BJU - Last bastion of family values or whacked-out cult?

[Freedomx]

No disagreement necessary. You have referred to homosexuality as a “choice”. You are wrong.

Another glaring example of selective tolerance.

Oh, christ. I am so tired of “Don’t shove your lifestyle down my throat” used as an excuse for disliking someone, especially gays. Pray tell, in what way is a lifestyle, any lifestyle, shoved down your throat?

Homosexuality is a moral issue. If you want to go into public schools and teeach my children the PC version of tolerance and tell them that it is morally ok to be homosexual, then you are forcing it down my throats.

IMHO, homosexuality is a sin. Disagree with me if you want. If you want me to tell you that I love the practice of homosexuality and that I think it is a great lifestyle in order to be acceptable to yuo, then you are cramming it down my throat.

If you want to be gay, go be gay over there.

I’ll go be be straight over here.

If we deal with each other in a business or any other place, neither of us needs to bring our sexuality into it. I don’t care what you do in the bedroom. I don’t want to know. I don’t want to deprive you of anything because of what you do behind closed doors.

I don’t care. I didn’t even say that I dislike people because they are gay. You assume that I must hate gays because I think homosexual sex is a sin. We are all sinners. You, me and everyone out there.

Thinking that a gay is any more of a sinner than anyone else simply because of the sin is not my belief.

You mean the initial raid? Where the feds pulled up to serve a warrant on Smilin’ Dave

Oh, they meant to SERVE a warrant? Wouldn’t they need to bring it with them if they actually thought they were going to serve it?

and were fired upon?

It seems very up in the air over who fired first.

If the Branch Davidians fired first then answer me these questions:

Why did all the ATF video tapes of the initial raid lose the 15 minutes surrounding the first shots?

Why didn’t the Branch Davidians continue firing after the ATF agents ran out of ammo? If they wanted to kill the agents, they could have killed everyone of them.

Why did the BD’s call 911 and try to get the sheriff to stop the ATF agents from shooting?

I’m referring to the nice folk telling Janet Reno that they had reason to believe that there were children being abused.

ATF = Alchohol, Tobacco and Firearms

I must have missed that part about child abuse. That sounds like a state responsibility to me. Could you tell me the date that the Federal Government took over this responsibility?

I seem to recall an interview with the Sheriff who had already done an investigation on Koresh for these charges. I think he called Koresh on the phone and asked him to come down to the station to talk.

Koresh did so willingly.

The sheriff offered to call Koresh again and ask him to come talk. Offer denied.

Koresh called the ATF in the weeks before the raid to talk to them. They hung-up on him.
The ATF trained with the military at FT. Hood before the raid. They lied and said drugs were involved. No mention of drugs was on the warrant when it finally got found.

The entire legal justification for this was over $400 in tax that Koresh allegedly owed for selling guns LEGALLY
This was murder from it’s inception. Persecution of a Christian Church.

[GLWasteful]

Well, I’m not sure that I follow what you’re saying.

BJU wanted federal funds that are made available to colleges. In order to qualify for those funds, you must meet certain guidelines.

All of Bob Jones’ policies stemmed from their religous beliefs. It is a RELIGOUS university.

Yeah, I seem to recall that being mentioned somewhere before.

Asking them to change a policy, even one about race, is asking them to change their belief.

They were not asked to change their policy. The IRS denied their tax-exempt status due to their racially discriminative admissions policies. BJU sued to have it re-instated. They lost. Precisely as they should have. The lesson: If you wanna discriminate, then you will lose your tax-exempt status. If your beliefs mandate that you discriminate, then you’re SOL inre maintaining your status.

If BJU had changed it’s policies, it would not have been denied it’s tax-exempt status.

And BJU was (I imagine) capable of reading the reasoning for them losing their tax-exempt status. If they chose to stand by their (misguided, IMHO) beliefs, then they shoulda sucked it up, and got on with their lives. Instead they sued. So they became discriminatory crybabies.

The power to tax is the power to punish.

Y’know, I believe that BJU has this motto over the door of their art museum. The same art museum that they initially refused to allow gay alums into. Before they were told that they would lose tax-exempt status for said art museum, causing them to back down, and allow everyone to come in and enjoy.

BJU was and is being punished for it’s policies, which are the implementation of it’s beliefs.

And again, if your beliefs are that freaking important, then don’t expect the government to allow you tax-exempt status. If, however, that status is so damned important, then maybe you oughta step back and re-evaluate your beliefs.
Also, I did, indeed, catch this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government did not attempt to prohibit the free exercise of the religion that BJU ascribes to, nor abridge the free speech of anyone there. And BJU did sue the government. They just lost.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[ruadh]

Originally posted by Freedom:
I am going to guess that he wrote it somewhere on the application in an effort to stir up controversy.

