EDITORIAL
The Cincinnati Enquirer
Page A-12, January 27, 2000
Northern Kentucky Baptists twice rented their church camp to a group of atheists. They're hoping it never has to happen again.
The churches are pushing for an amendment to Kentucky's civil rights laws. They want exemption from the requirement that public accommodations, such as camps, be open to virtually anyone.
It's a reasonable request, as long as it doesn't go too far. Churches that own property used by the public shouldn't be permitted to discriminate at will. But neither should they be forced to compromise their faith for the sake of a rental agreement.
This is a classic conflict between fundamental liberties: freedom of religion and freedom of association vs. civil rights.
The camp in question, called Bullittsburg Baptist Assembly Camp, lies in Boone County near the Indiana state line. It's owned by the Northern Kentucky Baptist Association, composed of 66 local churches.
The property features a meeting lodge and cabins, which are rented to other groups when not occupied by Baptist organizations.
In 1996 and 1997, the facility was leased to the Free Inquiry group for its children's camp.
Free Inquiry members describe themselves as secular humanists. They put faith in science, and reason, not God. Their Camp Quest imparts these values to children.
Some Baptists on the camp's board questioned how this rental arrangement would further the cause of Christ. Others had no problem putting their beliefs up against secular humanism, says Robert Winter, an attorney for the Baptists.
"The whole issue created a great deal of discomfort for the 66 churches that make up the association," he says.
The board decided not to risk a lawsuit by excluding Free Inquiry.
Camp Quest has since moved to Lebanon [, Ohio], in part because of the tension in Northern Kentucky. Nevertheless, Free Inquiry members are concerned about the proposed change in Kentucky law. Rejecting renters because have different beliefs isn't very Christian, says Edwin Cagin [sic], vice-president of Free Inquiry. Adept at quoting the Bible for his own purposes, Mr. Cagin [sic] finds parallels in the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus' point was that the Samaritan acted more compassionately than the pious.
But the law should be amended. But the initial amendment went too far.
It would have exempted churches from the entire law involving public accommodations. Theoretically, anyone could have been barred from leasing the camp, including minorities and disabled people.
Such was never the intention, says Mr. Winter, the attorney. The amendment was later changed to clarify: Churches could refuse only when a rental compromises fundamental religious tenets. That is fair.
Church camps would still be required to rent to, for instance, racial minorities. Jewish groups also should be welcome, Mr. Winter says, because Jews believe in God.
Sometimes, hair-splitting is necessary in order to reach a fair solution. Churches shouldn't discriminate, but neither should they be forced to welcome atheism. A fine line can and should be drawn. Religious liberty can be protected without compromising civil rights.
(Letters are listed in the order received.)
Your January 27 editorial entitled "Atheists In Church: A Bad Law" was a strange mix of poor reporting and dubious reasoning. No law requires churches or other property owners to rent their facilities to anyone at all. The Kentucky law which the Enquirer inveighs against merely requires that once a church (or any other owner of public accommodations) has decided to do so, it cannot discriminate against prospective renters on the basis of religious belief.
The exception which the Enquirer urges be made in this fundamental civil rights statute would permit churches to refuse any rental that would "compromise fundamental religious tenets" of that church. African-Americans, Buddhists, Catholics and left-handed plumbers could be turned away if their presence at church-owned facilities was not compatible with church teachings. In other words, the exception would swallow the rule and turn the clock back to a time when with a wink and a nod, certain religious and racial groups would be effectively shut out of public accommodations.
My children have attended Camp Quest, the small secular humanist summer camp whose presence at a church-owned facility so discomfited the Bullitsburg Baptist Assembly. Under the leadership of the camp director, Edwin Kagin (whose name your editorial mangled), they were taught to evaluate religious beliefs with an open mind and a gentle curiosity. What a shame that the Enquirer believes this type of free inquiry to be so threatening that it warrants gutting all Kentuckians' rights to fair and equal access to public facilities--all in the name of a religion whose preeminent teaching is to love thy neighbor as thyself.
