged youths, and hardly any about how various religious groups understand gender and why.

Journalists should take notice when four vigorous arguments on the religious aspect appear in the space of just six days, as follows.

March 20: The leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized publication (.pdf here) of an important but little-reported transgender policy. It declares that Catholic health-care agencies “must not” perform or help develop chemical or surgical procedures to transform a person’s bodily characteristics into those of the opposite sex.

The stated reasons are theological and moral. Key quotes: “We did not create human nature; it is a gift from a loving Creator,” so human dignity requires “genuine respect for this created order.” Sexual differentiation is a reality “willed by God” and a “ fundamental aspect of existence as a human being.”

Therefore, surgical and chemical techniques to switch a patient’s sexual characteristics, or puberty blockers to halt youths’ natural development, “are not morally justified.” To the bishops, such interventions are “injurious to the true flourishing of the human person” and violate doctors’ basic moral maxim to “do no harm.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Another day, another RNS First Amendment story with zero focus on the First Amendment

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Another day, another RNS First Amendment story with zero focus on the First Amendment

Another day, another Religion News Service report about clashes between the First Amendment and the doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

As is the norm, this news story about a crucial First Amendment issue does not include the term “First Amendment.”

As is the norm, this RNS story does not include material about how many, not all, private faith-based schools — they exist on left and the right — require students, faculty and staff to sign covenants in which they choose to join a community that is defined by a set of core doctrines that members promise to follow or, at the very least, not to attack.

It is always crucial for journalists, when covering these stories, to ask if a private school has a covenant of this kind. If one does not exist, then this radically strengthens the case of students who argue that the school is discriminating against them.

As is the norm, the RNS story includes one tiny bite of information from the bad-religion people, while framing the conflict in the arguments of the good-religion people. In this case, alas, the bad-religion people won. The headline: “Federal court dismisses LGBTQ students’ class-action discrimination lawsuit.”

As always, let me stress that there is an important story here. Some Christian schools do a bad job — when recruiting and orienting students — of being honest about their covenants or handbooks. As I said, there are schools that do not have covenants, which means students (and parents) may not know what they are getting into when they choose to enroll at one of these private schools that are“voluntary associations” under the First Amendment. Hold that thought. Here’s the overture:

There is no legal remedy for LGBTQ students who claim they were discriminated against at their religious universities, an Oregon federal district court ruled in a high-profile case late Thursday (Jan. 12).

The judge dismissed the class-action lawsuit filed in March 2021 on behalf of about 40 students and former students at religious schools nationwide. The case, Hunter v. the U.S. Department of Education, claimed that the department failed to protect LGBTQ+ students at religious schools from discrimination.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This time, will U.S. Supreme Court finally clarify rights of same-sex marriage dissenters?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
This time, will U.S. Supreme Court finally clarify rights of same-sex marriage dissenters?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021-2022 term produced biggies on abortion, religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The term that opens October 3 will bring another blockbuster — if the high court finally settles the unending clashes over LGBTQ+ rights versus religious rights.

Newsroom professionals will want to watch for the date set for the oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis (Docket #21-476).

In this six-year dispute, graphic designer Lorie Smith is suing Colorado officials over the state’s anti-discrimination law, seeking to win the right to refuse requests to design websites that celebrate same-sex marriages, which she opposes, based on the teachings of her faith. She does not reject other work requests from LGBQ+ customers.

As currently framed, the case involves Smith’s freedom of speech rather than the First Amendment Constitutional right to “free exercise” of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the religious rights problem in 2018 (click here for tmatt commentary) when it overturned Colorado’s prosecution of wedding cake baker Jack Phillips (who is still enmeshed in a similar case per this from the firm that also represents Smith). Nor did the high court rule on religious freedom aspects when it legalized same-sex marriage in the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Last month, the Biden Administration entered 303 Creative (.pdf here) on the side of Colorado and LGBTQ+ interest groups. Essentially, the Department of Justice argues that as enforced in Colorado or elsewhere, “traditional public accommodations laws ... burden no more speech than necessary to further substantial government interests — indeed, compelling interests of the highest order.”

Smith has support from 16 Republican-led state governments and 58 members of Congress, while 21 Democratic states and 137 Congress members take the opposite stance alongside e.g. the American Bar Association.

