I left the following comment about the Mark Regnerus study over on this excellent article by Christian Smith: An Academic Auto-da-FÃ© - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education:
I'd already written elsewhere nearly every point Christian Smith makes in the article above about the Mark Regnerus article and study, all of which I have read. I have seen that many of the same thoughts have been original with very many people.
What I want to emphasize now though is that it is patently wrong to have expected Mark Regnerus to have thought of everything before publishing. Much of the criticism about his Article is level by a slang-loaded clique, which clique overlaps much of Sociology. How many cooks was Mark to have consulted before making his broth and serving it? Is it now to be required that before one undertakes research and publishes that he or she consults a large number of those in the same field and being sure to cover every viewpoint? That would become very nearly research and publishing by committee only and not a selective one at that. Would all such studies have to be as US Supreme Court and other such decisions where dissenting opinions are always allowed? Are we talking about equal resources and equal publishing space for opposing views? Who in the world would have the time or ability to do that without first remaking society? How would it be possible to avoid the tyranny of the majority who co-opt or dominate a field for more than the purest reasons, which is really one of Christian Smith's points too. Look, if someone or group wants to start a journal based upon what I've just mentioned, I'd be all for it; but would enough people participate to make it work? I would hope so, but it would take a great deal of honesty, which is in very short supply.
That said, rather than going into hyper-ventilation, which many seem to have done, what the homosexuals could have done is simply list the things they would like to be considered for inclusion in futures studies. What they absolutely should not have done is call for Mark Regnerus to be fired or disciplined. I won't reiterate the reasons. Christian Smith, others, and I have already made that case (case closed prima fascia).
Those linked articles by no means exhaust everything I've written and published on this issue.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)