James F. Trumm
Toledo, Ohio
Can it be true that the Cincinnati Enquirer is advocating on its editorial page that one group of people discriminate against another group of people? It's true, and what's even stranger is that the Enquirer wants Christians to be allowed to discriminate. Throughout my lifetime, Christians have been accused of discriminating against women, Jewish people, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, Moslems, pagans, and many other minorities. While these accusations have merit, the Enquirer should realize that it does Christians no service to encourage them to discriminate some more, this time against atheists and secular humanists. Rather, one would think that the Enquirer would encourage some positive religious attribute, such as "Christian charity" or "love thy neighbor."
You made a fine distinction in your editorial: it is wrong to discriminate against racial minorities and Jewish groups, but okay to do so against atheists and secular humanists. "A fine line can and should be drawn," you said. The fineness of your line escapes me, however. Are atheists and humanists not people? Isn't discrimination against people--because of their beliefs, ethnicity, color, gender, and sexual orientation--wrong, because they are people? "Churches shouldn't be forced to welcome atheism," you argued, and churches shouldn't "be forced to compromise their faith for the sake of a rental agreement." I agree, but how is having atheist kids at a summer camp forcing churches to welcome atheism or compromise their faith? Are the church members being forced to attend, too? Does the presence of humanist children in their camp for a week cause their adult faith to weaken? Does the proximity of people who put their "faith in science and reason, not God," cause the camp buildings to absorb some sort of antitheist paranormal energy that radiates the Baptists the following month?
The current laws state that if a private organization rents its property to outside groups, it can't discriminate. The legislation of Kentucky Rep. Tom Kerr, allowing religious groups to discriminate against those with different beliefs, is not only unconstitutional and un-American, it is an abomination. It endorses bigotry by Christians against non-Christians, people who are otherwise kind, industrious, honest, patriotic, and law-abiding. No amount of "hair-splitting," as advocated by the Enquirer, can turn this bigoted and hate-filled bill into anything with redeeming human value, and I'm surprised that anyone would want to try.
Steven Schafersman
Midland, Texas
If Kentucky amends its civil rights laws so religious groups can discriminate against atheists, as the ENQUIRER recommends, that will not end an injustice. It will just grant another "special right" for religious believers. Why should atheists be singled out as the only group to which Christians can refuse to rent a public accommodation?
The ENQUIRER's proposed "solution," in which Christian owners must rent to Jews but could refuse atheists, tramples not only the rights of atheists, but of conservative Christians who may not share the ENQUIRER's ecumenism. If it's OK to discriminate against atheists, why shouldn't it be OK for arch-conservative Christians who regard Jews as "Christ killers" to snub Jews too? Where will it end?
It should end here, by letting Kentucky's existing law stand. Religious groups eager to discriminate can just keep their camp or other facility wholly within their own denomination. If they seek extra income by putting their facility on the rental market, then they must rent to everyone -- atheists most emphatically included. If Kentucky's Baptists are so eager to discriminate, let them stand on principle and turn their backs on Mammon. Surely that's not too much to ask of any Christian group.
Tom Flynn
Buffalo, New York
Editor
Cincinnati Enquirer
Dear Editor:
On January 27, 2000, your paper opined that the current attempt by certain self-righteous modern Pharisees to gain special rights to discriminate against those who do not believe in their God, like the children of Camp Quest, is a good idea that the Kentucky Legislature should pass into law. One might wish that, for this appalling assault on our American freedoms, you would have taken greater care to get your facts, your theology, and your spelling of my name right.
Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of secular humanists and other non-believers. It is operated by the Free Inquiry Group, Inc. (FIG), of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, and is endorsed by the Council for Secular Humanism and by the American Humanist Association. It does not proselytize, but it does attempt to offer safe haven for those bright and beautiful children who may feel themselves diminished in consequence of the incredible prejudices directed against them by those who see themselves as superior to them by virtue of nothing more than their diverse, and contradictory, beliefs in a supernatural world. We teach these children, ages eight to thirteen, that they are not alone, but are rather in the company of giants about whom history has too often lied. One of the reasons Camp Quest was started is because the Boy Scouts do not, in obedience to their views of virtue and Americanism, admit children who are avowed non-believers to membership.