The issue will face the U.S. Senate after the November elections as Democrats try to “codify” Obergefell into federal law but for passage may need to accept a Republican religious-freedom amendment. The Equality Act, which won unanimous support from House Democrats but is stalled in the Senate, would explicitly ban reliance on federal religious-freedom law in discrimination cases, include crucial laws passed by a broad left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools -- left, right -- can defend their core doctrines

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools -- left, right -- can defend their core doctrines

Back in the late 1970s, during the cornerstone seminar in Baylor University’s Church-State Studies program, my major professor made an interesting prediction while reviewing some documents that would eventually surface with the Bob Jones University v. United States ruling at the Supreme Court in 1982.

That case pivoted on questions of racism and claims linked to religious doctrine. At some point in the future, my professor said, the high court would face similar cases in which centuries of religious doctrine would clash with beliefs at the heart of the modern Sexual Revolution.

The U.S. Supreme Court would be challenged to equate the facts of racism with the mysteries of sexual identity (or words to that effect). At that point, traditional forms of Christian education would be at risk.

Anyone who has followed American politics in recent decades has watched this conflict march through religious and educational structures and into the headlines. The question, all along, would be if “progressive” thinkers — the word “liberal” is problematic — would find a way for the Sexual Revolution to trump existing legal standards defending free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.

Thus, Julia Duin wrote a recent post describing coverage of SCOTUS moves linked to clashes between the modern Orthodox Judaism of Yeshiva University and LGBTQ groups on its New York campus. See this post: “New York Times pursues ultra-Orthodox yeshivas in massive story that raises (some) Jewish ire.”

One of the stories she discussed was a Jewish Telegraphic Agency piece with this headline, linked to an earlier stage in this legal struggle: “Yeshiva U can block LGBTQ club for time being, Supreme Court says.” This case provides, Duin noted, an:

… interesting counterweight on what’s happening in Christian colleges across the country. Last week a group called Campus Pride released a list on what it considers “the absolute worst, most unsafe campuses” for LGBTQ students. Not surprisingly, Yeshiva University is one.

She then stressed this crucial passage in the JTA report:

Yeshiva University’s case could be complicated by the fact that it removed religion from its charter, essentially the text that gives it permission to operate in New York State, in 1967 in an effort to secure more state funding.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

When presidents of religious colleges gather, do they share any strategies for coming battles?

, , , ,

I’ve covered enough stories about the cultural battles endured by Christian colleges to wonder why they don’t team up with similar schools from other faith traditions to get more support. This week I saw a story from Religion News Service about a meeting that did just that.

Imagine presidents of several evangelical Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish and Catholic schools together on a panel. What was interesting was not so much what they did discuss but what they didn’t.

Let’s see: What’s the most newsworthy topic that you can think of right now in the world of Christian education?

It would have to be the doctrinal and lifestyle covenants that many faith-defined schools require people to sign — students, staff, faculty, etc. — when joining these voluntary, private institutions. This is often referred to as “freedom of association,” for this who follow First Amendment debates.

In terms of news, I’ve written before about how the California state legislature went after 42 faith-based institutions not long ago in an unsuccessful effort to forbid these colleges requiring statements of faith in order to attend. Keep that thought in mind.

WASHINGTON (RNS) — Like most college presidents, Ari Berman and Hamza Yusuf care about giving their students the best education possible in the classroom.

They also want to support their students’ rights as people of faith.

Faith-based schools help students “to contextualize our lives in a greater mission, to have a sense of holiness about everything that we do,” Berman, president of Yeshiva University in New York, told a gathering of Christian college presidents in the nation’s capital last week (Feb. 1)…

Berman and Yusuf, president of Zaytuna College in California, took part in an interfaith panel focused on what faith-based schools from diverse backgrounds have in common. The panel, which also included presidents of Mormon, Catholic and Protestant schools, took place at the end of the Presidents Conference of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, an evangelical consortium of more than 180 schools.

The most interesting comments in the piece came from Yusuf.

(Berman and Yusuf) defended their institutions as alternatives for students of faith who may be met with hostility from college professors at secular schools who consider their religion to be superstition or fellow students who don’t understand their beliefs.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

File this info: Here’s another Orthodox Jewish rabbi for journalists' source lists

, , , , , ,
File this info: Here’s another Orthodox Jewish rabbi for journalists' source lists

The Guy Memo last April 26 recommended that source lists include Orthodox Rabbi Shalom Carmy of Yeshiva University and Tradition journal, also a columnist for the interfaith First Things magazine. This is important because Orthodoxy is more complex and more difficult to cover than Judaism’s other branches.

For the same reason, journalists should also be familiar with Meir Soloveichik, 41, the rabbi of Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City and director of Yeshiva University’s Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought. Contacts: 212–873-0300 X 206 or msoloveichik@shearithisrael.org or msolo@yu.edu. He has become a powerful voice in discussions of religious liberty, among a host of other topics.

