Shorter University President Donald Dowless has notified the faculty and staff that they will now be required to sign mandatory pledges that affirm their rejection of homosexuality and other unChristian acts. The pledge, Dowless, insists, is necessary as an “affirmation of our Christ-centered mission.” It has caused a considerable controversy, though the countervailing religious practice rights should be considered.
The university in Georgia promises a “Christian education” as opposed to just an education.
Shorter University is a Christ-centered liberal arts university dedicated to academic excellence within the context of a biblical worldview. As a Christian university, Shorter is committed to keeping an emphasis upon a biblically sound, integrated, faith-based education that promotes a zeal for academic, spiritual, and professional growth. The educational process of teaching and learning involves the whole person, and Shorter is committed to the principle that all truth comes from God and finds its fullest expression in the person of Jesus Christ.
It now will only hiring or presumably retain “Bible- believing Christians, who are dedicated to integrating biblical faith in their classes and who are in agreement with the University Statement of Faith.” We have previously seen such rules applied to both faculty and students.
The personal lifestyle statement requires adherence to four principles: be loyal to the mission of Shorter University, do not engage in the use and sale of illegal drugs, do not view premarital sex, adultery and homosexuality “as acceptable” and refrain from the use of alcohol in the presence of students and in public. The University announced:
“Member campuses have a continuing institutional policy and practice, effective throughout the time they are members, to hire as full time faculty members and administrators (non-hourly staff) only persons who profess faith in Jesus Christ.”
The pledge raises a long debate over the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. I have long argued that anti-discrimination laws are beginning to cut into free exercise values. These people have a right to structure their university according to their own values. As an educator, I find it offensive and counterproductive to deny employment to faculty or staff who have different lifestyles or sexual orientation. It is anti-intellectual and defeats the mission of creating an open environment for learning. Of course, that is the conflict. Dowless and others view their mission as not learning but restricted learning. The university professes that it “deeply cares about the academic and spiritual development of its students and believes that students should be challenged academically and spiritually to impact culture.” However, that academic development must confirm to the “spiritual development” which means “biblically sound, integrated, faith-based education.” That means a process of exclusion that now includes any exposure to faculty or staff who may diverge in private from the dictated lifestyle of the university.
That makes them something less than a full educational institution and more of a church. That is their right, of course, but it is a shame that these students will learn in an environment that is not only artificial but discriminatory. That may be framed as a biblically correct education, but it is less of an education than an indoctrination.
Notably, the school’s motto may be Lux Veritas or Light Truth as opposed to the usual found at places like Lux et veritas, or light and truth. At Shorter, the light cannot be separated from the truth, even by a conjunction. Where this motto usually emphasizes the role of faculty in exposing different ideas to the light to find truth, Shorter views the light as the truth and the light is the biblical word. The light is not illuminating ideas, but the glow of faith illuminating the accepted truth for students. Their faith and their development, however, would be be profound if tested in an intellectual environment that emphasizes demonstrated thought as opposed to forced compliance.
Source: RNT
Jo,
Truthiness Lite in Latin would be Truthiness Lite. The Romans had no word for “Lite” (a marketing term coined by Miller Brewing) or “Truthiness” (a “Colbertism”). The closed thing would probably be small truth (veritatem parva) or partial truth (partialis veritatem).
Lotta, I have been looking for a translation of truth lite but cant do it.
If anyone knows enough latin how bout a translation of Truthiness Lite.
Their motto should probably be “Thuth-Lite”.
I’m with the ‘no public money’ crowd.
mespo……lol….What truth….
JT:
“Notably, the school’s motto may be Lux Veritas or Light Truth as opposed to the usual found at places like Lux et veritas, or light and truth. At Shorter, the light cannot be separated from the truth, even by a conjunction.”
********************
You mistranslated ol’ Shorter U’s Latin motto. It’s actually read as “Light on the Truth.” Common error.
I’m with Gene and Bette Noir
“Is there any question, for example, that Jesus drank in public?”
And if the wedding at Cana is the exemplar, it was the good stuff!