Maybe he did, but the school still volunteered the information that his marriage might be a problem. Does that sound to you like a policy that isn’t enforced?

Maybe you have a generally bad impression of him.

I would say that’s a fair guess

I can see where you premise of who he is affects whether or not you believe him.

You’re right that I probably would be skeptical anyway, but I do believe that this site, if presented accurately, gives the lie to BJ’s statements.

As does this:

The school’s ban on interracial dating could be dropped one day, Pait said in Friday’s Greenville News. The school’s trustees reviewed the policy as recently as last spring but decided against changes.

“People have the impression it will never change,” Pait told the paper. “I can guarantee you it will never change so long as someone is holding a gun to our head.”

– Source

Does that sound like a policy which isn’t enforced?

And, that article I mentioned above which I can no longer find on the BJU site? There’s a reference to it here:

The school acknowledges its restriction of interracial dating, but defends the policy as a precautionary measure against its religious belief that world unity will enable the rule of “Antichrist.”

Does that sound … oh you get the picture.

---

“Shut up! I’m having a rhetorical conversation!”

[GLWasteful]

Freedom:

Another glaring example of selective tolerance.

How so? You have maintained that people choose to be gay. Find me an instance of a credible scientist who agrees with you.

If you want to go into public schools and teeach my children the PC version of tolerance and tell them that it is morally ok to be homosexual, then you are forcing it down my throats.

PC? Is it really necessary to go through this, again?
Who is it, exactly, that is wanting to go into your public school and teach your children that it is morally acceptable to be gay? And, in the process, forcing it down your throat? Also, what is it that bothers you so much about your children being tolerant of those who are different? Or is it only those who are gay that bother you?

IMHO, homosexuality is a sin. Disagree with me if you want.

Okay. Done.

If you want me to tell you that I love the practice of homosexuality and that I think it is a great lifestyle in order to be acceptable to yuo, then you are cramming it down my throat.

I don’t recall saying this. Did someone else say that you had to love the practice of homosexuality? Musta been one of those agitators I keep hearing about. Because I have yet to encounter someone who would do such a thing. It’s simply rude.

If we deal with each other in a business or any other place, neither of us needs to bring our sexuality into it.

You mean like the wedding ring I wear? Or the photos of my SO and child that I have hanging in my office? Do these count as “bringing our sexuality into it”?

I don’t care. I didn’t even say that I dislike people because they are gay. You assume that I must hate gays because I think homosexual sex is a sin.

I assume no such thing. Please do not ascribe to me beliefs that are not my own.

We are all sinners. You, me and everyone out there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, talk to someone who believes in your deities next time, m’kay?

Waste
Flick Lives!

[Jo3sh]

For a moment, I thought this thread was going to be about Brigham Jung Univerisity…

---

A committee is a lifeform with six or more legs and no brain.

[Freedomx]

BJU wanted federal funds that are made available to colleges. In order to qualify for those funds, you must meet certain guidelines.

Tax Exempt status is different than asking for money. They only wanted to keep what was theirs, not get federal money.

They were not asked to change their policy. The IRS denied their tax-exempt status due to their racially discriminative admissions policies.

This is the same thing. Getting denied for a reason means that they are asking you to change a policy if they wanted to be tax-exempt.

Anyway, I am prett sure that the whole tax-exempt thing stemmed from their inter-racial dating policy. During his interview last night it came up that dropping this policy made them eligible for tax-exempt status.

Bob Jones also said they would NOT seek to have the status re-instated to make sure everyone understood the reason they did change it.

ie: Not because the government forced them too.

The lesson: If you wanna discriminate, then you will lose your tax-exempt status. If your beliefs mandate that you discriminate, then you’re SOL inre maintaining your status.

I swear that you keep missing this part.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If they chose to stand by their (misguided, IMHO) beliefs, then they shoulda sucked it up, and got on with their lives.

I agree that the policy was misguided. In fact I think it SUCKED.

But you think they should have accepted an arbitrary ruling that F****ED them over and just gone on if nothing had happened?

If you get you bike stolen from you do you passively watch the theif ride down the street with your property?

And again, if your beliefs are that freaking important, then don’t expect the government to allow you tax-exempt status.

I swear that liberals think the Bill of Rights is written in invisible ink. Or maybe there is some hidden clause that only liberals know about that says:

“except in case of…”

So let me try again.

