# BJU - Last bastion of family values or whacked-out cult? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2000, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672 "2000-03-04T09:42:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nu\_Vo\_Da\_Da](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/97f17d/32.png) [@Nu\_Vo\_Da\_Da](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nu_Vo_Da_Da)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/41 "2000-03-06T01:37:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; I agree with this completely Freedom. What is with all this “tax exempt” status anyway? It sounds to me like a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” Those laws should be stricken from the books. They endorse religions, which seems to me to be a bit of a contrast to the ideal of separation of church and state. I trust you are in agreement with me here right? ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/42 "2000-03-06T02:27:00Z")
The status in question is offered to colleges. At least in the case of BJU. The Indianapolis Church is another story, and it’s off topic. BJU was asking for exemption because it is a school, right? So they need to follow the rules of other tax-exempt schools. Religion doesn’t need to enter into it. If they claim to be mainly a church, and not really a college, then they can get tax-exemtion. But their degrees shouldn’t be recognized as coming from a real college. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/43 "2000-03-06T03:46:00Z")
First, I want to thank GL for all the back & forth with Freedom that I would have probably had to go through. You saved me a lot of time and trouble, GL. Now, on to Freedom’s response to my message, waaaaaay up near the top here. I had said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek: “Closing up shop and quitting would be a good step, yes.” You responded: > [@](#): > > Very tolerant of you David. They have a different take on life than you, so they should do nothing in life except find out what you think is right and then do that. Sounds good to me. Now before you get all pissy, I never said anybody should _force_ them to close up shop, just that I think it would be dandy for them to do so. I’d also love to see the Christian Coalition close up, and the Institute for Creation Research, and… It would be a lot easier to combat ignorance if there weren’t such groups promoting it. > [@](#): > > I bet you support homosexual rights and wish “homophobes” could just leave them alone. Live and let live right? Yes, and? Do you have a point? > [@](#): > > Sure…unless it has to do with the religous right. What are you babbling about? Are you suggesting I don’t have freedom of speech and shouldn’t be allowed to point out the intolerance of the religious right? I mentioned “common decency.” You responded: > [@](#): > > Call me crazy, but I think you and them would disagree widely on what decencey is. > > Wouldn’t that at least eliminate the “common” part of that sentence? No. Just because one small fringe group believes something doesn’t mean the opposite isn’t a “common” belief among others. > [@](#): > > Let’s be honest, what they did was choose an un-pc right wing Christian stance (that I don’t support either). They did not try to force this on anyone, yet you feel justified n calling for the closing down of their college. There you go getting all pissy, before I even had a chance to tell you not to. Take a pill, man. I didn’t “call for” anything. I said it would be a good step. And it would. I think it would be a good step for you to take a valium before sitting down and posting to the SDMB, but I’m not going to go over to your house to force it on you. I’ll just continue to point out when you massively overreact, like you have here. And I’ll continue to point out when the religious right – and BJU – does stupid things. Deal with it. Or don’t. I don’t care either way. > [@](#): > > What ever happened to tolerance? I don’t have to tolerate intolerance and idiocy. This site is dedicated to fighting ignorance, not ignoring it. > [@](#): > > Freedom of Religion means that religions get to set their own standards of right and wrong. Even if this differs from a Straight Dope moderator’s opinion. (the horror!) Actually, it only means that to a certain point (for example, human sacrifices would not be allowed under “freedom of religion.” But even beside that, you’re still overreacting to something I never said. Don’t try to read between the lines when the words _on_ the lines work perfectly well. > [@](#): > > I know atheists like you will never cut this guy any slack. “Atheists like you”? Puh-lease. (And, BTW, it’s “agnostic” anyway.) > [@](#): > > You will never think he (and probably me) is anything other than a nut. Not if you continue to act this way, I won’t. > [@](#): > > But to the moderates and the people on the right out there, he did nothing to hurt himself, and did plenty to help himself. And who are these “moderates” you’re talking about? * * * Ignorance is Bliss. Reality is Better. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/44 "2000-03-06T04:46:00Z")
Freedom: Try to keep up with the news, will you please? You’ve already shown that you were approximately 20 years off (well, 50 if you want to get technical) on the dating of the policy (sorry about the pun). You’ve also evidently missed the news by 100 years that the Mormons don’t permit polygamy now. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/45 "2000-03-06T05:27:00Z")
