|
|
|
VI.) The BJCPA: Working to make gay legislation “politically salable.” 1.
The
issue raised in this section of our BJC flyer is the BJC’s willingness to work
with gay and lesbian groups to convert gay legislation that was “politically
doomed” into “politically salable” legislation by crafting a “religious
exemption.” This is one more
example of the difference between the SBC’s Christian Life Commission (now
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission or ERLC) and the BJC’s perspective and
approach to religious liberty issues. In
defense of the BJC, Mr. Tichenor argues that BJC general counsel Brent
Walker’s comments about making gay legislation “politically salable” were
ripped out of context. The full
text of those statements, however, are included on page 4 of our BJC
flyer.
2.
Tichenor
also argues that the BJC’s real purpose for getting involved in the gay
legislation was “to exempt churches and religious organizations from having to
comply with the provisions of the proposed legislation.”
He continues, “The truth is that the BJC was seeking to protect the
right of churches and religious organizations to not have to employ
homosexuals…” But, in a Baptist
Press article, dated June 2, 1995, the BJC’s religious exemption from the gay
legislation called ENDA (Employment Non-discrimination Act) was discussed by CLC
executive director Richard Land: “The
CLC’s Land said the exemption was insufficient and the BJC’s role offensive.
‘Our analysis of this legislation is that the exemption would not have
provided absolute protection to the Baptist Sunday School Board,’ Land said. ‘Most, if not all, SBC agencies, Christian bookstores,
Christian schools and some churches would also be vulnerable due to the BJC’s
inadequate exemption. It is
outrageous and deeply troubling that the BJC would consider a homosexual rights
bill to be all right, so long as it contains a token exemption for religious
institutions and churches, without regard to religious liberty rights of
individuals. In other words, the
CLC believes that a Christian business owner should have the right to make
judgments of character and not to hire homosexuals, whereas the BJC would not
protect such individual religious practices.
The BJC’s exemption betrays the acceptance of a mind-set which grants
mere toleration to those of us who oppose homosexuality, while at the same time
requiring absolute religious freedom to those who practice homosexual
lifestyles.’ The CLC will oppose
any bill granting civil rights protection to homosexuals, even if there is an
‘air-tight’ religious liberty exemption, Land said.”
3.
According
to a 1997 Associated Baptist Press story, “[ENDA] would not apply to
businesses and organizations with less than 15 employees.
Religious organizations would be exempt from ENDA’s provisions.
However, religious entities involved in for-profit operations would have
to comply.” In the same article,
former BJC general counsel Buzz Thomas, now special counsel for the National
Council of Churches, “submitted testimony in support of ENDA, calling it an
act of justice. ‘As a child of
God, every person is endowed with worth and dignity that human judgment cannot
set aside,’ said Oliver Thomas, special counsel for the National Council of
Churches. ‘Furthermore, we
understand that as Christians we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves
without exception. These principles
guide us to believe that every person is entitled to equal treatment under the
law.’” The article continues,
quoting the current general counsel for the BJC, making very clear the BJC’s
position on the ENDA legislation: “Another religious liberty specialist,
however said ENDA’s guidelines would provide the appropriate amount of
protection ‘The exception for religious organizations is critical to protect
religious freedom,’ said Brent Walker, general counsel for the Baptist Joint
Committee. ‘But those with
religious objections to hiring homosexuals should not be able to discriminate
when they engage exclusively in for-profit enterprises.’” (ABP article, “Employment non-discrimination bill creates
debate among religious groups,” Oct. 30, 1997)
4.
The
National Council of Churches’ support for ENDA should come as no surprise.
In a May 4, 1993 press release from the United Church of Christ, NCC
general secretary Joan Brown Campbell and two NCC presidents - Gordon L. Sommers
and Bishop Melvin G. Talbert - presented their names in testimony before the
U.S. House of Representatives in support of lifting the ban on Gays in the
military. Others offering their
names in testimony before Congress in support of lifting the ban and who serve
on NCC committees include: Dr. Herbert W. Chilstrom; Bishop Frederick C. James;
Dr. Daniel E. Weiss (also a member of the BJC’s board); and Dr. James Andrews.
(The press release was titled: ‘“Sexual
misconduct, not orientation, should be the issue,’ United Church leaders tells
House Armed Services Committee”) On the NCC’s web site,
under the heading “Assembly Related Events” for the NCC’s 1997 General
Assembly, two out of six of the related events were gay related. The first states: “Nov. 10 Worship Hosted by D.C. area
Lesbigay-Affirming Church Leaders.” The
second states: “Nov. 13 Gay/Lesbian Concerns Breakfast.”
NCC vice president Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, was one of the religious
leaders signing the RCAR letter supporting Clinton’s veto of the partial-birth
abortion procedure. Like NCC
general secretary Joan Brown Campbell, Ivory also serves on the governing board
of Americans United with BJC executive director James Dunn.
When former BJC general counsel Buzz Thomas went to work for the NCC as
their special counsel for religious and civil liberties, he stated: “It feels
very comfortable to me to be going to work with the NCC… It’s an organization whose views I think are mainstream on
these issues.” (Report from the Capital, June 14, 1994, pg. 1)
5. According to a Washington Times article, the gay legislation the BJC was working on (ENDA) also included bisexuality: “Under ENDA, ‘sexual orientation’ is defined as ‘homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether such orientation is real or perceived.’” (Aug. 22, 1996, p. A15) According to a 1997 report published by Gary Bauer’s Family Research Council: “ENDA also overrides the sodomy laws in 20 states.” (The Other Side of ‘Tolerance,’” Feb. 1997, p. 2) In another Baptist Press article entitled CLC Decries Clinton Stand on Homosexual Rights Bill: “When Clinton expressed his support of the Employment Non-discrimination Act, he became the first United States president to endorse a major homosexual rights bill.” (BP article, Oct. 23, 1995) By 1996, this once “politically doomed” bill, made “politically more salable” by the BJC’s religious exemption, failed in the U.S. Senate by only one vote. (Cal Thomas, The Tennessean, Sept. 12, 1996, p. 15A, also see above mentioned Family Research Council report, p. 2 ) ENDA was re-introduced in 1997, during the 105th Congress.
6.
Mr.
Tichenor argues that the BJC’s work to get an exemption for churches from the
gay rights legislation “is certainly a position which all Missouri Baptist
would endorse.” However, working
to make gay legislation that would exempt religious institutions but would leave
religious individuals forced to comply is not religious freedom at all. The only “religious freedom” being advanced by the BJC,
as Dr. Land pointed out in the above quote, is the “religious liberty” of
those in the homosexual lifestyle. That
may be the position of the BJC, but it is not a position held by most Missouri
Baptists. The religious exemption
was the BJC’s excuse to get involved in gay rights legislation that, according
to its own general counsel, would make a bill that was “doomed politically”
into a bill that would be “politically more salable.”
(Quotes belong to Walker) Land,
on the other hand, made it clear that the CLC will oppose any legislation that
grants civil rights protection to homosexual persons based on their
homosexuality. |