For its first two years, 1996 and 1997, Camp Quest was held at a camp facility rented from the Baptists in Boone County, Kentucky. The staff of the camp knew who we were, and we knew who they were. Their staff wore their "Jesus is Lord" tee shirts, and we wore our Camp Quest (Question, Understand, Explore, Search, Test) tee shirts. We got along wonderfully, and we treated each other with mutual respect. One Baptist staff member very kindly conducted a fishing derby for us. One of their children joined us in our pool sessions. We made these most decent hosts of ours an aerial photograph of their campgrounds on one of our plane rides, and we discussed with our campers the Bible quotes the Baptists had posted on their hiking trail. We were told that our campers were more polite, better behaved, and kept the grounds cleaner than many of the religious children to whom they normally rented. Their staff was left, we believe, with a different view of secular humanists that they had previously held, and we left with a better feeling for those Baptists who believe in a God who wants them to be kind to everyone, regardless of their creed.
Now, three years later, some, whose religion appears to consist of views that Jesus condemned in the Sermon on the Mount and in the parable of the Good Samaritan, have asked the Kentucky Legislature, in HB 70, to amend the civil rights laws of Kentucky so that churches can discriminate against those who do not believe in the basic tenets of their religion when they offer their facilities to the public for rental or other public uses. As grounds for this request, they claim that they were forced, by current law, to rent to Camp Quest, and to its parent organization of non-believers. This apparently proved unbearably traumatic to those good Christians sponsoring the bill who were never at Camp Quest. Now, they want the civil rights law changed to assure that they will never again have to trespass against their understanding of brotherly love by being forced to acknowledge Samaritans as their neighbors. They of course have, and have always had, the option of not offering their facilities for rent to the public at all.
Their proposed law, HB 70, is an attempt to give special rights, not equal rights, to churches. As such, it appears to facially violate the Constitution of Kentucky. Section 59 prohibits "special legislation," and Section 5 guarantees, as one of our basic freedoms, that "the civil rightsof no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished on account of his disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching." In that this is exactly what the proposed legislation seeks to do, it is something our wiser ancestors saw coming. It is the sort of un-American activity they took great pains to prohibit and prevent, should any later day prospective tyrants ever again attempt to make their religion our law, followed by their inquisitions and heresy trials.
Just who, under the proposed law, will decide just what are the basic beliefs of any religious group? The courts? The camp staff Baptists, who saw their God and their religion as big enough to include the children of Camp Quest ("suffer the little children to come unto me"), or those Baptists who want the Samaritans kept off of their road? Questions of just who shall say what is to be believed have caused no little unpleasantness in the past.
We have separation of church and state in America so the Baptists and the Anabaptists won't have legal excuse to kill each other, so Catholic children do not have to endure forced readings of the Protestant Bible in public schools, and so churches cannot refuse, on what they choose to call religious grounds, to deny facilities offered to the public to atheists, to those who suffer from the last taboo. Under testimony in committee, those pressing the adoption of this law said they would rent to the KKK, for they believe in God. So did Hitler. The motto of the Nazis was "God With Us." The bill's sponsors, and your editorial, apparently find these God fearing folks less objectionable than the children of Camp Quest.
What Would Jesus Do?
Assuming the correctness of their views on reward and punishment in an afterlife, how will it be with those called before the Blissful Seat, before the great Judge of World, to answer for their deeds of life, when inquiry is made regarding just why they denied use of property dedicated to God to the children of Camp Quest.
Wonder if the reply, "Because they didn't believe in you, Oh God of Love" will prove to be an altogether satisfactory answer?
Edwin Kagin
Camp Director
Camp Quest
I am responding to your article regarding Camp Quest and the Bapist Camp. I am a counselor at Camp Quest. I do not understand the current trend to retreat back to the dark ages in creating law. If the proposed law is passed, there would be such a retreat. Your article states that the current ammendment would read, "Churces could refuse only when a rental compromises fundamental religious tenents." Anyone thinking that "that is fair," is kidding themselves and the general population.