I’m as liberal as they come. If the administration of BJU wants to require the students to rub blue mud in their navels, thats fine with me. So long as any student there may leave as they choose, and so long as they don’t break any actual laws, why shouldn’t they do as they please? I wouldn’t go there, and I wouldn’t encourage my children to go there, but other than that, who cares? * * * He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’ ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/46 "2000-03-06T05:48:00Z")
A couple of other points raised… We live in a democracy, not a libertarian state. Paying taxes is an obligation, and I, for one, am proud to fulfill that obligation. Personally, I find the religious exemption from taxation to be ill-considered. If you wish to receive government money, you have to follow the government’s rules, and the government must apply the rules impartially. I don’t have enough information to judge anything specific to BJU. If the government applied the rules unfairly, they were wrong. Otherwise, as a private institution, they can do anything they want under the law. The law says you can’t discriminate by race. The law says nothing about a person having an inalienable right to listen to Amy Grant. Regarding Waco… What a horrible, totally avoidable tragedy. I don’t care if you’re liberal, conservative or anything. The government, regardless of what they suspect, completely failed in their responsibility to avoid unnecessary loss of life. * * * He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’ ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/47 "2000-03-06T08:01:00Z")
I can’t believe this thread has been reduced to this kind of bickering when we really ought to be disussing is this: > [@](#): > > Bob Jones University does, however, have a rule prohibiting interracial dating among its students. God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected > barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and > intends those differences to remain. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes > that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his > unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity > designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown. > > Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through > the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it. > > The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage > among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, > globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided > earth seems to be His plan. Isn’t that the biggest bunch of crap you’ve ever heard in your life? It is astonishingly, breathtakingly ludicrous. To make the leap from seeing a little interracial dating at a college to one-world government and the rise of an Antichrist? The stubborn adherance of fundamentalists to the infallibity of “scripture” is irrational enough, but BJU is making even nuttier inferences completely arbitrarily. Since when can any series of events, no matter how problematic, be interpreted as indicating the will of God? We see groups people hating each and conclude that God wants people to hate each other and so we make it our policy. But don’t the fundies cite as the work of the Devil anything which falls on the other side of their agenda? A sober interpretation of the course of events would suggest that God does not simply dictate events and that human beings have developed racial and cutural divisions as a result of living in separate parts of the world for thousands of years. If we were to imagine God intervening in history–by subtley inspiring some people’s better angels–it should be more along the lines of the Civil Rights movement starring Martin Luther King. Why not consider that part of God’s plan, bringing closer to fulfillment America’s example as the place whefe people of all backgrounds have together made a society based on freedom and equality? That along with Jesus saying “peace on earth, goodwill to all men” and all that implies. Instead the letter from Bob Jones U draws a completely opposite, thoroughly negative, and highly delusional set of conclusions and states them with absolute certainty without so much as a “we believe…”. ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/48 "2000-03-06T14:58:00Z")
Monty, I am well aware that the Mormons do not practice polygamy anymore. I was only picking out an example that showed a stron difference between a religions views of marraige and the laws. My point is that a religion should be allowed to follow it’s beliefs along the lines of how people interact with each other. Bob Jones U doesn’t support inter-racial dating. The Mormons used to have many wives. Homosexuals want the right to marry. These are 3 very similiar example in my opinion. It comes down to a majority view trying to impose their standard of normalcy on everyone. > [@](#): > > Personally, I find the religious exemption from taxation to be ill-considered. Considering that the 1st Amendment rushes to this issue, you have to at least admit that it was an important part of the Constitution when the founders wrote it. > [@](#): > > If you wish to receive government money, you have to follow the government’s rules, and the government must apply the rules impartially. Unless someone knows different, this debate has been about tax-exemption, not government grants. To me, the whole thing stems from the government interfereing with religion. There will always be a church somewhere that is conflicting with