I probably shouldn’t even bother pointing this out, but legally:
BJU teaching racial discrimination: protected.
BJU practicing racial discrimination policies when contrary to federal law: not protected, subject to punitive action.
Doesn’t the student’s freedom to date who they choose weigh into this at all?
I’m going to go all Libertarian on you now 
Yes and no. It weighs in if BJU is forcing the belief on other people not on their proerty. These students choose to go to BJU.
What about the freedom of people to go to a place that does not permit inter-racial dating?
A freedom can only be respected if we respect the other person’s right to their own beliefs.
IOW:
The right to date who ever you choose is as important as the right to have a university that does not allow you to date who ever you choose.
The deciding factor is who owns the school. If it is a public school, then all of us get to decide. If it is a private school, then the owners get to decide.
I have already addressed this.
One, this is not the case so it is not relevant.
Two, they are not imposing anything on anyone. Everyone has the right to walk away and do whatever they want somewhere else. These people choose to go to BJU. BJU does not kick in their door and impose random moral beliefs on them.
This arguement is somewhere along the lines of the “do you think peoplecan own nuclear weapons” arguement in a 2nd Amendment arguement.
How do you know these students are not being forced to go there by their parents? If all universities enacted this policy, would you say they were free not to go to school at all?
Doesn’t the individual’s freedom to go to school where they want AND date who they want supercede other people’s right “to go to a place that does not permit inter-racial dating”? Isn’t this the same as the old “whites only” or “blacks only” colleges argument?
And what really constitutes “dating” to begin with? If I go to the cafeteria with someone more than once, are we dating according to some people? Is it enough to just sit next to someone regularly? Is the mere appearance of dating enough to be nailed on?
No, Freedom, you said, very specifically, “Laws that interfere with religous morals are unconstitutional.” I don’t understand why you’re dismissing this. Just because I’m not a Thugee doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out there with illegal activities as part of their moral framework, right?
Who gets to define “religious morals?”
And once again, the Government has not abridged the religious morals of anyone attending or employed by BJU. They are allowed to believe whatever they want. If they want to suck off the government nipple, they play by the government’s rules. I don’t understand what the problem is with this.
-andros-
I think I can field this one for Freedom. If they’re in college, odds are they’re over 18. Ergo, their parents can’t force them to do anything.
-andros-
I wasn’t when I started college… Besides, you must realize that parents can bring considerable pressure to bear well after age 18. And, since we are talking about a (purportedly) Christian college, most likely a majority of the students would yield to the “Honor thy father and mother” dictate of the Ten Commandments, regardless of their personal view on racial issues. Under those conditions, I think this is a valid consideration.
Once again, they do not want to suck off the nipple. (I just wanted to say that )
The issue here is not over funding, but over preferential treatment of different religions.
Public Vs. Private.
Two totally differnet equations. On top of that it is a religous institution.
The individual does not have the freedom to go to school where they want. First, they have to be accepted by ANY school before they can go there.
There are plenty of public schools out htere that offer the open PC version of society’s rules. The only way for anyone to have their own beliefs is to allow them to set their own policies bassed on their beliefs on their own property.
I’m sure you know the rule, “your rights end where mine begin”.
Well, under your system, everyone would be obligated to provide whatever the public decided. This is the role of the public universities. The role of the private universities is to provide a specific environment for teaching their beliefs.
Well, at BJU you are not even allowed to hold hands in public. Regardless of your race.
Andros, as much as we bump heads, you did nail that one exactly as I would have.
(spoooooky)
Well, if they are not 18 and they are at BJU, then the parents are treating BJU just like a private high school. The fact of the matter is, the parent gets to bring up their kid any way they want.
After 18, I could care less if the kid is threatened by being cut off from monetary support by the parents.
To quote andros…
If they want to suck off the niple of their parents, they have to play by the parent’s rules.
Please apply the same standards consistently.
Let’s see…
We can either accept that people have the right to make their own decisions and take responsibility for them,
or…
We can appoint Mrblue92 to decide when someone is REALLY making their own decision and when they are not. Forget what the person says, Let MRblue92 decide.
Do you want to extend a parental system of government over all the population for our whole lives? Either you are an adult or you are not. Either you get to pick your own morals and values or you do not.
