In yesterday’s article, I pointed out that the history of Harvard’s slide into theological liberalism and moral libertinism was gradual but methodological. Those holding the minority and opposing worldview were willing to bide their time as conservatives set the stage for their own self-destruction. Conservatives believed that “playing nice” and inviting the opposition to the party in terms of “dialog” and “civil discourse” would lead to acceptance and good will. Don’t believe it; don’t ever believe it!

The latest trap is being set by those who want to dialog over the issue of homosexuality. Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, writes, “When it comes to homosexuality in public schools, we need not agree on what is right or wrong. But by bringing both sides of the issue into discussion, we can find peace.”[1] Can you imagine what would have happened if this same approach had been taken with segregation or slavery? The anti-segregationists went into the battle with their feet firmly planted on the moral high ground. They weren’t going to concede to the claim of moral neutrality. Their best weapon was their claim that segregation and slavery were unjust. Anything less and Blacks would still be sitting in the back of buses singing “we shall overcome.”

Why doesn’t Mr. Haynes adopt the same methodology and appeal to evolutionists to leave the dogmatism of their position out of the debate over origins as they engage in “civil discourse” with creationists? The Darwinists would have none of it. On this point, the Darwinists deserve credit. They defend their worldview against any and all opposition. They don’t give an inch to challengers. If only Christians were so valiant, and, dare I say it, dogmatic.

There is only one goal that the pro-homosexual lobby wants to achieve—break down the resistance to the homosexual lifestyle without ever discussing what homosexuals actually do. It’s obvious by the way rules for “civil discourse” are devised that the person with pre-conceived views on the immoral nature of homosexuality could not participate. Furthermore, there is no standard by which final moral decisions are to be made. In the end, all the two sides can agree on is to agree to disagree. Once this concession is made, the homosexuals have won.

For decades, religion in general and Christianity in particular have been expunged from public (government) schools in the name of the First Amendment. How many times have we heard the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State use the First Amendment to keep debates about religion and origins out of the schools? That’s why it is disingenuous for Mr. Haynes to claim the following: “Religious liberty and freedom of expression are inalienable rights for all guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.” The First Amendment is a one-way street. It is used to deny students with religious convictions the right to express themselves in the classroom. At the same time, the First Amendment is used to gain access to students who are cut off from parental authority and influence.

Once the public (government) schools have been homosexualized, the First Amendment will be used to exclude all opposition. The claim will be made that opposition to homosexuality is an “establishment of religion.” Abstinence education is often denied because many who advocate it are operating from a religious point of view. The same is true of abortion and Intelligent Design. Let’s not be fooled by “civil discourse” rhetoric; it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

It’s time that Christians set the guidelines by starting their own schools and establishing the ground rules for entry. Hopefully we’ve learned some lessons from what happened to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.


[1] Charles C. Haynes, “A moral battleground, a civil discourse,” USA Today (March 20, 2006), 15A.