the government. The 1st Amendment tried to solve this by very specifically removing the federal government from regulating Religion. When you read the Bill of Rights, please remember that it does not give us our freedoms, it restricts the government. Sqweels Add these to your explanation: > [@](#): > > Is there a Bible verse or passage that teaches against interracial marriage? No. > Is there a Bible principle upon which the University’s interracial dating stance is founded? Yes. > > The one-world principle–every effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world together in unity–plays into the hand of Antichrist. This first began at the Tower of Babel, and it will culminate at Armageddon when the Lord returns to establish His rule of peace and harmony for a thousand years. > > Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences as He made gender differences. Each race and each sex should be proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other. > > At the Tower of Babel, God used language to disrupt man’s plans for a one-world government. As a result of this disruption, the people were scattered, and the races were polarized. One thing is clear: God wanted a divided world, not a federalized world. Based on this biblical account (Genesis 10 and 11), the University wishes to give God the benefit of any doubt and avoid pursuing any direction that would give assistance to the renewed efforts of man to create a one-world community consisting of one religion, one economy, one government, and one race. The biblical account of Babel and God’s response to it are historical fact. This Christian institution merely seeks to live and function under its best understanding of what God is teaching us from this passage about His purposes for the world. > Does the University believe that those who choose interracial marriage do so out of rebellion against God? No. It does believe, however, that often the promoters of it do so out of antagonism toward God because they are often the same entities that promote homosexuality, abortion, and other forms of social radicalism. > > Bob Jones University’s policy regarding interracial dating is more of an opposition to the rebellious and defiant antichrist spirit of the promoters of one-worldism than to interracial dating itself. Many who date and marry interracially are just as opposed to one-worldism and the spirit of Antichrist as we are. > Does the University believe one race is superior to another race? No. > Are you aware that our 1998 Alumni Appreciation Award recipient was a black BJU graduate? > Are you aware that our current student body president is an Asian-American? Would that happen at a racist school? > Did the University’s dating policy originate to regulate black-white relationships? No. It was first stated in the mid-1950s when dealing with an Asian-Caucasian dating couple. At that time, Christians nationwide understood that interracial marriage was best avoided. > [@](#): > > We see groups people hating each and conclude that God wants people to hate each other and so we make it our policy. This was never their policy. Only outsiders put the word hate into the equation. > [@](#): > > That along with Jesus saying “peace on earth, goodwill to all men” and all that implies. Instead the letter from Bob Jones U draws a completely opposite, thoroughly negative, and highly delusional set of conclusions and states them with absolute certainty without so much as a “we believe…”. This is exactly why BJU dropped the policy. They realized the hate is was creating in the country, they saw that people were not seeing the love because of this policy. So they dropped it. Believing in God does not make you perfect. In fact, part of being a Christian is recognizing that you do make mistakes. If you want to argue whether or not the policy made sense, I doubt there would be anyone here to debate you. I am over-joyed that the policy was dropped. However, I do recognize that if the government is succesful in harrassing this church, then it will move on to others. Eventually I will be dealing with it in my own backyard. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/49 "2000-03-07T06:25:00Z")
As if anyone gave a damn, it’s threads like these that have pretty much driven _me_ out of Great Debates. * * * Uke ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/50 "2000-03-07T06:31:00Z")
If you don’t like the thread, don’t click on it. What don’t you like about the thread? Debating the proper extent of government invovlement and regulation of religions seems like a good enough topic to me. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/51 "2000-03-06T20:48:00Z")
I wrote: [qoute]We see groups people hating each and conclude that God wants people to hate each other and so we make it our policy. [/quote] Freedom replied: > [@](#): > > This was never their policy. Only outsiders put the word hate into the equation. My example was poorly stated. I could have said “We see wars occuring, conclude that it’s Gods will for there to be wars and therefore adopt as an official belief of our institution a policy favoring more wars”. This is the kind of conclusion their illogic could lead to, ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/52 "2000-03-06T21:29:00Z")
