As another example of poor thinking consider the following story (thank you Max for bringing this to my attention).
The management group (One Management) of a senior apartment complex is banning a group of tenants from having Bible studies, singing hymns, and displaying nativity scenes in the common areas of the complex because they say it may violate the Fair Housing Act. Vice-president of One Management, Jenny Petri, described the rationale for the policy change as follows: “Allowing religious ceremonies or displays of religious items in the property’s common areas may create the appearance that Heritage Court prefers or limits one religion over another, or even that it prefers residents who are religious over those who are not. To comply with Fair Housing laws, Heritage Court must remain religiously neutral.”
So let me get this straight, to avoid the appearance of discrimination against any one particular religion they discriminate against all religions by banning all things religious from the common areas of the complex? In the name of religious neutrality they are being anything but neutral, and yet they fail to see how self-contradictory their policy is. To ensure religious freedom it is believed we must ban the expression of religion in the public square. Such is the deception of political correctness.
The rationale isn’t even legitimate. Allowing a group of Christians to practice their faith in the common areas of the complex does not discriminate against other religions. The only way discrimination would be involved is if the complex allowed Christians to use the common areas for religious purposes, but not other religious groups.
Thinking to Believe 
May 16, 2006 at 8:08 am
Jason, you asked the following question, “So let me get this straight, to avoid the appearance of discrimination against any one particular religion they discriminate against all religions by banning all things religious from the common areas of the complex?” I can try to provide some insight here, but I must warn you that my answer may sound like a lawyer trying to avoid a question – so for that I apologize.
When tackling these kinds of issues, one must realize that words in “the law” can mean something different than usage in common parlance. The term discrimination is just such a term. From the text of the question I gather that you are thinking of discrimination as a show of prejudice against a group or groups. While this is how most people would think of discrimination, the law does not necessarily go by that definition. Black Law Dictionary provides the definition of discrimination as treat one group differently than another based on certain protected statuses. In the Fair Housing Act thoses statuses are race, religion, nationality, color, and sex (although age is normally included in this group, senior housing allows for discrimination against people under a certain age). Therefore, the management group is correct in defining discrimination the way that it has.
When considering that senior housing projects are typically receiving financial assistance from the Federal Government they must avoid any appearance that they are discriminating (based on the legal definition) against anyone in order to avoid losing that funding. Where an issue for them can arise is if another religious group is allowed display religious items in the common areas after banning the Christian items have been disallowed.
In total, the answer to your question is yes and no. Yes in the sense that banning all things religious from the common areas will satisfy the legal definition of discrimination to avoid violation of the Fair Housing Act. No in the sense that if they allow all religions to display their symbols in an equal way (which is much more difficult to do) then they can satisfy the definition as well.
With that said, because the displays are being done by individual citizens and not the management company, there are 1st amendment issues that must be wieghed in favor of the tenants. Without any detailed research, it’s hard to say how this would go, but it would seem that the Bible studies and hymn singing can’t be stopped but may be relegated to indoor areas (either apartments or if there is a room that can be reserved by any of the tenants). The nativity scene poses a slightly different issue, but if there is a sign the indicates that the management company did not place nativity scene there and the it does not represent the beliefs or opinions of the management company, then it may be alright. The bigger problem with the nativity scene is what happens when they allow the nativity scene and the Kwansa display, but the nativity scene is larger and more prominent? You may still have a discrimination issue.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but these are just my thoughts.
God Bless
Andy
LikeLike
May 18, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Andy,
My concern was not the management group’s definition of discrimination, but what they feel they must do in order to avoid it. To think you have to rule out all displays of religion in order to avoid discriminating (or appearing to) is hypocritical, because that sort of policy discriminates against the public expression of all religion, albeit equally. But who cares that it’s equal! The first amendment rights of people are still being unnecessarily limited. Such a policy is also unneccesary because anyone who wants to do the same as these Christians can do so. No one is being treated differently.
I’m tired of being told that we have to limit the expression of our religion to the private realm. That was not the view, nor the practice of our Founders. They wanted to increase religion by keeping it separate from the government. Now, for fear of the government we have to diminish the expression of our religion. It’s been turned on its head.
I don’t know if you read the article or not, but there were federal officials quoted as saying that the management group is misreading the Act, and going too far.
As a side point, based on the legal definition of discrimination I can’t for the life of me figure out how we can continue to allow affirmative action to continue in this country.
Jason
LikeLike
May 19, 2006 at 7:44 am
Jason, the definition I provided is not the definition of the management company, but the legal definition. This helps to explain why the management company was acting the way that they did. Based on the legal definition (accepted and used in the law) what they did was the most rational thing to do in order to follow the law.
I think part of the problem is that we are again talking past each other. Your analysis is a philosophical one that takes the action out of the applicable situation to determine whether or not it is correct (on a philosophical level). My response was a practical one based on the totality of the circumstances that existed at the time (application). Therefore, let me say this, on a philosophical level, I agree that this restricts our ability to practice religion uninhibitedly. However, if I were the attorney for the management company – which requires practical analysis and application – I would advise them to do just what they did.
There are a number of reasons for that, and if you want me to explain why I can. I not doing it right now because it may be somewhat lengthy.
LikeLike
June 21, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Andy,
Two things. I know you know this, but let me articulate it nonetheless. Law, while it should reflect what is true—and often does—does not always do so. There are some situations in which philosophically disastrous notions have been made law. I think our nation’s current laws (via judicial interpretation) regarding religion in the public square are often philosophically false, albeit legally true.
Philosophical truth takes precedence over legal truth when it comes to ultimate truth. Legal truth only takes precedence over philosophical truth in a practical sense because we have to function in a world ruled by fallible men, who have the power to force the power of the law on those under their jurisdiction. While it is true that 2+2 = 4, if the law says 2+2 = 5, and those who represent the law carry a big stick, then 2+2 = 5!
As someone with a background in philosophy I am more concerned about what is true in itself than I am about what is true only in virtue of the exercise of man’s will (law). The latter is your arena of knowledge, and I am glad for it.
Secondly, I still dispute the idea that the management company needed to stop the Christians in order to avoid committing discrimination even in a legal sense. They were not sponsoring or organizing these events. They simply provided a space in their facility for the tenants to use as they pleased. I would argue that the only point at which they discriminated in a legal sense is when they denied the Christians their right to use this room simply because they were using it for religious purposes, and the management company feared such a use might make them appear to be favoring Christianity.
Jason
LikeLike