Discrimination to protest discrimination?

The petitioners believe that religious institutions should not be able to act on their moral beliefs. The idea that “you can have your beliefs, you just can’t live by them” is tyranny in the guise of “enlightenment.” Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody subscribes to the view that you can act on whatever moral beliefs you happen to have. We don't think that it is okay for sexists to act on their moral beliefs when doing so leads them to engage in sexist behavior. We don't think that it is okay for cannibals to act on their moral beliefs when doing so leads them to engage in cannibalism. You seem to think that it's wrong for a significant group of philosophers to act on their moral beliefs when that would involve their responding to discrimination against homosexuals. Maybe the philosophers are wrong, but don't pretend that they are doing something you aren't and don't pretend that they are doing something wrong just because they are saying that there are some beliefs you shouldn't act on.

The comment above is a bit confusing to read, but once decoded, it does show the significant flaw in the original post. While everyone has the right to define their own set of ethics, it is repugnant to try and force their ethics on others; sadly religious nuts have been doing this for millennia. "The idea that “you can have your beliefs, you just can’t live by them” is tyranny in the guise of “enlightenment.” The above is a slick statement, and I would guess that the poster was pleased with himself for his literary cleverness, but I fail to see how it even remotely applies here. If someone does not believe in Homosexuality, then this is their right to do so; however nobody is trying to force *them* to engage in it; for that would by 'tyranny' in itself. However to ask those people NOT to REPRESS others who do engage in Homosexuality is NOT tyranny in any stretch of the imagination except only to the extremely disillusioned. This seems to be the mental wall that very religious people cannot ever seem to scale. In summary Jason, you CAN have your beliefs and this petition is not impinging on your right to live by them. However to try and deny others to live by their beliefs is what the petition is fighting against. Who is the 'tyrant' now? Jane

"We don't think that it is okay for sexists to act on their moral beliefs" I suppose this hinges on what you mean by sexism. I view sexism as when a member of one sex demeans other – generally through harassment or sexual advances. In that case, I would say that sexism is not a moral stance. I would also say that cannibalism is not a moral stance. The APA petitioners ARE doing something I am not, that is they are trying to prevent people from living their religious beliefs. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

"you CAN have your beliefs and this petition is not impinging on your right to live by them. However to try and deny others to live by their beliefs is what the petition is fighting against. " Actually the petition is not fighting against that. It's goal is to force religious institutions to accept homosexual activities in opposition to the beliefs of those institutions. Our country was founded on a belief of religious freedom. The philosophy 😉 behind this petition is that acceptance (and to be honest, promotion) of homosexual activity trumps religious conviction. "Who is the 'tyrant' now?" Your argument would prohibit any moral stance whatsoever. Every college I know of has policies that prohibit plagiarism. Your position argues that plagiarists must not have their right to plagiarize impinged because they do not hold the moral belief against it. Every academic institution has just become tyrannical for preventing plagiarists from exercising their choice. No, there is no tyranny in a religious institution requiring its members to adhere to its moral code. It's freedom of association. Those who want to engage in homosexual activity are not required to attend such an institution. Thanks for commenting.

Actually the petition is not fighting against that. It's goal is to force religious institutions to accept homosexual activities in opposition to the beliefs of those institutions. Our country was founded on a belief of religious freedom. The philosophy 😉 behind this petition is that acceptance (and to be honest, promotion) of homosexual activity trumps religious conviction. Jason (if I may), Have you actually read the petition or have you just read Beckwith's remarks concerning the petition? The petition is for the APA to act, not for the religious institutions you are concerned with to change. The APA has a non-discrimination policy that seems to require them to refuse to allow institutions that violate it from advertising in the APA's publications. The petitioners have demanded that the APA either act on their policy or junk the policy. That's a disjunction. Note that conforming to either of these disjuncts requires an action on the part of the APA alone and in carrying out that action the religious institutions do not need to change their behavior at all. What these institutions have to do (depending on the APA's response to this) is either advertise in some other publication or deal with the fact that in advertising with the APA an asterisk will be placed next to their name to note that they are being censured. I'm sorry but if you had read the actual petition and knew the issue you would see that the issue _is_ about freedom of association, but not in the sense that you suggest. If the APA puts out its own publications, it gets to set its own standards about who gets to advertise in those publications and what the terms are. If you don't believe me, you can read the actual petition. Here it is: To: American Philosophical Association Many colleges and universities require faculty, students, and staff to follow certain "ethical" standards which prohibit engaging in homosexual acts. Among these institutions are Azusa Pacific University, Belmont University, Bethal University, Biola University, Calvin College, Malone College, Pepperdine University, Westmont College, and Wheaton College. All of these institutions advertised in 'Jobs for Philosophers' between 2006-2009. Further, none of these institutions were listed as censured institutions. The American Philosophical Association professes to uphold the following anti-discrimination policy: The American Philosophical Association rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional activities in which APA members characteristically participate. At the same time, the APA recognizes the special commitments and roles of institutions with a religious affiliation; it is not inconsistent with the APA's position against discrimination to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school's religious affiliation or purpose, so long as these policies are made known to members of the philosophical community and so long as the criteria for such religious affiliations do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement. Advertisers in Jobs for Philosophers are expected to comply with this fundamental commitment of the APA, which is not to be taken to preclude explicitly stated affirmative action initiatives. The APA Board of Officers expects that all those who use the APA Placement Service will comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable regulations concerning non-discrimination, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. We, the undersigned, request that the American Philosophical Association either (1) enforce its policy and prohibit institutions that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from advertising in 'Jobs for Philosophers' or (2) clearly mark institutions with these policies as institutions that violate our anti-discrimination policy. If the APA is unwilling to take either of these measures, we request that the APA publicly inform its members that it will not protect homosexual philosophers and remove its anti-discrimination policy to end the illusion that a primary function of the APA is to protect the rights of its members. Sincerely, The Undersigned