Okay, Freedom: Exactly how many of the leadership at BJU have been arrested for their policy against interracial dating? None? That’s correct: NONE. Now in the Mormons’ case, all those who practiced their religious policy of the time were arrested by the federal government. What everyone here but you has managed to understand is that there’s a differnence between practicing a religion and getting the federal government to grant tax exemptions to the school run by that government. Maybe you’ll understand it better in this short equation: Church-run school DOES NOT EQUAL church. Got that? ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/53 "2000-03-07T01:47:00Z")
Monty, The issue here is religous beliefs. Do you think the Constitution only intends to protect freedom of religion INSIDE a particular church? I live in NJ, and the was a recent case in Newark about freedom of religion. There were two Muslim cops there who refused to shave. They said it was against their religous beliefs. Now there was a way around this. All they had to do was get a doctors note explaining that it is medically required for them not to shave. No one would have even questioned it. On principle, they refused. They decided that since religous beliefs were protected in this country, they were not going to be forced to lie. They were going to stand up for their right. It went to court and it won. They were not a church. They were just two cops who had a religous belief that differed from the governments rules. Religous freedom won out. I am willing to tolerate a million little religous sects that interpret things a billion different ways. As long as they are not forcing anything on to anyone else, I say let them make their own decisions. OTOH, Nothing scares me more than one government deciding what is acceptable and what isn’t. Once a government starts defining “correct” religous beliefs and “unacceptable” beliefs, we have taken a big step towards a state run government. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/54 "2000-03-07T03:33:00Z")
Freedom wrote: > [@](#): > > Once a government starts defining “correct” religous beliefs and “unacceptable” beliefs, we have taken a big step towards a state run government. In that case, you doubtlessly feel that the U.S. took “a big step towards a state run government” as far back as the early 1800s. Because that was when the government declared Mormon polygamy to be “unacceptible”. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/55 "2000-03-07T15:49:00Z")
David: No prollem. I was on jury duty yesterday, so all thaks to you for picking up where I had to leave off. Freedom: > [@](#): > > The IRS is an extension of Congress (Federal Power). Yes. And? Did the IRS recognize (or fail to recognize) a particular religion? No. They simply said that if BJU wanted to enjoy tax-exempt status, then they had to meet certain guidelines. Just like every other religious organization that wants tax-exempt status has to do. BJU decided that martyrdom was more their bag, and acted accordingly. At no point in time was the first amendment abridged. > [@](#): > > Taxes are now being used to discriminate against a religion. Stuff and nonsense. If this were a widespread problem, then you might have an issue. It’s not, so you don’t. Once an entire religion is being forced to pay extra taxes, then I’ll stand up and shout with you. Until then, you are just failing to understand. > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ::tip of the hat to tracer:: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” > [@](#): > > Denying them tax-exempt status based on their religous beliefs penalizied them and made it harder for them to continue as a university. Yet they have continued to this day. Again, if anyone were to set up an organization that discriminated, and applied for tax-exempt status, then they would be turned down. Lack of tax-exempt status hasn’t penalized me, or made it harder for me to continue as a citizen. Howzabout you? > [@](#): > > Sure, and poll taxes were not discriminatory either. Second strawman argument. > [@](#): > > Let’s see…Pay 30% tax, or pay no tax… Seems to me paying 30% of your money to taxes is the same as getting F\*\*\*\*\*ED over. Well, no. Because that tax money goes toward any number of things that I imagine you’d be pretty peeeved to suddenly lack. BJU wanted to get in on the perks of tax-exempt status, but still cling to their discriminatory practices. It doesn’t work that way. > [@](#): > > Their belief about the inter-racial dating (wrong as it is), is a protected belief. What good is freedom of religion if you can’t practice it on your own property without harrasment from the federal government? Okay, this is known as hyperbole. Please demonstrate to me where, and when, BJU was harassed by the federal government. Otherwise, I’m gonna hafta believe that you… > [@](#): > > And you my friend are the winner!!! It has to do with smearing the Bush campaign. That is the only reason it is an issue in front of the public today. Well, since I already knew the reason for all of the foofaraw, then I dunno how I can be considered a winner, as if this were a guessing game of some sort. But okay. And I thnik that once this election is behind us, that the nice folk at BJU are gonna be in line for that tax-exempt status. So I would be willing to wager that this issue will be back. > [@](#): > > They are the only college that is not tax-exempt. And why is that? I also cannot imagine that they’re the **only** college that lacks tax-exemption. > [@](#): > > Sounds to me like they are paying extra taxes. That’s all right. You also think that there’s such a thing as sin. Just because you think something doesn’t make it so. > [@](#): > > The whole point of the 1st Amendment is to keep the government OUT OF deciding religous beliefs. And when did the government say that BJU must worship the way that was acceptable? They didn’t. A branch of the federal governement said that if they wanted to continue with their current standards and policies, then they would no longer be eligible for tax-exemption. As stated, BJU decided to try and turn it into a religious war. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/56 "2000-03-07T16:20:00Z")
