Topics

The Seminaries of the Left — Your Local University?

David French of the Alliance Defense Fund has written an important expose of the fact that supposedly secular institutions of higher education are teaching theology — but of a decidedly liberal bent.

As he reports in National Review:

Given the remarkable ability to reinvent its position on the free-speech clause of the First Amendment (from protesters to censors), it was only a matter of time before the Left began to rethink the religion clauses as well, especially the establishment clause. “Separation of church and state” has been a battle cry of the hard Left for many decades, but what if the Left ran the state — or at least dominated an important state agency? Would the Left remain dedicated to this allegedly bedrock principle? In the university context, the answer is clearly “no.” Faced with large and active religious student groups who are often engaged in public debate over the Left’s currently fashionable civil-rights issue — homosexuality — public universities simply cannot restrain themselves. They are taking sides, not just politically, ideologically, and culturally, but religiously.

French offers numerous examples of how supposedly secular institutions are are taking sides in theological debates.

From the Georgia Institute of Technology’s “Safe Space” Training Manual:

Many religious traditions have taught, and some continue to teach, that homosexuality is immoral. These condemnations are based primarily on a few isolated passages from the Bible. Historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities.

From the University of Michigan:

Some texts of the Old Testament are used to condemn homosexuality. Taken literally and out of context, Biblical passages can be used to justify slavery, prohibit the wearing of red dresses, and eating of shrimp and shellfish, and to reinforce the inferiority of women.

We are reminded once again that there are no truly secular institutions. Any institution that would deal with ultimate issues of meaning and morality must deal with issues that are, eventually, theological. The examples provided by David French demonstrate that supposedly secular institutions like these are taking sides on theological issues — in these cases essentially denying the authority of Scripture.

Once again, your tax dollars at work.