Freedom of Religion? Not on MY Watch

Published on April 18, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

George Takei, of Star Trek fame, has joined with a group of activists going to faith based private universities in an attempt to force those universities to change their admissions policies regarding homosexuals. In a shameful attempt to coopt the first amendment to the United States Constitution, Takei and his group of gay rights activists want to discuss the issues of faith and gay rights with the administrators of these colleges.

This, in my opinion, is precisely what is wrong with the gay rights movement. The majority of Christians, even the conservatives amongst us, accept the presence of homosexuals among us, even if we don't accept the practice. Aside from the admittedly draconian anti-gay marriage laws, most of us don't care what you choose to do within the privacy of your own homes.

But many of us do, and will continue to, take issue with those who choose to demand we rewrite our doctrine, and change our religion, to accept the homosexual community, or any other community whose activities defy what we believe to be right, based on careful examination of the scriptures.

It is one thing to ask us to respect the rights of homosexuals to exist, to live and work freely amongst us without fear. That is a humanitarian request, plain and simple. It is quite another thing to ask us to discard the very foundation of our faith in favor of liberal interpretations of scripture that have no historical basis in fact in the faith of the Christian church.

Comments (Page 3)

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 20, 2006

As to erasing bible, you refer to the bible yourself, but then say that it is off-tpoic to use biblical references to challenge your own use. Can't have it both ways, Gideon.

No, you misunderstand me, sodaiho. My concern was that I was getting off topic, not that YOU were. My article was meant to center on the right of the Assemblies of God to believe as they do, not to act as an apologist for them. I don't care if it is introduced in the discussion, but I'm trying to keep from veering too far off my intended topic myself.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 20, 2006

Ah, there's the kicker. I'm sure that some of there students are on federally subsidized student loans. And until a university refuses to accept ALL federal funds, they are going to have to play by federal rules. And those rules say you can't discriminate (and it specifically mentions that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation).

Wrong. Some state laws may state that, but federal law does NOT include sexual orientation as a protected category at this time. While that will probably (tragically) change, it is not protected against discrimination.

BUT (here's the "big but"), federal funds should not, in my opinion, be used to fund religious instruction. To do so would seemingly violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. These universities should not, in my opinion, be receiving federal funds to teach their doctrine. If they are, it should be removed on THAT basis, not on the basis of excluding homosexuals.

shadesofgrey

on Apr 20, 2006

As far as job discrimination, you are right. However, Executive Order 13160 states that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in federally funded education and training programs. Therefore, I'd say that it's enforceable that a university can't discriminate based on sexual orientation based if they are receiving federal funds.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 20, 2006

However, Executive Order 13160 states that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in federally funded education and training programs.

"Executive Order"? What ever happened to the Democratic process?

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 20, 2006

However, Executive Order 13160 states that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in federally funded education and training programs.

"Executive Order"? What ever happened to the Democratic process?

cactoblasta

on Apr 20, 2006

Actually, I didn't list any quotes. Please attribute them properly.

As to Jesus' attitude towards sin, I could discuss that, but 1) I'm not going to change your opinion anyway, and 2) I'm not a pastor and, frankly, don't want to take on that role, even in the course of debate. It is off topic to the thread at hand, which is not discussing the theological basis for the doctrine of the Assemblies of God, but rather, their RIGHT to believe as they do and to set standards for admission to their universities.

Sorry about misquoting you. I was more mentioning it to say that biblical rulings against homosexuality are usually based on flimsy biblical evidence, much like the Catholic Church's Middle Age justifications of private wealth are based on flimsy evidence.

As for rights I see no good reason why the Assemblies of God should get federal money or federal support for their school without following federal or state laws for educational institutions. Their public views are subject to the will of the government, and there's nothing stopping them from holding regular classes on the evils of homosexuality in sufficient numbers to get gays unwilling to enrol.

bakerstreet

on Apr 20, 2006

I differ with the idea that any school who has a student that gets government funds is somehow subject to government imposition. If you own a store, and someone comes in that works for the government, does them spending their check there mean that you are now government funded? Do the apartment buildings that students use their aid to pay rent to also come under the heel of the government? If you spend food stamps at the grocery store, etc., etc.

Held to that standard there'd probably be nowhere not directly under the thumb of these moral edicts. At least the folks at the school impose their values on their own school. GT and the rest seek to impose their values on other people, on their property, with no other cause than just to 'right wrongs'.

I have argued about government power before, for example posing that the government does have the right to go into bars and arrest drunk people. That doesn't mean I like it, mind you, and I don't like the idea that you can't run a private school the way you want to without having accreditation or finances held over your head like some moral edict.

The fact is we've invited the government vampire in with all the protectionist legislation we think only benefitted ourselves. The day we stop asking the government to stop solving our problems for us will be the day we stop inviting them in to oversee what we do.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 01, 2006

I differ with the idea that any school who has a student that gets government funds is somehow subject to government imposition.

Would you feel the same way if Tom Cruise opened up a Scientology private school?

Govermnent funding differs greatly from the discretionary spending of government employees, Baker. Surely you realize that.

bakerstreet

on May 01, 2006

It depends on what kind of "funding" you mean. IMHO government loans and grants are to the student, and therefore are as discretionary as a paycheck. Claiming that money allotted to a student is somehow "funding" from the government to a school isn't any different than saying my tax return was "funding" to the grocery store.

Those are the kind of precedents that the government abuses so that they can elbow into spots where they don't belong. I figured you wouldn't be much in favor of that, Gid.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!