tracer > [@](#): > > In that case, you doubtlessly feel that the U.S. took “a big step towards a state run government” as far back as the early 1800s. If you look back several posts, you will see that I said just that. Religous beliefs need to be set aside and respected unless it infringes on another person’s life. I see no difference between: polygamy inter-racial dating homosexual marriages These are all relationships between individuals. The state has no business trying to regulate our most intimate relationships. > [@](#): > > No. They simply said that if BJU wanted to enjoy tax-exempt status, then they had to meet certain guidelines. There is a differnece in looking at things here that we will never overcome in this thread. You look at this as a simple enforcement of civil law. I see this as an abridgement of religous freedom. I see no correlation between a religous institution and a non-religous organization. > [@](#): > > . BJU decided that martyrdom was more their bag, and acted accordingly. At no point in time was the first amendment abridged. Once again there is a basic difference in the way we interpret the facts. I don’t think BJU ever decided that martyrdom was “their bag,” rather, I think they decided to stand by what they believe. Our nation was made great by men who stood by what they felt was right. I don’t think they had a choice. > [@](#): > > Stuff and nonsense. If this were a widespread problem, then you might have an issue. It’s not, so you don’t. Once an entire religion is being forced to pay extra taxes, then I’ll stand up and shout with you. Until then, you are just failing to understand. 🙂 This is exactly my point, except that we have a different place that we draw the line. You admit that if this were a widespread problem, then you would be upset. I think that once it becomes a widespread problem, we have waited to long. What constitutes a widespread problem? How many more religous institutions (any religion) will have to suffer before you think it is a problem? I see the time to stand up and yell right now. When the first church is being screwed. I don’t want to wait until it works it’s way around and finally hits me. This brings back that famous quote about not standing up when they came for the Jews, the gypsies etc… and then when they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me. So while you see me as just failing to understand, I see you in exactly the same light. > [@](#): > > Second strawman argument. Why? My point is that taxes can be used to discriminate. You can not debate this. > [@](#): > > BJU wanted to get in on the perks of tax-exempt status, but still cling to their discriminatory practices. What you see as discriminatory practices, I see as beliefs. Once again, I don’t think either of us will change the other person’s perception of this on this thread. It all comes down to legislating morality. Laws that interfere with religous morals are unconstitutional. > [@](#): > > , that the nice folk at BJU are gonna be in line for that tax-exempt status Only time will tell. I tend to think that won’t. This attack on them by the federal government only makes them believe in their beliefs stronger. They are expecting persectuon from the government. Pressure is not something they will cave to, it is something that will confirm what they believe. > [@](#): > > I also cannot imagine that they’re the only college that lacks tax-exemption. Sort of a side question, but if they really were would it change any part of your opinion? I don’t really see anywhere else to go with this. We don’t disagree on any of the facts, just on how we see them. I see the Federal government as having almost ZERO authority over churches, while you see the federal government having the power to make churches comply with non-religous standards. ---
**Author:** ![aschrott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@aschrott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aschrott)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/57 "2000-03-07T16:38:00Z")
a good friend of mine attended Bob Jones University, and we have discussed his experience there quite a bit. He and his (now-ex)wife dated for three years before “stealing” their first kiss. According to him the prevailing social dynamic on campus is “who does Jesus love best?”. A musician, he received a censure from the BJU campus (long after his graduation) because they had heard he was using percussion in his recordings. After his divorce several years ago he received notice that he was no longer welcome on campus, or in the baptist church. I’m usually inclined to let people be however they wish, but I think that the attitudes and social values exemplified by BJU are some of the least healthy and most distasteful in our country. * * * “I don’t get any smarter as I get older–Just less stupid” ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/58 "2000-03-07T16:53:00Z")
