Friday, January 28, 2011

Belmont University includes gay-friendly language in discrimination policy

In moral capitulation news today, Belmont University announced that it is adding "sexual orientation" to its non-discrimination policy. The university had been under fire for removing its women's soccer coach who had announced that she was a lesbian and that her partner was having a baby.

At the same time it announced it was officially adopting gay rights language, Belmont changed the preamble of its anti-discrimination policy to say that it is a "Christian university and that the university strives to uphold Christian standards of morality, ethics and conduct."

Just in case anyone might wonder.

Observers speculate that Belmont might also give its future official stamp of approval to unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Should such policies be adopted, it is expected that the university will amend the expression of Christian commitment in its preamble to include the words, "Honest, no joke," or possibly, "Cross our hearts, hope to die, stick a needle in our eye."

29 comments:

Tualha said...

You left out those who eat shellfish, plant two crops side by side, or wear garments made of different threads. Well, I certainly hope Belmont doesn't give in to such wickedness. If a rule was good enough for a homogeneous tribe of Bronze Age herders, it's good enough for a 21st century, technological, highly diverse society.

Right?

Singring said...

You forgot those who eat shellfish. They're an abomination, as bad as homosexuals, apparently.

Another gem:

'Observers speculate that Belmont might also give its future official stamp of approval to [...] debate [...].'

I agree with Martin. We can't have that. Debate at a university?! I mean, what will be next? Critical thinking?

Anonymous said...

As a fellow Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong but it makes me sad when we as Christians treat gays as evil people who are intent on destroying our society. I mean we are all sinners right? I have several gay friends and they are some of the most good-hearted people i know. When we as Christians use language and wording as you do in your blog posts what good are we actually doing? It seems like we are just stirring up hatred.. and that is the opposite of what Christ is all about. We need to be turning people towards Christ and not away from him. .. Its just something to think about. :-)

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

I think you fail to make an important distinction: that between how you should treat the woman at the well and how you should treat the Prophets of Baal. One is treated with kindness and respect, the other is not. I think that distinction has a rather strong Biblical pedigree.

I have always treated individual gays with respect. I think that even the lobbyists for the other side at our state capital will tell you that I have never treated them with disrespect. But the agendas of the organizations they represent, which are destructive of our culture are not worthy of respect.

And for an institution that claims to represent the Church in higher education to compromise its moral standards is quite frankly to be ridiculed.

If you want to engage in a policy of appeasement with the world, then you're probably better off with someone like Joel Osteen. He's a nice guy, let's face it. But his ministry short sells half of what he claims he stands for.

And if you think that the Bible has soft words for corporate entities that claim to represent God and do the opposite, then you need to read it again.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

Tualha,

You're in the wrong testament. Romans. Check it out.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

The word (the Greek "eridos") is translated more correctly to the modern ear as "strife" or "contention" in other translations. I was using the King James here for rhetorical purposes.

What is it in the the etymology of "critical thinking," "logical analysis" and "open discussion" that is at the origin of your opposition to a bill calling for these things in science education in Kentucky?

By the way, you were rather quiet there for a few days. It's nice to have you back.

Really.

Anonymous said...

I have always treated individual blacks with respect. I think that even the lobbyists for the other side at our state capital will tell you that I have never treated them with disrespect. But the agendas of the organizations they represent, which are destructive of our culture are not worthy of respect.

Anonymous said...

I have always treated individual Jews with respect. I think that even the lobbyists for the other side at our state capital will tell you that I have never treated them with disrespect. But the agendas of the organizations they represent, which are destructive of our culture are not worthy of respect.

Joe_Agnost said...

Martin wrote: "By the way, you were rather quiet there for a few days. It's nice to have you back"

What are you? Schizophrenic?

A few days ago you have a hissy fit and ban Singring from commenting on just about every thread on here - and now you're happy he/she's back?

You still find a way to amaze me Martin - just when I think you can't you manage to find a way.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

Are you comparing Jews to homosexuals?

Singring said...

'What is it in the the etymology of "critical thinking," "logical analysis" and "open discussion" that is at the origin of your opposition to a bill calling for these things in science education in Kentucky?'

First of all, I didn't actually oppose it, seeing as it was an American bill. In fact I endorsed it twice. Any bill that retards the education of American students and thus gives us Europeans a further edge is just fine by me.

However, I do oppose the bill in principle (I would take to the barricades if it were passed anywhere in Europe). Why? Certainly not because it calls for critical evaluation of theories.

I oppose it in principle because it calls for the discussion of the 'advantages and disadvantages' of scientific theories, as I stated expressly and gave an example of why.

Scientific theories are evaluated by the evidence, not by whether or not they have 'advantages or disadvantages'. For example a 'disadvantage' of relativity theory is that we cannot exceed the speed of light,which makes reaching other star systems almost impossible. However, this does not mean realtivity theory is faulty , nor should this be used to suggest as much.

The language in the bill is composed very carefully to allow teachers to introduce questions like 'should we accept evolution if it contradicts the Bible' into a science classroom, which is wholly unacceptable.

Singring said...

'By the way, you were rather quiet there for a few days. It's nice to have you back.'

I appreciate the sentiment and return it with thanks.

Singring said...

