The Rev. Eric P. Lee, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the seminal civil rights organization the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, is facing removal from his post because he supports civil rights. Lee came out vociferously against California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, which apparently did not please the folks at SCLC headquarters. They have commanded to him to appear in Atlanta to make a personal account of himself, and he has refused to do so.
Obviously, there is so much irony here that you could build a giant robot.
Before one begins throwing stones, of course, it's prudent to see if the SCLC had been officially opposed to gay marriage all along, likely on religious grounds. If so, one might plausibly argue that Lee should not have joined a group that held such a position.
Not so much. Per the New York Times:
[Lee] was told, he said, by the group’s interim president, Byron Clay, that the organization publicly had a neutral position on the issue.
Oh. So does that mean if the SCLC is also neutral on ice cream flavors, and Lee writes an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee arguing for Chubby Hubby's superiority, that he ought to be fired? Bad example. Probably a poor use of the SCLC's time. A better question is why would an organization dedicated to equal rights be neutral on such an issue? Perhaps the first C in SCLC has something to do with it. Whatever the reason, I would assume they were not neutral on the issue of biracial marriage.
So let's see if their official mission statement can help us sort this out.
In the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) is renewing its commitment to bring about the promise of “one nation, under God, indivisible” together with the commitment to activate the “strength to love” within the community of humankind.
Well, the "under God" part at least implies subscription to some kind of religious doctrine, and we know they are Christian, but lots of Christians support marriage equality. So far, the mission statement only supports the reasoning that they should be in favor of marriage equality, particularly since it believes that we must find the "strength to love." That does take strength, particularly when it comes to people different from you, as they well know.
Under the heading "The Organization," the website tells us:
The SCLC is a nonprofit, non-sectarian, inter-faith, advocacy organization that is committed to non-violent action to achieve social, economic, and political justice.
Wow, this is not getting any better. "Social, economic and political justice"? "Committed"? Sounds more and more like they're in violation of their own position.
This goes on. Under "Organization Focus," the SCLC states:
To promote spiritual principles within our membership and local communities; to educate youth and adults in the areas of personal responsibility, leadership potential, and community service; to ensure economic justice and civil rights in the areas of discrimination and affirmative action; and to eradicate environmental classism and racism wherever it exists.
Again, justice and civil rights. It does not say "but not so much for the gays" or "only for conservative Christians." Indeed, the organization description in the previous clipping makes a point of noting that it is "non-sectarian" and "inter-faith." Perhaps they are concerned that gay believers will marry gay atheists. Now that would be trouble.
It is understandable when nonprofits and advocacy organizations refrain from taking stances on issues that either aren't part of their focus or are in conflict with it. But the SCLC's own words, its own mission statement, says that it is committed to action for the cause of civil rights and social justice, period. It does not qualify, it does not exclude. And to threaten termination of one of its leaders because he holds a principled, positive position on this issue that is fully consistent with the mission statement of the group at least implies organizational opposition.
As the Rev. Lee told the LA Times, "Any time one group of people are denied the same rights as other people, it is unequivocally a denial of civil rights." Here's hoping that he keeps fighting for this extremely just cause, despite the anachronistic position of his national organization. But unfortunately, it seems that to the Southern Christian Leadership Council (many decades now removed from the days of Dr. King), all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.
I hate it that Orwell keeps turning out to be right.
* * * * *
Related Posts:
- The Apparently Weak Faith of the Unfaithful Republicans
- Charlotte Allen spews anti-atheist bigotry in the LA Times
- Does 'no religious test' for office mean religion is off-limits?
Comments
You're asking for a Christian organization to be consistent? Come on, you should know better than that.
I was captivated by this article. Secular? Did someone say secular? You wrote, “Before one begins throwing stones, of course, it's prudent to see if the SCLC had been officially opposed to gay marriage all along, likely on religious grounds.”
Nonsense. Please. Wall? What wall? Who sees a wall? The SCLC is first and foremost a civil rights entity not a ‘religious’ rights organization. Rev. Lee understands what the SCLC disrespects: the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This organization was founded in part by the Reverend Dr. King who, in his famous Letter From Birmingham Jail, chided the churches for their capitulation and acquiescence to civil rights violations.
While I salute Rev. Lee, as an activist and a retired attorney I remain amazed that our own activists have done more to perpetuate legal ignorance than they have to arm the community with the knowledge necessary to detect intellectual rubbish and legal claptrap.
Our gay Washington insiders in pa
Our gay Washington insiders in particular have not moved president Obama one inch on civil liberties simply because they insist in ignoring the elephant in the room – even though they are up to their necks in elephant _hit. But what can we expect when legal ignorance is exploited and perpetuated by our own advocates who remain silent about what’s really going on? The seminal issue is not marriage but Church and State. Be honest and tell the truth: this so-called civil rights lawyer has never once, not even once, provide even one legal reason for denial of civil rights. His only stated reason has been religion, religion, religion and more religion. “Secular”? Since none of our toothless lap dog activists have called him out on this what can we expect when he makes them look foolish?
We can best help ourselves by at least beginning to tell the truth: Barack Obama violates the First Amendment for the purpose of denying rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. When he d
Barack Obama violates the First Amendment for the purpose of denying rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. When he does this and keeps on doing it and our activists do not call him out in no uncertain terms I am a bit sick and tired of the complaints about self-inflicted wounds. To understand the critical legal dynamic see the following:
“The Big Chill: Why Obama Must Defend DOMA as He Works For Repeal”
“Obama, DOMA, Treachery, Betrayal and Invidious Gay Jim Crow Laws”
and see “Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo”
“Secular”? Perhaps some journalists might begin to have the courage to start telling the truth?
Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
(replace *** with www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.
(Replace *** with www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!