Anything could compromise religious tenents. Why, there are still groups that use the Bible to promote racism and hatred. I am appalled that a newspaper would advocate creating such a law. I would also like to address your comment that we believe in science, etc. and not god and "impart those beliefs on the children." This statement would lead one to believe, (as you may have intended), that we are brainwashing these innocent young minds. The children come to us with their beliefs already ingrained. They learn about bugs, evolution, take fossil hikes, swim in the lake, take balloon rides, sing songs by the campfire, learn about human diversity and tolerance and are encouraged to question every single thing that they are taught. Does that sound like a camp that is "imparting beliefs on the children."
If you are still not convinced, then come to our camp and see for yourself what we do. It is easy to sit in your armchair and make judgements, it is not so easy to do your research and find out the truth. That is what we, as secular humanists do. Has journalism taken a different course than it used to take? Maybe it is just your paper that has done so. And Kagin is spelled with a K, not a C.
Lyse Hurd
Your January 27 editorial clearly implies that the last group it is acceptable to discriminate against is atheists, since under the proposed law you support, church camps couldn't discriminate against racial minorities and Jewish groups. Why discriminate against good people because after an earnest search of their hearts and the evidence, they honestly conclude that they cannot accept your belief in God?
Your position ignores the fact that atheists seek to be good neighbors and citizens, and that secular humanists in particular expend much effort to demonstrate that one can be a good person without basing their ethics on the interpretation of a few ancient principles.
You disregard the fact that many philosophers and scientists have concluded that the evidence for the existence of God is not convincing. Moreover, many people without such extensive education find it hard to square the existence of so many deformed babies and the suffering brought by catastrophic natural disasters with an all-good God.
Atheists and secular humanists, like blacks and Jews, should be given equal treatment until their behavior marks them unworthy of it.
Joe Levee
Cincinnati, Ohio
To the Editor:
Mea Culpa---I am guilty! As an instructor at the first Camp Quest I must admit that I took a telescope onto Baptist property and showed children, Camp Quest staff, and anyone else interested, the moons of Jupiter. I commented that this observation was condemned by the Christians at the time of its discovery by Galileo, in 1610, because it implied that the earth was not the center of the universe. This Copernican worldview had been condemned earlier by both Martin Luther and John Calvin as contrary to Scripture. Since the Catholics put Galileo under house arrest for supporting the idea, it is clear that my activity might have offended many Christians.
Why, indeed, should any decent Christian have to associate with me just because I am a member of the public? The justness of the expulsion of atheists from the rank of citizenship, as recommended by the ENQUIRER, could not be clearer. This distinction, as proposed in HB 70, reminds me of Section 187 of the Kentucky Constitution which states "...separate schools for white and colored children shall be maintained." We all surely agree on the greatness of that idea.
I await the day when we have our own drinking fountains and places to sit on the bus.
Bob Riehemann
Bellevue, KY
I assisted in a class at the Camp Quest in Bulletsburg. The class consisted of a hike through the woods where observed the scripture plaques the Baptist had erected to proclaim their doctrines. The class was an open forum in which the kids read the passages and asked questions and made comments on their meaning. I had time for comments and rebuttals. I gave a witness to my faith, but we respected each other. Although some of the teenagers expressed skeptism and doubts, I did not encounter any more skeptism (or outrageous interpretations) then I have at countless religious camps over the years.
The students and counselors were respectful of the Baptists and of my views. I tried to express respect for all views and doubts as well. I was unaware that the Baptists were so particular about the doctrines (or lack thereof) of persons or groups using their facilities. I am aware that public school districts use this facility for leadership camps. Do they have to pass a test of teachings in order to be welcomed guests? What if they teach that the world is older than 6,000 years? What if those school districts have policies that allow dancing or forbid discrimination against homosexuals?
What about other religious groups that do not hold to current Baptist teachings on baptism or may serve wine in communion? Can only fundamentalist Christians use this camp? If so do they reject all public funds, all tax exempt privileges? Many Christians have more in common with the Camp Quest kids than with the KKK or Christian Identity groups who celebrate hatred (and would be welcome under this new law). Jesus said, "It is not those who say Lord, Lord, but those who DO the will of God". Many people have been wounded by religious bigotry. The state has no business in justifying this brand of discrimination. The Church has no business in asking the state to intervene. As Ronald Reagan said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Pastor Mendle Adams
St. Peter's United Church of Christ