Boy, that last post is awkwardly worded and din't come out right.What I'm trying to say is that I appreciate that I'm still welcome here despite our frequent and frank disagreements and I think it is to your credit that you are accomodating even those voices of dissent that you often feel are not even qualified to comment on some matters (i.e. philosophy). I've got to say you are certainly very tolerant in this regard, Martin, and I thank you for that.

Tualha said...

Ah, Romans. Not Leviticus. So, the faithful can pick and choose which Biblical injunctions still apply in the modern world and which ones don't? Eating shellfish is fine, but refusing to discriminate against gays is moral capitulation? Yes, I see.

Martin Cothran said...

Joe,

There were three or four specific assertions Singring kept making that I believed I had answered adequately and his repeated leveling of the assertions was spoiling my fun. And since my enjoyment is the sole and only purpose of this blog, I threatened to ban him from posting on those particular topics. I never threatened a general ban.

I couldn't bring myself to do that. I have this personality quirk that results in pleasure when someone argues with me. If I couldn't argue, my life would be utterly boring, and I am, by nature, boredom-averse.

For all his faults (which it causes me intense pleasure to point out), Singring is by nature a basically a rational person. I think he fails frequently in his attempts to fulfill his rational nature, and when this happens, I try to correct him, hence contributing to his fulfillment.

In doing so, I operate under the belief that I am helping him become a better Singring.

By the way, Joe, I haven't heard from you in a while. It's nice to have you back.

Singring said...

'In doing so, I operate under the belief that I am helping him become a better Singring.'

I am operating under the exactly inverse belief: that I am helping you become a better person. And thus is born the never ending wellspring of pleasure that is debate.

Joe_Agnost said...

@Singring and Martin:

Get a room!! ;)

I must say that this blog - any blog - gets boring REALLY quickly when there isn't dissenting opinions... I do have to give Martin credit for allowing most (all?) comments. That's why I was so surprised when it looked like you were banning Singring.

Ah well... carry on.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Can you explain the difference between you taking a verbal truncheon to Belmont University to police their thoughts, and what you complained about unnamed critics of Osteen doing? You don't think Osteen should be criticized about his position on homosexuality, but you feel free to criticize Belmont University for its position on homosexuality. Bit of a double standard?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

In both cases you have people who say one thing and do the opposite. In the case of Osteen's critics, these are people who go around talking Tolerance but as soon as they encounter somebody who thinks differently than they start beating them over the head with their Diversity banner.

In the case of Belmont, you have a university that bills itself as upholding Christian values and then passes an "anti-discrimination" policy that flies in the face of clear Biblical language on the subject.

It's hypocrisy on both counts.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

When you criticize other people for being intolerant, aren't you being hypocritical?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Not unless it is hypocritical to point out that other people are hypocritical when they, in fact, are.

Maybe you could explain how it is not hypocritical for people who champion tolerance and diversity to act intolerantly and engage in action designed to impose uniformity.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I don't know what the "thought police" did to Osteen, since your post on that was long on rhetoric and short on specifics. Can you provide links to threats made to silence Osteen, or did his critics merely exercise their right to express their opinion about his stance on homosexuality, just as you exercised your right to criticize Belmont University for its stance on homosexuality?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

You did have a link in your Osteen post, and I just read it. As far as I can tell, the "thought police" didn't call for Osteen's church to be forcibly closed down, they didn't smash its windows, they didn't call for a boycott, they didn't do anything I could tell that could be categorized as gestapo tactics. They criticized him for his stance on homosexuality. Apparently your view is that tolerant people are prohibited from criticizing intolerant people at all.

Tualha said...

Perhaps, in upholding Christian values, they decided to listen to Christ -- who never said anything about homosexuality -- instead of Paul -- who never met Christ.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I never said they used "gestapo tactics," I was using the universal metaphor for intolerance to point out the totalitarian attitude some people seem to have about this issue.

But if you want to see this kind of thing actually in action, you can look around to see various Christian adoption agencies that are now having to close because they don't tow the politically correct line on homosexuality that is now being forced on other people.

Martin Cothran said...

Tualha,

You've obviously never read the 9th chapter of Acts.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I never said that "tolerant people" should be "prohibited from criticizing intolerant people at all."

All I did was criticize people who claimed to be tolerant and were criticizing people who they disagreed with rather than saying how we should be tolerant of them, which is what they claim they are all about.

And why are you upset that I am criticizing these people? Is it only the people who claim they are tolerant who should be able to criticize people?

If it's okay for them to criticize people, then why are you criticizing me for criticizing them? And if it's wrong for me to criticize them, then why is it right for you to criticize me for doing it?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

We should all be free to criticize each other. A person who values diversity is not being hypocritical for criticizing those who oppose diversity. In this case, the diversity that is valued is sexual orientation, the right of all people, gay or straight, to live their lives as they see fit without persecution or harassment. Rhetoric that suggests that homosexuals are bad people threatens that value, thus it is not hypocritical to criticize such rhetoric. So perhaps comparing them to fascists for criticizing Osteen isn't the best way to engage them.

In regards to christian adoption agencies, the 1st Amendment does not protect them from complying with laws with a secular purpose. I presume you recognize the right of the state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in adoption decisions, and the state has the same right to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When they have had the power, Christians have been happy to use the state to prohibit homosexual adoption by secular agencies, so there is certainly precedent for state regulation of adoption decisions made on the basis of sexual orientation.