Freedom: > [@](#): > > You look at this as a simple enforcement of civil law. I see this as an abridgement of religous freedom. Not at all. At no point in time did the government tell BJU that they **had** to do things the way that the government wanted them done. Simply that if they wanted that sweet, sweet tax-exemption, then they would have to stop discriminating. BJU can have their almnae dance naked 'neath a quarter moon, and the gov’t should not be able to do a damned thing to stop them. If, however, BJU wants in on the perks of tax-exemption, then the gov’t, which allows that status, has the right to insist that discrimination cease. > [@](#): > > I don’t think BJU ever decided that martyrdom was “their bag,” rather, I think they decided to stand by what they believe. They just happen to believe in discrimination. > [@](#): > > What constitutes a widespread problem? How many more religous institutions (any religion) will have to suffer before you think it is a problem? Well, first of all, I would have to see some honest-to-christ suffering. Instead of losing tax-exempt status. Because of discriminatory admissions policies. > [@](#): > > I see the time to stand up and yell right now. When the first church is being screwed. I don’t want to wait until it works it’s way around and finally hits me. And you are certainly within your rights to do so. But as you have no doubt noticed, manny people will vociferously disagree with you, and call you out when you use hyperbole to make this issue more than it should be. > [@](#): > > This brings back that famous quote about not standing up when they came for the Jews, the gypsies etc… and then when they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me. Well, yes. **If** there were people out to get someone. However, you have turned this instance into something approaching religious persecution, and it isn’t. > [@](#): > > What you see as discriminatory practices, I see as beliefs. Beliefs that discrimination is just ducky. There’s the rub. > [@](#): > > It all comes down to legislating morality. Laws that interfere with religous morals are unconstitutional. And religious morals that interfere with law are illegal. You don’t have to believe me, The Supremes said it first. > [@](#): > > Only time will tell. I tend to think that won’t. This attack on them by the federal government only makes them believe in their beliefs stronger. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the belief in question has now been stricken. > [@](#): > > They are expecting persectuon from the government. Pressure is not something they will cave to, it is something that will confirm what they believe. And they will not be persecuted by the government. Nor will they be pressured to believe what the government wants them to. So where does that leave them? > [@](#): > > Sort of a side question, but if they really were (the only college lacking tax-exempt status) would it change any part of your opinion? Dunno, I would have to see the other colleges. > [@](#): > > I see the Federal government as having almost ZERO authority over churches, while you see the federal government having the power to make churches comply with non-religous standards. No. I see the government as being able to decide guidelines that groups must adhere to if they want to obtain tax-exempt status. If the organization in question does not want to adhere to those guidelines, for whatever reason, then they are free to get on with their lives, sans the status. I dunno, it sounds like I just advocated, “almost ZERO authority over churches.” Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/59 "2000-03-07T17:13:00Z")
> [@](#): > > They just happen to believe in discrimination. > [@](#): > > Because of discriminatory admissions policies. > [@](#): > > Beliefs that discrimination is just ducky. Technically, I am not sure that the beliefs were discriminatory. It was not admissions policy that was the issue, it was the belief that inter-racial dating should be avoided. This impacted all races equally. > [@](#): > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the belief in question has now been stricken. Not because of government pressure. Dr. Jones was very specific about the reason the policy was dropped. It was not a core belief. It was not scriptural. It was detracting from the message of the core belief, salvation. If it was scriptural, the rule would not have been dropped. He stated that they would not be seeking tax-exempt status to avoid the perception that their reasoning was any different than the one they gave. > [@](#): > > I see the government as being able to decide guidelines that groups must adhere to if they want to obtain tax-exempt status. I see favoring certain beliefs over other ones as breaking the 1st Amendment. Granting tax-exempt status to some religions but not others, is showing favortism. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;” Obviously we disagree on this. I see the Federal Government showing different treatment to different religous beliefs. This is completely against the spririt of the 1st Amendment IMHO. I don’t think we will make any changes in each others beliefs here. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672/60 "2000-03-07T17:29:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Laws that interfere with religous morals are unconstitutional. :snort: Yeah. Right. Define “religious morals,” pally. You gonna tell me that I, as a devout Thugee and worshipper of the Great Kali, have a constituted right to commit murder to the glory of my Goddess? Oh, you meant nice happy Western religions? -andros- [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bju-last-bastion-of-family-values-or-whacked-out-cult/17672.md?page=4)