While it’s true that there is a major disconnect over the moral issue, I didn’t focus on that as a means to disarm the issue. The fact is, when I wrote this post Belmont still hadn’t made an official statement. Everything the news media was writing about and the students were in a frenzy over was a narrative assembled from the speculating reports of some of the soccer players mixed with a few vague statements Howe made through her attorney. I wrote on the situation from this angle because I think there’s a lot to the termination part of the story (the core part, no doubt) that has yet to come to light. Without the facts of the case in that regard, it would’ve been irresponsible to opine with details either assumed or disregarded.

I quite agree that this is not a matter of mere disagreement between two groups, each trying to assert its moral superiority over another. What I want the reader and protester to understand is this: You simply cannot impugn another person or group for taking a moral stance and acting in accordance with that stance unless that moral standard is faulty, and it does no good to judge another’s actions by your own moral standard… unless there is objective truth and your moral standard is truly superior to their standard. That’s why I (and commenter Strunk D) have been trying to get some of the other commenters here to logically make the case that their morality is superior to Belmont’s.

We may (or may not) disagree over the superiority of different elements of our respective moral standards, but we agree that there is truth and a standard by which all things can be judged. Several other commenters seem to miss the contradiction in their own comments when they say, in essence, This isn’t about moral standards, it’s about what’s right and wrong!

I am an atheist with a small “a” and a secular humanist in life outlook. As such, I hold that my ethical code should always be amenable to change, in the light of new evidence. That, however, is a far cry from a moral relativistic point of view which might very well say something like what you claim the protesters believe:

“No one belief is more righteous than another, and that’s really the only right way to think about such things.”

While the relativist believes all opinions are equally truthful, I hold that the truth is out there — regardless of my opinion of it. As Sam Harris eloquently states in his book “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Help Determine Human Values,” we can use science to help determine the correct moral course of action. So I am in a way agreeing with you. This is a matter of two moral/ethical codes butting heads. And one is glaringly wrong.

To say that it’s simply two sides disconnecting over moral issues is to disarm the issue, throw one’s hands up and sigh, “you say potato. . .” But ethical decisions should be argued over, mulled, researched, and decided using the scope of our current understanding of the world. We know that our morals are better than those of Nazi Germany. We know that it is wrong to abuse children. To quote Sam Harris:

“We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience.”

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291863642&sr=8-1

We also know that we should not discriminate based on gender, skin color, sexual orientation, or gender identity. There are many countries where females are treated as second class citizens. Young women are ostracized . . . or worse. . . physical assaulted if they try to get an education. I think we can all agree that our morals are superior on this point. Civil rights should also apply to sexual orientation and gender identity, and I support measures to make current U.S. civil rights laws extend to these issues.

Imagine that you’re a staff member of a university whose programs are well respected in the secular community. The school’s enrollment advertising touts its top-rated programs and plays down its Christian roots. Students of all religions, ethnic backgrounds, and sexual identities attend for the excellent secular education. You try to live your life openly and honestly and engage discrimination wherever you find it. For this, you are shown the door. You are told you actively promoting a life of sin. If you continue on your path, you will burn forever in hell. Many of your students who are facing some very serious questions about their own identity are robbed of your positive influence. The financial backers of your institution want ignorance, superstition, blind faith, and the morals from a 2000 year old book to dictate your school’s ethical system. They seek to chain the university to the wall and prevent it from fully developing into the respected secular institution it so wants to be. As the fired faculty member, all you have is the way you feel and the backing of modern science. Not faith, but evidence. Make no mistake, this IS a question of competing morals. And Belmont University’s morals are clearly and utterly inferior.

Tony Youngblood

In other words, why are you right? In your earlier response, you merely appeal to what you think is a universally held moral assumption. I don’t disagree with that premise, but I’m curious as to why you think you are right. My guess is that you and I arrive at the same conclusion about human dignity based on different moral assumptions……

If you ever think you are right and someone else is wrong (and lest we bog down in relativism, that’s absolutely what you are doing: Belmont is wrong and gay civil rights are in the right), then you are claiming some sense of moral superiority. And since ALL of us do this in practicality (all of us make moral claims), then the answer isn’t to say we don’t have moral claims but to weigh moral claims on the basis of their own content and merit.

So, again, WHY are you right and Belmont is wrong? Give me a syllogism and not a slogan. I might not disagree with you. I’m just thoroughly unimpressed by your logic.

Let’s pretend that there are no laws against discrimination and that instead of being gay, this coach was fired for being female, or black, or over 60, or blind. I certainly hope we can agree all of those situations would be wrong. So now I pose your question to you, with those scenarios.

How would you defend their policy of discriminating against women (or any of the others)? Because that’s what you’re asking me to do. I believe that all people are equal regardless of their sexual orientation. It’s not a matter of “my way is better than your way”, it’s a matter of treating people equally because the gender you’re attracted to doesn’t make you better than someone else who feels differently.

“But I cannot answer the question you posed because it’s not a valid question. It’s not about moral standard at all, mine or the university’s. It’s about basic civil rights and I believe we’re all equal.”

Where does Thomas get such reasons to believe in basic civil rights and universal human equality? And while I believe such things, what has that to do with employment? And even if we aren’t talking about employment, why is Thomas’ standard better than anyone else’s?

Thomas, you simply must admit your presuppositions. You are appealing to an absolute standard that isn’t provable. And though I may agree with your presuppositions and premise, I disagree with the syllogism you construct and find your conclusions faulty.

So to ask more specifically: why is your belief—the belief that as a matter of civil rights, a lesbian working at a private educational institution, one which specifically forbids such a lifestyle, should be immune to termination due to her homosexuality and that to deny the claim is tantamount to a denial of full personhood for the individual in question—why is your belief more valid than Belmont’s?