**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **

If, however, that status is so damned important, then maybe you oughta step back and re-evaluate your beliefs.

Please note that they lost this status 17 years ago and have done fine since.

The government did not attempt to prohibit the free exercise of the religion that BJU ascribes to, nor abridge the free speech of anyone there.

How about this, before you talk, the government wants ONLY YOU to pay them an extra 20% tax on your income.

Hmmm…making you pay a tax to exercise a natural right seems a little screwy. Making ONLY you pay an EXTRA tax seems even worse. And to make the deal sweeter, if you just say “The government makes all my decisions for me.”, outloud, at the begining of each hour, then we will drop the tax requirement.

[Freedomx]

In addition to Bob Jones University, let me throw a current situation your way for you to consider.
http://www.sierratimes.com/arpz030400.htm

In an effort to determine what the federal government’s response will
be when the April 10 deadline rolls around and the Indianapolis Baptist
Temple (IBT) congregation does not vacate their church I contacted several
government agencies (on Friday, 3/3/00), but came away with little information

[quote]
Dr. Dixon went on to say that through
Freedom of Information Act requests they learned that the IRS had a file
4 1/2 inches thick on the Indianapolis Baptist Temple dating back to
1971. The file did not contain items related to taxes or income as one
might suppose with an IRS investigative file, but rather the file was
full of newspaper clippings of any article that mentioned the IBT and
summaries of sermons. Dr. Dixon asserted that this case is not about
taxes, but about control. Control of the church by the government.
He also asserted that the idea is to force all unregistered churches
to become incorporated, state-approved churches. Dr. Dixon stated that
the head of the church isn’t the IRS, but “the Lord Jesus Christ”.

[quote]

1971? Sounds like the same time Bob Jones University started having trouble with the IRS. I wonder how many other churches would have faced the loss of their tax-exempt status back then if they had:
“then they shoulda sucked it up, and got on with their lives”

Dr. Dixon and others quoted the First Amendment several times and there
were many signs being carried with the text on it, namely “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof…” It was pointed out that laws and regulations
have been passed regarding religion and that they do prohibit the free
exercise of religion.

I wasn’t there, I promise

[Polycarp]

Jo3sh said:

I thought this thread was going to be about Brigham Jung Univerisity.

I’m aFreud you were mistaken!

[Polycarp]

Wow! The church in question gave up its 501©(3) status and declared that it was under the Headship of Jesus Christ, and is being challenged by the IRS for failure to handle payroll tax deductions in accordance with the law. Apparently having the people who received money from the church for their services (they are quite explicit that they are not to be considered “employees”) pay both employer’s and employee’s FICA was not sufficient to satisfy the IRS. And Jesus, of course, did not file anything as employer. (Probably basing His stance on the “Render to Caesar” decision He made back when.) Interestingly, nine search engines could find nothing on this church except its own web site, which focuses pretty much on the IRS conflict. Dr. Baker indicates that the IRS is acting as agent for the New World Order. Krispy, you know anything about this?

[Freedomx]

Find me an instance of a credible scientist who agrees with you.

If I did, I imagine us debating whether or not he was credible.

How about this, show me a gay gene. Give me that and I will change every single objection I have to homosexuality.

Who is it, exactly, that is wanting to go into your public school and teach your children that it is morally acceptable to be gay?

Since you asked…I have been wanting to do a litte rant about this anyway.

Gay Propaganda

An educational video that encourages children to experiment with gay sex will “help save lives”, a health authority insisted yesterday.

In the film - produced for the Bristol-based Avon Health Authority - a boy called Karl looks directly into the camera and tells pupils that to obtain sexual satisfaction, they should “try experimenting with both boys and girls to see who you feel most comfortable with”.

Even More Gay Propaganda

“That’s A Family!,” the first in the series, will present a variety of families, including divorced, single parent, adoptive, multiracial, multigenerational and stepfamilies, and “intertwining” gay and lesbian families. A curriculum guide, including lesson plans, will accompany the video. The guide contains suggestions for classroom discussions and recommended resources.

Chasnoff and Cohen make no secret of their expectation for the new video. “We have no doubt that the long-term impact of this project will be tremendous,” they wrote in a December 1999 fundraising letter. “Giving elementary school students the opportunity to hear the word ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ described in a matter-of-fact way by their peers, and experience gay and lesbian families in the context of … [a] diverse group of other families, could have a profound effect on their values and behavior for the rest of their lives.”

The second and third videos will “center on dispelling gay and lesbian stereotypes and confronting anti-gay name-calling,” the letter states.

