Secularism, multiculturalism and same‐sex marriage: a comment on Brenda Almond’s ‘Education for tolerance’

Abstract

Although Almond argues that the contemporary West has lost touch with the value of tolerance, I argue that that value applied to those of different religions and sexual orientations is too minimal a standard for a pluralistic society. I suggest, in the spirit of the work of Charles Taylor and Tariq Modood, the more robust standard of respect and acceptance. In addition, I have criticised Almond’s privileging of parental values over school values, seeing in that privileging a failure to recognise both the civic function of schooling in a pluralistic society and the professional responsibilities of teachers to provide a safe and stigma‐free environment of learning (a goal both educational and civic in character). I argue that Almond’s briefly presented rejection of same‐sex marriage and privileging of ‘biological’ families is insufficiently defended. Moreover within the philosophical framework of her own concerns about the weakening of a commitment to marriage in Western society in the past several decades, I argue that she should be more supportive of same‐sex marriage. Finally, I argue that her account of the problems occasioned by new immigrant groups, especially Muslims, in the West is very sketchy and fails to connect with her critique of secularism.

Notes

1. This is a very oversimplified description of an historically complex process, briefly but usefully described in Heyd (2008). I think it is a fair representation of Almond’s view of toleration.

2. At one point, late in her paper, Almond appears to endorse a more robust standard of engagement with the other than mere tolerance. She speaks approvingly of ‘Tolerance of those living outside the framework of the natural family, and indeed the kind of acceptance and understanding that goes beyond toleration’ (p. 141: italics added). But this sentiment is not consistent with most of the remainder of her argument.

3. A good summary of widely‐accepted arguments against both individual and cultural relativism is in Rachels and Rachels (2010).

4. To be more precise, the harassment is targeted at students thought to be gay or lesbian by the harasser.

5. The survey was carried out by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a respected organisation concerned with the well‐being of gay/lesbian/transgender students in educational settings. The numbers are sufficiently high that even a more conservative estimate would leave millions of students suffering from verbal and even physical harassment (http://www.glsen.org/cgibin/iowa/all/library/record/2340.html?state=research&type=research).

6. Lutherans in the USA, Germany and Scandinavia are a major denomination that welcomes and encourages gays to become members of their congregations. Other denominations that have discussed this issue (as well as same‐sex marriage and the ordaining of homosexual and lesbian ministers) are Presbyterians, the United Methodist Church, the Quakers and the United Church of Christ (an American denomination). See references in entry on ‘Homosexuality and Christianity’ in Wikipedia: http:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_Christianity. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (http://lgcm.org.uk/) is a UK‐based international charity challenging homophobia and working towards an inclusive church.

7. A much‐cited discussion of the case, Mozert v. Hawkins, can be found in Macedo (2000).

8. Among the forms of diversity listed here, sexual orientation is much more likely than the others to be found within the family. That is, gays are overwhelmingly the children of straight couples. Typically, though increasingly less so, members of one’s family are of the same religion, race and ethnoculture, but sexual orientation does not ‘run in families’ in the same way. Even so, because of sheer numbers, a straight student is more likely to encounter a gay student in school than at home.

9. I would note, however, that at least in the USA, one of the major reasons that children in single‐parent households fare less well than those in two‐parent families is a combination of the lower wages earned by women, overwhelmingly the single parents in such households (though single fathers are much more numerous than they once were) and the feeble welfare system that dooms so many of them to poverty. Socioeconomic context is indispensable in any meaningful comparison of children’s welfare in single‐ and two‐parent households.

10. See report on research by American Psychological Association, and other research, in ‘What happens to kids raised by gay parents?’ Pittsburgh Post‐Gazette, 10 June 2007, available online at: www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm (accessed 25 November 2009). Of course one factor in comparing the two populations is that families with gay parents are frequently stigmatised and subject to discriminatory or hostile treatment. Although this may not affect the fundamental healthiness of life in these different living arrangements, it must have some impact on the everyday well‐being of the children in question. For this reason, in 2004 the American Psychological Association came out against all discrimination against gays and lesbians and in favour of (civil) marriage for same‐sex couples (APA Policy Statement: Sexual Orientation and Marriage, available online at: www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.html [accessed 12 January 2010]).

11. A Gallup poll in 2007 showed 53% of Americans saying they would not vote for an atheist for president, more than a homosexual (43%), a Mormon (42%) or a Black person (5%). These numbers do not, of course, reflect people’s actual votes, but are nevertheless a measure of the public stigma attached to these different categories. I have been able to locate this poll only on a blog www.outsidethebeltway.com: ‘Black President More Likely than Mormon or Atheist’, although the poll was much discussed when released in 2007 (accessed 12 January 2010).

12. Modood’s view is supported by a careful and in‐depth study by the political scientist Jytte Klausen of 300 members of the Western Muslim élite (city councillors, doctors, engineers). She summarises her view: ‘My central thesis is that Muslims are simply a new interest group and a new constituency.…There is a clash of values, but perhaps the most important is that between two old European parties, secularists and conservatives, as each struggles to come to terms with religious pluralism…Europe’s Muslims…are looking for ways to build institutions that will allow Muslims to practice their religion in a way that is compatible with social integration.’ (Klausen, 2005, p. 3).