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
CEK,
That’s a classic joke. Love it. 😀
“Wrong. The APA caved due to political pressure from MHA groups. It was classified as a disease previously. There isn’t anything substantive that would indicate homosexuality is genetic. Such a notion is highly controversial and lacking evidence, at best. You are stating things that are simply untrue but you’re saying I’m willfully ignorant. Pot. Kettle. Black. Never said I hated homosexuals. That’s a strawman argument. There are lots of Christian ministries whose primary purpose is to minister to homosexuals and help them with their problems.”
Actually, I presented evidence. From the APA. There is no controversy among the scientifically literate let alone professional scientists. So not only is what I’m saying true, when I describe you as willfully ignorant it is also an accurate description. You should also learn what a straw man argument actually is. You said, “the emotion regarding homosexual behavior is not of fear, but of disgust”. Do you know what disgust means?
disgust, v., vt.,
1: to provoke to loathing, repugnance, or aversion : be offensive to
2: to cause (one) to lose an interest or intention
loathe \ˈlōth\. v., v.t.,
: to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance
dislike. v. v.t.,
1: to regard with dislike : disapprove : antagonism, hatred toward something
Synonyms: animosity, animus, antipathy, aversion, deprecation, detestation, disapprobation, disapproval, disesteem, disfavor, disgust, disinclination, displeasure, dissatisfaction, distaste, enmity, hostility, indisposition, loathing, objection, offense, opposition, prejudice, repugnance
Antonyms: approval, like, liking, love
You also don’t have to explicitly say hatred when you have synonymous words to value load your speech to make it more palatable. No one wants to sound like a bad person. It’s bad PR and harmful to your sense of self-worth unless you’re a psycho- or sociopath. However, if your reaction to homosexuals is disgust and (obviously) intolerance (as exemplified by your efforts to cure their “problem”), then you aren’t addressing your fellow beings with love, compassion and tolerance.
As to you your assertion “[t]here are lots of Christian ministries whose primary purpose is to minister to homosexuals and help them with their problems”? Sure homosexuals have problems like all people do, but their sexuality isn’t one of them. The problem is entirely that of hateful intolerant people such as yourself who think that because you’re hiding behind the delusion that because “Jesus is on your side” that gives you some kind of right to stick your nose into the private consensual sexual behavior of adults. If you really want to help homosexuals with their problems, you should start by minding your own business when it comes to their sexual preference. You aren’t going to help them by telling them that a trait analogous to blue eyes or blond hair (also recessive genetic traits) is a sin because you’re too stupid to understand science. The “problem” of homosexuality is entirely your problem and it’s a very thinly disguised and very un-Christ like hatred and intolerance.
For someone claiming to be a Christian (those who follow the teaching of Christ), you certainly don’t know much about your own religion either. The Book of Leviticus isn’t even from the New Testament let alone from one of the gospels that might have been written by people with direct knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. Nowhere does Jesus say He or God has an issue with homosexuals. I’ve read the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Gnostic gospels. You’re using the Hebrew Bible as a rationalization for what is essentially your intolerance problem, but to do so while hiding behind your Christianity is self-serving and hypocritical at best.
Jesus was big on tolerance, love and compassion. I hear Jesus was real big on those three things. You should try them sometime.
Instead of rationalizing your faults by hiding behind your religion, maybe you should put some work in on trying to live more like Christ instead. While you’re at it, maybe you should get a clue as well. Arguments from ignorance don’t look good on anybody.
C.Everett Kook: the homosexual agenda:
🙂
Thank you for clarifying that. Masterfully done. My first grin of the day.
Barney Collier, your lack of knowledge of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association committee work on the DSM shows. As a member of one of those organizations, I am quite familiar with the work of the committees to revise the DSM, and in fact was asked to provide input during the revision process. There was no political pressure. However, there was scientific pressure. During that time, the CT scan was put in use, as were improved EEG techniques. There was a dramatic improvement in neuropsychological testing techniques as well.
All those new data came flooding in and the conclusions were inescapable. When the data were compiled, it was clear that homosexuality was a normal condition for some people, and as such, it should not be a focus of treatment unless it was ego-dystonic. What researchers also found was, that when the homosexuality was ego-dystonic, it had more to do with the discrimination and persecution the patient suffered due to being gay than from the condition itself.
The committee followed the science, not politics.
did someone mention the “homosexual agenda”? yay!!
THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
6:00 AM Gym and Tanning Bed
8:00 AM Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 AM Hair Appointment
10:00 AM Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch (Salmon Benedict, roasted potatoes, mimosa)
2:00 PM
(1) Assume complete control of the US Federal, State, and Local Governments, as well as all other national governments;
(2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle;
(3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages;
(4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels;
(5) Establish planetary chain of “breeding gulags”, where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially-impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership;
(6) Bulldoze all houses of worship; and,
(7) Secure total control of the Internet and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles caused by the stress of world conquest.
3:30 PM Protein Shake
4:00 PM Tea Dance
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, and skinless chicken breast, with a crisp Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theatre
11:00 PM Bed du Jour
“Wrong. The APA caved to the facts of science. Their own research concluded that homosexuality is genetic but it can be influenced by environment. Your willful ignorance is almost as astounding as your very un-Christ like unreasoning hatred.”
Wrong. The APA caved due to political pressure from MHA groups. It was classified as a disease previously. There isn’t anything substantive that would indicate homosexuality is genetic. Such a notion is highly controversial and lacking evidence, at best. You are stating things that are simply untrue but you’re saying I’m willfully ignorant. Pot. Kettle. Black. Never said I hated homosexuals. That’s a strawman argument. There are lots of Christian ministries whose primary purpose is to minister to homosexuals and help them with their problems.
“The American Psychiatric Association acknowledged homosexuality as a disorder up until about 1975 where they caved from political pressure and changed position.”
Wrong. The APA caved to the facts of science. Their own research concluded that homosexuality is genetic but it can be influenced by environment. Your willful ignorance is almost as astounding as your very un-Christ like unreasoning hatred.
“Mfitch,
Were I in your position I think I would have made the same decision. Just as our society would generally condemn an academic preaching racism, preaching homophobia is also morally bankrupt. For those who would argue the primacy of scripture as a defense, I would note that Africans were considered inferior by the Southern Baptists and LDS to just cite a few religious instances.”
Homosexuality is a behavior, being black isn’t. There isn’t any comparison and some blacks find that argument offensive. Also those who use the phrase “sexual orientation” and claim they won’t discriminate based on “sexual orientation” unwittingly leaves room for any orientation – attraction to children, animals, etc… If it doesn’t include every “orientation” then it discriminates against certain groups. The homosexual agenda does not like to acknowledge groups such as NAMBLA, for example. The American Psychiatric Association acknowledged homosexuality as a disorder up until about 1975 where they caved from political pressure and changed position.
The word “homophobia” is a useless, meaningless cliche. Phobia implies some sort of fear, but of the general consensus, the emotion regarding homosexual behavior is not of fear, but of disgust.
If a university holds certain standards true and requires the students to acknowledge them, they have that right. Students who have a problem with it can go somewhere else.
rafflaw – I think you misread what I wrote.
I said if Jesus had not come, the host would not have run out of wine, meaning that Jesus and his buddies drank heavily. This is only an assumption, based on the idea that mom made Him go at the last minute.
And when asked to make more, He made a LOT more.
Presumably the host made a major miscalculation at some point, and I suspect it was because of an unexpected crowd of young males.
Harry,
Perhaps GN’s first single would be to cover “To Know Him is to Love Him”. I’d link the YouTube version but I don’t know how on this damn phone.
“Hey, maybe that’s what really happened to the Neanderthals?”
GAY NEANDERTHALS would be a great name for a rock group.
Slim D*!#ens — hell of a salutation you’ve got there. Compensating much? What are you afraid of? Maybe it’s who are you afraid of. Yourself?
“I do not believe any parochial or otherwise-private school should be publically supported by vouchers. If you want an education, go to a public school. If you want a church-based education, pay for it yourself.”
Amen
I can’t quite follow Slim’s argument. It seems to be that if homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, then an entire generation might be born gay and die out. But humans didn’t die out. Therefore homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. The logic of this is If P, then Q. But not Q. Therefore P. But this is an invalid argument form
It is statistically improbable, but nevertheless possible that an entire generation might be born with homosexual inclinations. Hey, maybe that’s what really happened to the Neanderthals?
What Gene said.
The brain is hard-wired for sexual identity at birth. Sometimes it is ambiguous (bisexual) and sometimes clear cut (straight or homosexual).
Brain development for sexual identity happens in the womb, not because you will it to be so. It is as much a part of a person as being right or left handed. When did you “decide” to be right or left handed? That is hard wired too, based on hemispherical dominance in the brain.
“Maybe you would be surprised to learn that this university is behind the curve in implementing these policies.”
Which curve is that? The one that ignores science?
“Hey, if being gay is not a ‘life style choice’, then why does the human race still exist?”
If you weren’t so hatefully stupid, you’d have been taught what a recessive genetic trait is and how it manifests instead of honing your faux moralizing skills to proselytize your homophobia.
Hate and intolerance is not a true Christian value. It’s hiding behind your religion to rationalize your irrational bigoted hatred and fear. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1953-02836-001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
Hey Mike, At one point in our country’s history Africans were considered “inferior” by the majority of the entire nation, not just a couple of groups. To imply anything less is simply a misrepresentation of the facts. (or in simplier terms for you to understand, a lie.) They were wrong, but that is the truth.
There are not teaching homophobia. Although many, such as yourself, would try to make homosexuality a “moral” issue, it is a procreation issue that makes it obviously an “unnatural” act. Regardless of your “moral” position on the issue, were would you be if you dad had been “gay”?
Slim.
Your first point to me merely displayed your poor comprehension skills. Your second point that acceptance of homosexuality would endanger the future of humanity displayed either complete ignorance, or perhaps your own unplumbed psychosexual depths. Is it possible that you believe acceptance of being gay would lead most men to a preference for male sexual partners?
Hey, if don’t like the policy then you can just suck my D*!#, but I wouldn’t enjoy it.
I wonder how many of you have even bothered to read these policies…. or did you see a newspaper editoral (oh, I meant to say “article”) and just jump on the band wagon? Hey Jonathan, did you even bother to do any research (like read the policies) prior to starting this post? Did you know that they are simply putting policies into a formal document that have been in place all along? (This is not “new” policy at this school.) You write about this as if it were “breaking news”. Maybe you would be surprised to learn that this university is behind the curve in implementing these policies. Do your research before you write a comment…….you will find that the majority of private Christian schools have these same policies.
FYI, The school is self-supporting without the aid of your tax dollars.(Thus the term “private”.) Don’t like to policy, send your kid to a public college, preferably a BIG one. Then your kid can learn the “ways of the world” through the use of your tax dollars. Don’t be surprised when your alcoholic son comes home at Christmas, or “comes out of the closet” at Thanksgiving Dinner. Escatasy doesn’t kill many college age kids does it? Maybe the 36 year old Chemistry Professor isn’t gay, but rather the father of your “soon to be born” first grandchild.
Let’s just all live anyway that we choose. That’s what this country was founded on wasn’t it, freedom? All the signers of our Declaration of Independence were not Baptist, but they were all believers in God. No atheist signatures on that document. Wasn’t there a country song that implied, “if you don’t like the way we do it ’round here, feel free to leave”?
Hey, if being gay is not a “life style choice”, then why does the human race still exist? If we are “born that way”, what is to prevent an entire generation from being “born that way”? Maybe we could solve pollution, world hunger, and natural resource depletion with a couple of “all gay” generations.
Although I do not agree with it, they have the right to do it, and you have the right to bitch about it. I guess you find that easier than trying to improve your own pathetic life. Hey Oro Lee, you posted at 9:58AM on a Friday, do you have a job, or do you just live off your government check every month?
“It is anti-intellectual and defeats the mission of creating an open environment for learning.”
They’re not trying to create an open environment for learning. They’re teaching like minded students their interpretation – preaching to the choir.
They have that right – just as Boy Scouts should be able to reject gay scoutmasters. However, as several have said before me, that changes when they become public organizations.
In that context, I do not believe any parochial or otherwise-private school should be publically supported by vouchers. If you want an education, go to a public school. If you want a church-based education, pay for it yourself.
I teach at a public university where I (still) have the academic freedom to say that there is nothing at all morally objectionable about homosexuality. I used to take a neutral stance in the interest of trying to let students form their own opinions.
But I came to think that I have an obligation to oppose beliefs that I think are grossly unsupported by evidence or argument. The fact that there are colleges and universities that condemn homosexuals as a matter of policy makes me think my obligation to argue for the moral acceptability of homosexuality is that much stronger.
Mfitch,
Were I in your position I think I would have made the same decision. Just as our society would generally condemn an academic preaching racism, preaching homophobia is also morally bankrupt. For those who would argue the primacy of scripture as a defense, I would note that Africans were considered inferior by the Southern Baptists and LDS to just cite a few religious instances.