That it was I call “cramming homosexuality down my throat.” I do not see it as moral, nor do I see it as healthy or normal. Yet homosexual ativists want to make children watch this in order to shape their values.

No thank you.

Also, what is it that bothers you so much about your children being tolerant of those who are different? Or is it only those who are gay that bother you?

Give me your children and let me decide how to raise them. I will teach them my values and morals.

I know you are probably wretching right now. That is exactly how I feel about you deciding how my children should be raised.

Once again, you are cramming things down other people’s throats. Get out of people’s lives. Go away.

You mean like the wedding ring I wear? Or the photos of my SO and child that I have hanging in my office? Do these count as “bringing our sexuality into it”?

Nope, we are still on the same wave length here.

I assume no such thing. Please do not ascribe to me beliefs that are not my own.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t assuming.

I read this:

Oh, christ. I am so tired of “Don’t shove your lifestyle down my throat” used as an excuse for disliking someone, especially gays.

And then responded to it. Since I was the only one around talking about gays and throats, who else did you mean if not me?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, talk to someone who believes in your deities next time, m’kay?

Once again you are a great example of one way tolerance.

If gay rights advocates would give half the respect to Christians for their beliefs as they want given to gays for their lifestyle, there might not be as wide a gulf between the two groups.

[David_B]

Originally posted by Libertarian:
Gosh, David, do you think that maybe Janet Reno should send her thugs to go and burn down the place?

Yes, Lib, that’s exactly what I think.

(More later – just had time for one quick sarcastic remark – gotta go.)

[tracer]

Freedom wrote:

[quote]
quote

The lesson: If you wanna discriminate, then you will lose your tax-exempt status. If your beliefs mandate that you discriminate, then you’re SOL inre maintaining your status.

I swear that you keep missing this part.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;**

Okay, Freedom – what if there’s a religion that fervently believes its members must, in order to achieve salvation, break convicted felons out of prison and transport them across state lines? Does the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment protect members of that religion, too?

---

The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

[GLWasteful]

Well, I was under the impression that BJU was in line for federal funding, which was denied them. If I am mistaken, then I apologize for disparaging their good name.
Freedom:

Tax Exempt status is different than asking for money. They only wanted to keep what was theirs, not get federal money.

Okay, fair enough. And tax-exempt status, which is extended to any number of other organizations, sacred as well as secular, is something that is granted, not a given.

This is the same thing. Getting denied for a reason means that they are asking you to change a policy if they wanted to be tax-exempt.

No, it isn’t. An organization must qualify for tax-exempt status. Those qualifications were not met in this case.

Anyway, I am prett sure that the whole tax-exempt thing stemmed from their inter-racial dating policy.

And you are correct.

During his interview last night it came up that dropping this policy made them eligible for tax-exempt status. Bob Jones also said they would NOT seek to have the status re-instated to make sure everyone understood the reason they did change it.

Okay. He said it. If it’s all right, though, I don’t believe him. I imagine that BJU will be lining up once the current furor has died down.

And yeah, Slappy, I know about the first amendment. I fail to see, though, where Congress attempted, by law, to establish a religion, or attempted to prohibit the free exercise of the religion that is practiced at BJU (What in hell is it, anyway? I would assume some flavor of Baptism). Congress did nothing to abridge the free speech of those who practice that religion, nor did they attempt to muzzle any newspaper that reported on this issue. I am not aware of any attempt to stop people from assembling, and as I already pointed out, BJU sued.

But you think they should have accepted an arbitrary ruling that F****ED them over and just gone on if nothing had happened?

I fail to see how having said status revoked fucked anyone over. And yeah, if they were ruled against by The Supremes, then they should work on getting used to the idea that they were deemed wrong.

If you get you bike stolen from you do you passively watch the theif ride down the street with your property?

Strawman argument.

I swear that liberals think the Bill of Rights is written in invisible ink. Or maybe there is some hidden clause that only liberals know about that says:“except in case of…”

Not at all. At least, not in my case. But you have yet to establish that BJU was persecuted or discriminated against. They lost their tax-exempt status, due to their policies. If I were to try and obtain status for an organization that discriminated, then I, too, would be denied. And rightly so.

Please note that they lost this status 17 years ago and have done fine since.

Bully for them. So why make an issue of it now? Waddaya wanna bet that it’s got a little something to do with Shrub and his campaign?

How about this, before you talk, the government wants ONLY YOU to pay them an extra 20% tax on your income.

No. Nobody is insisting that BJU pay extra tax. Simply that if they wish to enjoy tax-exempt status (just like scads of other organizations, sacred as well as secular), then they are not allowed to discriminate.