Jill
Milton probably got it right in PL: “So many and so various laws are giv’n;
So many laws argue so many sins.” A great number of laws are often promulgated and/or reformed following a crisis — including those encapsulated in religious texts. The Koran is essentially a code of laws — laws which immeasurably improved the lot of Arabians and even some of the populace of lands they conquered (The Crusades kinda screwed that up).
These laws are temporally bound. One may look askance at the treatment of slaves or women in such religious texts, but consider their lot immediately prior to the writing — the law usually improved their status at the time.
But religious laws are interpreted and enforced by religious leaders. In the case of Authoritarian leaders, such interpretations and enforcement rebound to their advantage (Pharisees, Christian Right, certain Mullahs). To maintain their advantage, the laws are interpreted and applied as immutable. It is a power grab.
The concepts of an inerrant text that can only be interpreted in a literal or traditional manner serve the Authoritarian religious leaders and their followers. This is the genesis of almost every fraction within the body and friction with the outside world
The genius of the 1st Amendment is its seeking to limit the power (if not the influence) of these Authoritarian religious leaders to ecclesiastic matters, and in the secular arena loosing many of the core values – inalienable, if you will – found in religious texts from their temporal bindings.
What Bette Noir said.
Their right to practice how they wish is protected, but We the People shouldn’t subsidize it.
If Shorter University wants to doom its version of Christianity to extinction by anchoring it to 19th century prejudices, so be it. We just have to make sure they’re not accepting any public money while they’re doing it.
Martin,
I think you are referring to the Feast at Cana. You are right that the host would have run out of wine if JC hadn’t stepped in at his Mother’s insistence.
I agree with Professor Turley that this University has the right to do what they are doing. I guess Christians aren’t allowed to be different, just Christians. It seems kind of the reverse of what JC was preaching.
And if Shorter U were to retreat to the position that one must not drink in public “to excess”, can we admit that there would have been enough wine at the wedding if Jesus and his crowd had not showed up?
They require adherence to four principles:
1. live out and model Christianity, plus
2. three other things.
It is a little like Superman’s commitment to
truth, justice, and, in addition, the American Way.
Is there any question, for example, that Jesus drank in public?
Frank certainly makes an interesting point!
It has always interested me to see which “iron clad” biblical laws are observed and which “iron clad” biblical laws are ignored. Obviously, people are making that choice as they do in every religion. Most of the time, people who act in a kind manner, do so in contravention of their own professed religious beliefs. The people who act cruelly are closer to the texts, but even they don’t strictly follow those texts to the letter.
Clearly religious law and texts are human made. If people must have a religion they could make some new texts, ones that are humane and constantly open to discussion and revision.
Well this will be a blow to all 3 students who go there. Tomorrow it will be only 2. Soon, no one will be left to buy this dried up angry whining.
I agree with JT that they should have the right to make these exclusions. However, anyone who feels that their faith can not be tested by different beliefs espouses a rather tenuous creed. Faith untested is not faith at all, but merely blind acceptance. Within a Christian context this attitude negates the lessons of the Gospels from which it has sprung.
Reflecting on my early bible training it occurs to me that God made Eve from Adam’s rib. That would indicate that they had the exact same DNA . . . Eve had a Y chromosome. Since God granted them marriage that is evidence that He supports two dudes being married.
Are any public funds expended by or on behalf or to the benefit of this university? — Pell grants? — federal loans? — research grants? -Cut ’em off.
Who is the accrediting agency? Can public schools reject graduates from such accredited schools?
What does it matter that the math teacher is an atheist? the electrical engineer prof. a Budhist?
Pretty damn weak God that He needs institutional help to prevent college age kids from being swayed from from the faith by the gay Chemistry teacher.
Colleges should be in the business of edifying their students, not just educating them — that means exposure to different ideas and especially different people. This cookie cutter mentality is an anathema to a decent college education. Dumb. It should also be a anathema to a Christian institution to substitute “Us against them” for their God mandated “Us for them.” Damnably dumb.
The university has a 1st amendment right to do as it did, others have a different 1st amendment right to scorn such a decision (which right the University will undoubted avail itself to whine, “Persecution.”)
Bunch of Hollow Weenies.
It is interesting they don’t have to sign a pledge to renounce communism – I think this is a pretty strong argument that they are all communists! 😉
Lux vertitas?
More like reprimatur in tenebris.