The rabbi studied at Yeshiva’s seminary and Yale Divinity School, and earned a Princeton Ph.D. in religion. In 2012 he was a rumored candidate for chief rabbi of Britain and the following year assumed leadership at Shearith Israel, America’s oldest synagogue (founded 1654) and the only one in Gotham till 1825. He is a great-nephew of the late Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (note different spelling), the revered “Modern Orthodox” teacher.

Meir Soloveichik is most visible to the general public as the columnist on Judaism and Jewish affairs for Commentary magazine. A good sample of his cast of mind is the cover article in the magazine’s December issue headlined “ ‘May God Avenge Their Blood’: How to Remember the Murdered in Pittsburgh.”

Soloveichik observes that the customary phrase to mark the deaths of fellow Jews is “may their memories be a blessing.” But with the 11 victims slain at a Pittsburgh synagogue, this is “insufficient and therefore inappropriate.” He believes the very different traditional phrase in that headline above must be used when Jews are “murdered because — and only because — they are Jews,” whether by a Nazi, a Mideast terrorist or a Pennsylvania anti-Semite.

Jews “will not say the words ascribed to Jesus on the cross: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ ” because a man who shoots up a synagogue “knows well what he does. … To forgive in this context is to absolve; and it is, for Jews, morally unthinkable.”

The intent of the curse is “to inspire constant recollection of their murder, to inspire eternal outrage, on the part of the Jewish people — and on the part of God himself.” And so it has been since biblical times, he writes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

A rabbi (who belongs on your sources list) unpacks info on Orthodoxy and Zionism

, , , , , , ,
A rabbi (who belongs on your sources list) unpacks info on Orthodoxy and Zionism

One of the oddest incidents during The Religion Guy’s decades on the beat was an annual Nation of Islam rally in Chicago led by Minister Louis Farrakhan (who was notably entangled with President Barack Obama’s former United Church of Christ pastor).

The oddity was that Farrakhan, America’s most prominent anti-Semite, invited Jewish rabbis to speak.

Not routine rabbis, of course, but spokesmen for Neturei Karta of Monsey, NY, a fierce faction of Orthodox Jews that condemns Zionism as “heresy” and accuses Israel of committing “aggression against all peoples.”

Orthodox Judaism’s traditional opposition to Zionism was a theme in Chaim Potok’s beloved 1967 novel “The Chosen” (a must-read for religion writers of all kinds). Potok depicted a friendship after World War Two between two Orthodox boys, the son of an ardent Zionist educator, and the heir to a Hasidic dynasty opposed to establishment of modern Israel.    

Reporters on foreign affairs, politics, and religion should be aware of Rabbi Shalom Carmy of Yeshiva University, whose latest column for the interfaith journal First Things discusses Orthodoxy and Zionism.  If not there already, carmy@yu.edu  belongs on your prime source list, since Orthodoxy is trickier to cover than Judaism’s other branches.   

Carmy makes a key point: “Secular journalists typically ascribe pockets of rigorously Orthodox antagonism to Zionism to the belief that Jews will only govern themselves in the land of Israel when the Messiah comes.”

That’s true for some Hasidic groups, he says. But historically, the rest of Orthodoxy had a different objection.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Here is a new federal data base reporters can mine for religion angles

, , , , , , , , ,
Here is a new federal data base reporters can mine for religion angles

On September 12th, the U.S. Department of Education unveiled its revamped College Scorecard (click here to see it), a trove of online data to guide parents and students on where to enroll that can also be a source of religion angles. The Obama Administration wisely scrapped its controversial plan for a college rating system, something of a mission impossible, and instead compiled hard numbers that citizens can judge for themselves.

The broad economic context was analyzed that same weekend by National Public Radio’s Adam Davidson, writing in The New York Times Magazine. For example, median income adjusted for inflation has remained nearly flat since 1974 while tuition at private universities has roughly tripled, and has quadrupled at public universities. Meanwhile those pricey college degrees have increased in importance for many careers. As the new Web site proclaims, “On average, college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than high school graduates.”

Much of this information was already available in those ubiquitous college guidebooks or the College Navigator site from the government’s National Center for Education Statistics. But the new site crunches Internal Revenue Service data to report graduates’ earnings 10 years out and how many are managing to repay student loans.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, the field’s journalistic bible, notes an important gap: Those newly added numbers cover only students who received federal loans or grants. Also, they lump together all students at an institution while earnings vary wildly depending on academic subject. The American Council on Education complains that the feds produced this setup without any review by outside experts.

No religious campuses are among the feds’ list of 23 schools commended for low cost leading to high incomes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy