Massachusetts evangelical college is about to find out
What happens when faith-based institutions accept federal dollars?
Wow. Some people need to get out and see the world and read some real history
books. Religion or faith, though it has some knocks against it, has done more
for billions upon billions of simple people and their families, and thus for
societies, than any other force or influence. Those who use the examples of
other countries and talk about less violence, less crime, more morals-- shame on
you for amazing ignorance. You need to go travel-- pick a country, any country.
Try starting in South America, then skip over to the East Asia, then try India.
I'm sorry, but you are living in a vast mirage of ignorance if you believe
practically any of these other countries are "more orderly societies."
Try reading "Wild Swans" a history of China as told by a Chinese woman;
"Gulag Archepelago" a dark narrative of Russia during the revolution;
"The Story of Civilization" by Will Durant will take you on a tour of
these wonderful "more orderly societies." After reading, go travel,
like I have done. When society rejects faith-based morals, get ready for
massive oppression on a scale that should frighten all of us.
"Religiously minded people are easily manipulated."I've
found the opposite to be true. Religiously minded people - as opposed to those
who only pretend to be religious, or those who reject religion - tend to stay
true to a fixed standard that has existed for centuries, while those who
aren't thoroughly grounded with an an unchanging moral standard tend to go
with the flow.
"Religion is, among other things, a frontal assault on logic."That's not been my experience. Many decades of the study of science,
philosophy, and religion, and a sincere effort to live according to God's
will, have left me more convinced than ever of the reality of God. God's
commandments and teachings are completely logical. When we struggle with that
idea it is usually because we humans tend to have a very limited perspective.
With a broader perspective, the pieces fall into place and it's a beautiful
tapestry of reason and logic.Sometimes we struggle because of a
personal weakness, of which same sex attraction is an excellent example. The
fact that we sometimes struggle, however, doesn't change what is true or
moral. When we abandon God's advice and rely on a relativistic moral
"standard" (now there's an oxymoron), we're bound to do things
that will have regrettable consequences. We will, in fact, reap the whirlwind.
That's the nature of the universe we inhabit, and no amount of good
intentions or sincerity can ever change it.
@nonceleb: My brother lived for several years in two Asian cultures working for
a multinational company. The treatment of women is much, much worse in Asian
cultures in general than in our Western Judeo/Christian founded culture. The
rule of law is MUCH stronger in this country too. They tried and tried to bribe
him but couldn't do it. It is commonly done there all the time. He also
spoke of a violent porn culture there that surprised him greatly because the
cultures appeared to be so orderly and peaceful. So we are not perfect. But we
should be free to believe and to teach that sin is sin is sin. When we are not
free to do that catastrophe of epic proportions is not far behind. Food storage
"The assumption is that faith-based morality is superior. Asian cultures
influenced by Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism (all of which do not
adhere to a personal, rule-dictating God) have less social violence and crime,
and a more orderly society than Christian-based Western Civilizations."Read up on what the soldiers of the culture influenced by Shinto did to
their fellow beings in 1931-45 and get back to us regarding violence.As for "orderly societies," order is (1) a recent innovation in China;
the place was the Wild West until living memory; and (2) not necessarily a
function of morality, if order is enforced through a hard-line autocracy that
will shoot you in the head and bill your family for the bullet if you get an
inch out of line.
Every knee must bow and every tongue confess the dogma that when it comes to
sexuality, consent is all that matters.Other worldviews must be
suppressed with all the force of the Inquisition. That is what passes for
"liberalism" these days.
@ExTbird"The faith you have in a greater power isn't the
problem."LOL really..first time I have heard this before because
I have frequently heard this is one of the largest crux of the problem
but.....ok."At the same time you all believe that your specific
denomination is the "one true church of God". If that is true then
90% of the religious people in the world have been duped because their religion
is wrong."Not really..there is a large difference from going to
heaven, going to the celestial kingdom, and then exaltation within the Celestial
Kingdom.What most Christians believe heaven is is going to live with
Jesus (terrestrial).I personally believe that if people live
according to their specific religion they'll still be given an opportunity
to go to the Celestial Kingdom.(still living with Jesus but God too.)Just because you go to the Celestial Kingdom does not mean you are
"like" God. Exaltation and Eternal Life are two different things.We still are the "True" Church of Jesus Christ but others have
true in them and will be rewarded accordingly by the Father according to
following what they personally believed.
"Hmmm...and it is from religion that the ideas such as "thou shalt not
kill, thou shalt not steal, etc." were really standardized."Unfortunate that he didn't have the time to put "thou shalt not
discriminate against people while hiding behind my name" on the list. Maybe
that was too long for the tablet. Stupid cosmic stationery!
@Aurelius maximusReligiously minded people are easily manipulated.
The faith you have in a greater power isn't the problem. It is the faith
you put into your church leaders that puts you at risk more than us dirty
heathens. God might be incorruptible, but man sure isn't which is your weak
spot. You believe what the prophet/pope/whatever tells you because you believe
that he won't lead you astray.At the same time you all believe
that your specific denomination is the "one true church of God". If
that is true then 90% of the religious people in the world have been duped
because their religion is wrong. If the Roman Catholic church is the true
church then the LDS church is a lie. Joseph Smith was a fraud. If the LDS
church is the one true church (which most people here at DN believe) then the
Pope as some explaining to do etc. Same goes for every other religion. You all
claim to be the "one true church" so the vast majority of religious
people are wrong by your line of thinking. Easily. Manipulated.
I find it interesting how many are trying to "cure" the world of
religion. The world has already been gradually declining in religious thinking
in general from decade to decade. I don't believe it is because of
Atheists either.The capitalists in this country have already got
that covered. Some of the biggest Churches in the US are known as Stadiums.
Instead of learning about Christ and loving your neighbor they are learning
about sacking the QB and tackling as hard as they can.@ ExTBird"Religion is, among other things, a frontal assault on logic. People
have a right to be free from your religion's prejudice."Hmmm...and it is from religion that the ideas such as "thou shalt not
kill, thou shalt not steal, etc." were really standardized.Granted they might have existed and been thought about but a Religion like a
government is what really started enforcing these ideas.
@ nonceleb"Asian cultures influenced by Shintoism, Confucianism,
Taoism, and Buddhism (all of which do not adhere to a personal, rule-dictating
God) have less social violence and crime, and a more orderly society than
Christian-based Western Civilizations. These cultures have proven you do not
need a belief in a God to be a moral society."The key word is
"moral". It all depends on what you define as moral is. If moral just
consists of not killing each other then you are correct for the most part. I
doubt you could say the morality in the United States is the same of these Asian
@ExTBird"Hitler himself wasn't a fan of religion, but he
understood the power it has to control and used it. I know it makes the
religious folks uncomfortable, but I didn't start us on this line of
commentary. The facts are facts, there was a religious influence surrounding the
nightmare that was WW2. So is someone wants to try and compare body counts to
prove some childish point you have to at least give credit where it is
due."It is interesting / funny how you think that religiously
minded people are always soooo easily manipulated.I have heard this
line of commentary frequently from atheists.I don't think
brainwashing is limited to religious people tho. I think brainwashing is the
inability to think differently. It steps out of ones normal thought patterns
and into another.It is common to see a lot of the same thought
patterns over and over again on these boards. To me that is an inability to
think differently.I don't recall anywhere in the scriptures
where we are commanded to be close minded. I could be wrong.
Religion is, among other things, a frontal assault on logic. People have a
right to be free from your religion's prejudice. They are free of it and
will remain that way. Slowly, but surely you're losing ground on this
fight all over the country. I'm okay with it being viewed as an attack if
that is how you want to see it. You have insulted those poor people long
enough. It is time the government put you in your place.19 states
have made it legal, and 9 states have had the ban overturned and are waiting
appeal. Only a matter of time before justice actually wins out and this
nonsense is stopped from coast to coast.
Craig wrote: "If what they want is to follow their religious beliefs,
I’m behind them 100% as their vocal ally. But if they want to cite the
First Amendment as their loophole from compliance with the law, they’ll
have to look elsewhere for support."What you're saying is
that there's an easy way around any right - all you have to do is pass a
law against it, and then those who wish to exercise what was once a freedom are
then somehow obligated to obey the new law and abandon their rights simply
because the law passed. The real problem is that the law itself violates a
fundamental right and should not have been passed, and, failing that, should be
struck down.Gay marriage is, among other things, a frontal assault
on freedom of religion.
I think everyone here should be careful about what you try to label as
"fact". You're both wrong. The details surrounding big events are
never as black and white as people try to make them seem. If you try to speak
in absolutes all the time you are going to get yourself in to trouble.Trying to lay the fault of the Nazi massacre at the feet of Christians is
wrong. It is just as wrong though to try and pretend like those events were
completely free of religious influence. The "fact" is that there are a
lot of contributing events that made WW2 so horrible. Both religious and
non-religious. It was only really when you mixed them both together that things
turned very ugly.If WW2 is a example of anything it is that evil men
will do evil things. Doesn't matter if it is for church or state. I do
think it is the prime example on why keeping the two separate is so important.
Religious zealotry mixed with government/military might goes bad for everyone.
ExTBirdFirst, the facts are the fact. Non-religious zealots are
simply more efficient killing machines. If the issue is that being
non-religious is better, the facts do not back it up.Second, errant
religious zealots have been a problem and have killed folks. No question.
Often more in the name of politics identified with religion than specifically in
the name of religion only but that does not mean it is not a problem.Third, overall religious folks are good guys (not just talking Christianity)
who do a lot of good and help their societies.Fourth, Hitler may
have used a lot of things to further his agenda. But he was not religious and
his agenda was not religiously motivated. Whether others who participated use
religious dogma to allow them to participate in the slaughter is likely. But of
course there were non-Jews who suffered at his hands due to their religion.
Let’s be realistic. Most of these madmen are equal opportunity killers.
If you don’t go along with them, you can be next.
@Sharrona--"Positive Christianity was a movement within Nazi
Germany which blended ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of
Christianity. Hitler included use of the term in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi
Party Platform, stating "the Party represents the standpoint of Positive
Christianity"-- Little tidbit from the article.While it might
of been a abysmal failure, and had plenty of opposition (Confessing Church) the
point is that there was a religious, Christian influence. Hitler himself
wasn't a fan of religion, but he understood the power it has to control and
used it. I know it makes the religious folks uncomfortable, but I didn't
start us on this line of commentary. The facts are facts, there was a religious
influence surrounding the nightmare that was WW2. So is someone wants to try
and compare body counts to prove some childish point you have to at least give
credit where it is due.
"What happens when society rejects a faith-based moral standard?"Why not ask Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China etc. How
did it work out for them?
RE: ExTBird The Nazi party has ties to Christianity? Dietrich
Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and
key founding member of the Confessing Church. His book,The Cost of Discipleship
became a modern classic.Bonhoeffer became known for his staunch
resistance to the Nazi dictatorship, including vocal opposition to Hitler's
euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews. executed by hanging on
April 9, 1945, 3 weeks before Hitler's suicide.RE: A Quaker:
Good enough for,“The accreditation of an 'evangelical
Christian”. The Apostle Paul,”We know that the law is
good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the
righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and
irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the
sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and
liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound
doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God
which he entrusted to me.
A Quaker, "There is much faith in America, but it is a
diversity of faith. You're welcome to your own beliefs, but so is everyone
else. Where acting on your beliefs violates the legal rights of others,
that's where we need to draw a line."Bravo my friend. I
support everyone's right to their faith. Just keep it to yourself where it
belongs. Do that and we all get along. Try and make the law enforce your
beliefs and we run into the problem we are facing now. People will not stand
for discrimination just because you try to hide it behind faith. Freedom of
Religion is your right. Just like I have the right to be free from your
@sharrona: Not good enough. 150 signers doesn't begin to scratch the
surface of religious diversity. (And, I must tell you, that any list including
Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, and Brian Brown, antigay lobbyists who lead no church
but instead make a rich living peddling hate and fear, is not one I'd be
proud to see my religious leaders on.) There is far more to
Christianity than Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical. You
don't get to choose which denominations are Christian or what they must
believe. I don't see many mainline Protestant pastoral signatories. As
for other religions, that declaration explicitly excludes the beliefs of Jews,
Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention the traditional Ancestor Worship
religions of the Far East. There is much faith in America, but it
is a diversity of faith. You're welcome to your own beliefs, but so is
everyone else. Where acting on your beliefs violates the legal rights of
others, that's where we need to draw a line.
@Twin Lights"Religion might of killed countless people...but
Atheists have killed more!"How sad that the so called "good
guys" have to use Stalin/Hitler's body count to hide their own.
Religion claims to have the answers to fix society. Religion loves to try and
claim the moral high ground in pretty much every debate...ever. Everything
religion does it does in the name of God. So the fact that there is even a
measurable body count (one that has to be hidden behind Hitler no less
*eyeroll*) is enough for many people to stay as far away as possible. From
where I am sitting the biggest difference between a Atheist and a Religious
person is that the Atheist will at least be honest about why he is killing
you.Also, do some research into the Nazi party/Hitler that goes
beyond 9th grade history. The Nazi party has ties to Christianity, and Hitler
himself used the New Testament to try and show that Jesus was Aryan and
antisemitic. There was religious reasoning behind the massacres of WW2, it is
beyond ignorant to act like religion played no part in what happened to the
Sharrona,Regarding the quote, I would be in support of this.
RE; A Quaker, Whose faith?The “PALE” of Christianity.
The Manhattan Declaration: (united in the belief of the Triune God), Orthodox,
Catholic, and Evangelical Christian leaders support "the sanctity of life,
traditional marriage, and religious liberty", signed by more than 150
American religious leaders. The sanctity of human life, the dignity
of marriage as a union of husband and wife and the freedom of conscience and
religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are
compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this
declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every
human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing
inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of
man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by
believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society
and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the
example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created
in the divine image.@Twin Lights, Don’t you think most
Mormons would agree with above?
If the school said that they will not hire anyone having sex outside marriage,
OK, maybe.But then, the school discriminates if it won't hire
legally married Gay people.And, of course, no one really goes on a witch
hunt to find whether a straight employee is having unmarried or adulterous sex,
barring flagrancy--- while they will assume the "sinner" Gay
employee will have unmarried sex.I agree that they should not have
people giving religious instruction who do not follow the codes of their church
-- but cafeteria workers, gardeners, secretaries?And where in the
world do they recruit straight women gym teachers and straight male choir and
show directors? Fantasyland?
I'll ask this question again. Whose faith? Mine? Yours? The
Pope's? The Orthodox Jewish Rabbinate's? The ISIS Caliphate's?
The Australian Aborigines'? The former cannibals of New Guinea?
Catholics? Lutherans? Methodists? Presbyterians? Eastern Orthodox? Seventh
Day Adventists? Episcopalians? Buddhists? Hindus? WHOSE faith?Count the number of different churches and houses of worship in any
decent-sized town. Is it not clear to you that "people of faith" cannot
agree on what that faith should be, or how it should be practiced? The history
of Christianity alone is rife with schisms, some of them violent, most of them
upsetting. Early members of my denomination were hung at the gallows for
heresy, not in Teheran, but right here in America by Christian government
officials. (Look up Boston Martyrs.)One of the reasons we have so
many faiths expressed in the USA is our religious freedom, and the key to that
freedom is that no one may be compelled to hew to any particular faith. We do
that by not enshrining any into law, yet allowing all to coexist.
Max Power (and anyone else claiming religion has claimed the most lives)Sorry. But Stalin, Mao, Hitler (who had an interest in the occult but
was not religious), and Pol Pot outstrip the competition.
@Kindred"will not hire someone whose activities, not proclivities or
identity, are at odds with the school's teachings about living a moral way
of life."It is about proclivities or identity because the
"activities" they're against is anything that would show what the
proclivities/identity of that person are. Their desired policy is simple:
conceal, don't feel, don't let them know; make one wrong move and
>>The First Amendment was never intended to give religion a special
dispensation from the rule of law.First, you're taking an
extreme interpretation of the argument -- no one is saying that religions should
be immune from the rule of law. That's a straw man. Second, I
think you're ignoring the clause that says, "...or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..." The First Amendment was very much intended to prevent
government from compelling people to engage in practices that violated their
beliefs and consciences. Of course it has limits, and the Supreme Court has
ruled accordingly; no right is absolute. But the Founders clearly intended for
people and churches to have very wide latitude in how they practice their
beliefs. Any government interference must have an extraordinarily justification.
Aurelius maximus,"....What I understand from this article is
that religious folks are just asking to continue to live the way they have been
living according to their faith."______________________________If what they want is to follow their religious beliefs, I’m behind
them 100% as their vocal ally. But if they want to cite the First Amendment as
their loophole from compliance with the law, they’ll have to look
elsewhere for support. For that, they might fare better if they try the U.S.
@Maxpower"Some of the worst deeds in history have been done in the
name of Faith Based Morals. The Crusdades, The Inquisition, Mountain Meadow
Massacre, Waco just to name a few."Plenty of bad deeds happen
daily and have nothing to do with faith at all. Thousands of abortions daily,
nutrient deficient foods that cause cancer, nuclear bombs that killed thousands
upon thousands in Japan during WWII, just to name a few.Science has
plenty of the blame to share for the problems of the world. In today world it
probably has more especially in the past century leading up to today.
@ slcdenizenEver heard of a fallacy because you just used one when
you said this : "Faith-based moral standards? Women are burned
with acid and stoned to death under the same "moral" banner in other
countries. Why would these 15th century education requests deserve a second
thought? Society's train is moving at a steady pace, either jump on or get
lost."It is known as : False Analogy: The fallacy of
incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion.
E.g., "Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal human being
can’t be tied down to one single lover." Comparing people
what people in one religious country to us and what we are doing in our country
is ridiculous.What I understand from this article is that religious
folks are just asking to continue to live the way they have been living
according to their faith.
Wow. Based on the majority of these comments, the blind are out in force today.
The assumption is that faith-based morality is superior. Asian cultures
influenced by Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism (all of which do not
adhere to a personal, rule-dictating God) have less social violence and crime,
and a more orderly society than Christian-based Western Civilizations. These
cultures have proven you do not need a belief in a God to be a moral society. In
fact the Muslim world, which is God-intoxicated and faith-based morality is
enforced with a vengeance, is the most violent, oppressive, and chaotic part of
the world. As for those who say we need even more religion, the extremism and
intransigence of religious fundamentalism (which is growing faster, while
moderate Protestantism is declining) contributes to many turning away from
religion altogether. In both religion and secular humanism, moderation is far
more effective in fostering a civil society.
@ Andrew: Sorry, the facts do not back up your assertion. All those things
have actually been decreasing recently.@ Nancy: No one is being
prohibited from practicing their religion, they are merely being required to be
responsible for the consequences of their decisions - including following the
laws governing the operation of a business they may choose to have.
Nancy L.V.,“...The First Amendment says: "... the United
States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment
of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion."______________________________You’re being either sloppy or
slightly creative in your ‘quotation’ of the First Amendment.
Let’s take a look at the precise wording which reads as follows.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."I take that to mean
only what it says. It prohibits a law specifically respecting an ESTABLISHMENT
of religion or the free exercise thereof. It says nothing about religion not
being bound by the same laws that are applicable to one and all, both the
religious and the non-religious.The First Amendment was never
intended to give religion a special dispensation from the rule of law. But
that’s the way it’s being twisted and misrepresented by
today’s right wing religious zealots.
Not sure how folks think there is no connection between secularization of
society and moral decay. Divorce, murder, out of wedlock births, infidelity,
violence, drug use, robbery, abortions, incarcerations, property crimes. All of
these result from lack of faith in God and keeping the commandments. Each has
increased significantly for the last two centuries accelerating since the 1960s.
Seems like we need more religion not less religion. Let's not get confused
about what is good and what is bad. Sorry if some of you have been wronged by
religion in the past or some religious people; but let's not miss the mark
on what is really happening.
>>You're welcome to your moral and religious standards. Just please
quit trying to impose them on others. A lot of us aren't interested.That argument is common, pithy, and false. Gordon College isn't
forcing a moral standard on anyone; quite the opposite, it's the
school's opponents who are trying to impose their moral standard on the
school.Every BYU grad is familiar with this exact situation -- the
same arguments have been hashed and rehashed for decades regarding the BYU Honor
Code. If you don't like the Code, don't attend the school. Once you
choose to attend and are required to follow the Code, don't complain that
someone is forcing a moral standard on you. The obligation to live the standard
was the consequence of the choice you to made to be there despite thousands of
reasonable alternatives. If the obligation is distasteful, make a different
If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, what makes us think that Man
can go around God's back and legislate morality? The First Amendment says:
"... the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law
respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of
religion." If anything there has been a breach in the “free exercise
of religion” or religion is under attack! This leaves religion no other
option but to file law suits to exercise what has been legally protected for
hundreds of years under the U.S. Constitution!!!
You're welcome to your moral and religious standards. Just please quit
trying to impose them on others. A lot of us aren't interested.
So, the executive order in question would state that companies that choose to
bid for contracts from the Federal Government and get paid by taxpayer money
must not discriminate against those taxpayers in their hiring practices.If companies want to be allowed to discriminate, they can simply choose
not to bid on federal contracts.No one is forcing anyone to do
anything.Those who claim a higher ground based on "faith-based
moral standard[s]" should not be seeking super-citizenship and an exclusion
from the laws that everyone else is expected to follow.
"What happens when society rejects a faith-based moral standard?" Not a
darned thing, either good or bad. Except, of course that religious dogma and
practices aren't imposed on people who don't agree with them and/or
don't follow them.
This has nothing to do with "religious liberty" and everything to do
with prejudice, bigotry and discrimination. Truly sad.
If God, science, and personal observation all tell me one thing, and people who
stopped reading this sentence when I said the word "God" want to try and
force me to support otherwise, said people aren't terribly convincing.
"What happens when society rejects a faith-based moral standard?"______________________________My response to this latest
emotionally-charged Deseret News leading headline is that a diverse society not
under obligation to adhere to moral standards that are faith-based. It is
however under obligation to protect all citizens from discriminatory practice.
The larger question that begs and answer here is why a president of an
evangelical Christian college would sign a letter claiming religious liberty
protection from Federal anti-discrimination policy.
Abandoning faith based moral standards is arguably an improvement. This is
evident in the number of religious ortganisations seeking the right to
officially endorse bigotry and discrimination.
Here we have another example (among many) of reasonable religious views being
made out as ridiculous by closed-minded media and politicians. From the
article, the stance of the school is that they will not hire someone whose
activities, not proclivities or identity, are at odds with the school's
teachings about living a moral way of life. This position is held by any
institution. No business, government entity, or charitable organization would
reasonably be expected to hire someone whose activities are in direct opposition
to the principles on which the organization is built. It seems there is only a
problem when those principles are religious. Most honest people of faith
understand that all of us have desires that are not in line with the teachings
of their religion. It is whether we act on those desires, not the desires
themselves, that makes us moral or amoral. By the way, it is
ridiculous to point an accusing finger at religion because a tiny fraction of
its members perpetrated a crime. These crimes do not condemn religion, they
>>Why would these 15th century education requests deserve a second
thought?Because if the government can compel a private religious
institution to act contrary to its members' beliefs, then religious
freedom--all freedom of belief, in fact--is threatened. You're free to
think what you want about others' religious beliefs; but a government that
can compel private religious groups to violate their own beliefs could trample
anyone's freedoms (including yours) if they ever became unpopular with the
majority.I don't know whether Gordon College takes public
money. If so, it should have to abide by the public nondiscrimination standards.
Any group taking money from the public sphere should have to abide by public
standards; but an entirely private religious institution, taking no public
money, should be free to admit and employ only those who adhere to their
teachings.>>Some of the worst deeds in history have been
done in the name of Faith Based Morals.And some have been done in
the name of other pursuits and philosophies entirely disconnected from religion.
The fact that some religious people act immorally isn't a sound
justification for condemning religion writ large.
What happens? Absolutely nothing changes. The world keeps on going on as it has
since man first walked upright. Period.
One can be moral and areligious.One can be immoral and religious.Some of the worst deeds in history have been done in the name of Faith
Based Morals. The Crusdades, The Inquisition, Mountain Meadow Massacre, Waco
just to name a few.If we simply do unto others as we would have
others do unto us (admittedly a New Testament teaching, but not necessarily a
faith based moral, just good common sense from the Master) then the ills of
society would disappear.
Faith-based moral standards? Women are burned with acid and stoned to death
under the same "moral" banner in other countries. Why would these 15th
century education requests deserve a second thought? Society's train is
moving at a steady pace, either jump on or get lost.