Hmmm…making you pay a tax to exercise a natural right seems a little screwy. Making ONLY you pay an EXTRA tax seems even worse.

Huh? Maybe I missed it, but I wasn’t aware of the government making BJU pay any extra tax. Are you maintaining that they did so?

Waste
Flick Lives!

[GLWasteful]

Oh, and Freedom, if you really wanna hash the issue of homosexuality out, then let’s take it to one of the numerous threads here in GD that have been created for same.

Or, if you want, then start a new thread. Let’s just do what we can to avoid cluttering up this one, m’kay?

Waste
Flick Lives!

[Freedomx]

– what if there’s a religion that fervently believes its members must, in order to achieve salvation, break convicted felons out of prison and transport them across state lines?

Well, this isn’t what they believe. They don’t want to go out into society at large and do things, they want the right to control their own private property. They want the right to set their beliefs on their property with people who agree with them.

I think the line is drawn when a belief motivates the memebers of a religion to go out and forcibly do things to people who do not agree with them.

The whole Mormon thing and multiple wives is an example. IMHO we have no business telling them they can only be married to one woman. If everybody is consenting, let them do what they want.

If the religion inspire a KKK type atmosphere where they go out and lynch inter-racial couples, throw them in jail.

Okay, fair enough. And tax-exempt status, which is extended to any number of other organizations, sacred as well as secular, is something that is granted, not a given.

**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **

I know you will catch on to the idea sooner or later. The IRS is an extension of Congress (Federal Power).

What about poll taxes? Do you supoport them?
http://library.thinkquest.org/10718/literacy.htm

There were also poll taxes to prevent poor blacks from voting. These taxes were outlawed by amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

There is already at least one precedent in using taxes to discriminate against people. Taxes are now being used to discriminate against a religion.

No, it isn’t. An organization must qualify for tax-exempt status. Those qualifications were not met in this case.

**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **

I fail to see, though, where Congress attempted, by law, to establish a religion, or attempted to prohibit the free exercise of the religion that is practiced at BJU

Denying them tax-exempt status based on their religous beliefs penalizied them and made it harder for them to continue as a university.

Congress did nothing to abridge the free speech of those who practice that religion,

Sure, and poll taxes were not discriminatory either.

I fail to see how having said status revoked fucked anyone over.

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.

But you have yet to establish that BJU was persecuted or discriminated against. They lost their tax-exempt status, due to their policies.

A policy is something along the lines of putting in a receipt with your reembursement request and you will receive your money in 3 business days.

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?

Waddaya wanna bet that it’s got a little something to do with Shrub and his campaign?

dingdingdingdingdingdingding…

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.

Nobody is insisting that BJU pay extra tax

They are the only college that is not tax-exempt. Sounds to me like they are paying extra taxes.

Simply that if they wish to enjoy tax-exempt status (just like scads of other organizations, sacred as well as secular), then they are not allowed to discriminate.

Simply put, if they would just change their beliefs to align with popular thinking, the IRS will give them a tax break. The whole point of the 1st Amendment is to keep the government OUT OF deciding religous beliefs.

[Liberal]

Freedom

God bless you for fighting the good fight. Thank you for remembering those children.

I remember the ATF agent who squeezed his crotch while he bragged, “I’m honed to a fine edge! I’m ready to kill!” I remember what the tanks that were ramming the building were shouting through their loud speakers. “This is NOT an attack! If you resist, we WILL open fire!” And I remember the phone call to 911, “Someone is firing on us, and we have children in here!”

[sorrel554]

I think it was Freedom who quoted Bob Jones III as saying that the interracial dating ban was a holdover from the 1930s. I just wanted to post a quote from a story in this morning’s Columbia State newspaper:

The Greenville school banned interracial dating in the 1950s, when an Asian family threatened to sue after their son, a student, almost married a white girl, a school spokesman has said. The first black student was not admitted until the 1970s and the school lost its tax exemption in 1983 after a 13-year battle with the Internal Revenue Service, which said the school’s policies were discriminatory.

So did Jones misspeak, or is the newspaper wrong?

[Freedomx]

I’ll take the blame.

I must have heard the date wrong. Either way, it dates from 50 years ago.

Libertarian,

Did you check out the link above to the church in Indianappolis? Their big solgan is:

No More Wacos.

[sorrel554]

Freedom,

No need to apologize. I just wondered which info was correct.

[tracer]

Freedom, from now on, every time you monotonously repeat:

**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
**

… I am going to respond by saying:

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (1878): “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”