If the individual is not responsible, then who is? If the individual does not get to make their own choices, then who does?
Andros,
The line for me is when a religion IMPOSES it’s views on a person who resists them. In this instance we are talking about consenting adults and no physical violence.
I do not mix violence with morals.
Freedom:
No, due to the fact that it made Shrub look less than compassionate in his conservatism.
Then why was it there in the first place?
I thought not. . .
I read part of the reasoning that BJU gave for having the policy in question. Of all of the terms I might apply to their message, “salvation” would never have made the cut.
I’ll bet you $10,000 (what? Phaedy did it!) that even if it were scriptural, that once it started to harm Shrub, they would have yanked it.
Okay. I still think he’s full of crap, though.
Again, what is the particular flavor of pentecostalism that is practiced at BJU? And has the gov’t denied tax-exempt status to others who practice it? Because if so, I haven’t seen anything about it.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”
Certainly would abeen my guess.
Despite the fact that nothing of the sort has happened.
Waste
Flick Lives!
In order to prevent these posts from becoming unwieldy behemoths (ahem), I’ll try to limit my response…
MY system? Check the court decisions… this IS the system. Private universities should be free to teach whatever they see fit. As far as I’m concerned they can set whatever policies they want as well, so long as those policies do not trample superceding rights. But I still fail to see the difference between 1950’s forbidding admittance to black students and 2000’s forbidding admittance to white students with black SO’s. Feel free to point out the difference any time now.
Who said anything about money? It could just as easily be a condition where the child is looking for parental acceptance.
There is also the possibility that these restrictions can be applied in a fashion to keep the campus population segregated. Suppose black boy A and white girl B are seen together three days in a row–guess we better throw them out, they’re dating. But that kind of thing NEVER happens, does it?
Substitute “MrBlue” in your quote with “the courts” and you have our current system. I was not trying to shift ALL responsibility on to the parents, but rather was merely pointing out that there may be more factors here than you are looking at. Sorry for confusing your ideals with reality.
More fodder for your perusal:
Regarding the assertion that the IRS is an extension of Congress: Wrong! It’s a part of the Executive Department; i.e., serves under the President. (Quick overview of the Branches of Government in the United States at the federal level: (1) Legislature (Congress), (2) Executive (President), and (3) Judiciary (Courts).)
Regarding the repeal of the dating policy at BJU: Local CBS affiliate here this morning reported that BJU would now require its students to have signed permission slips from their parents before dating. No word yet on what the parents will consider prior to signing said slip.
Regarding the previous policy’s lack of scriptural basis: Please check the few threads on the Left Behind Board which address this issue and you will see that a few folks there have posted the relevant bits from the Bible which support that bigoted stance. Of course, those same folks haven’t responded with why the new policy is just as scriptural as the old. But give them some time; they will, no doubt.
An addendum: I wonder what PHU will have as their policy regarding relations between students.
Since the debate isn’t going anywhere, so I thought I might throw out another question for perusal. (As to the OP, I would consider BJU a wack cult, but I do recognize every American’s right to join the wack cult of his or her choice.)
How would you feel about hiring someone who graduated from BJU?
To me, BJU is the antithesis of what the college experience should be–a chance to be on your own and figure some things out for yourself before you’re launched into the real world. Somehow I can’t imagine that happening when you have to be in bed by 11:00 and you need forms signed in triplicate and an act of Congress before you can go out on a date.
The advantage of going to a large university (as I did, and do) is the opportunity to deal with a lot of people who don’t think the same way you do. Would the BJU graduate be able to function effectively among non-like-minded people?
Then again, maybe some people need the discipline and stability that a place like BJU provides. Maybe others emerge from it a stronger person for having endured such a thing.
Given my line of work, I was thinking along the lines of hiring a nurse or PA or something. I’m not even sure BJU offers such degrees, but I would be wary of the biology they teach.
Any thoughts?
Oh, and
What the hell is that about? I must have missed that part of the Bible. Betcha they don’t sing “The Little Drummer Boy” at Christmas!
Dr. J
I am the individual you’re talking about alleging I made up the application question on spouses race. When I applied, which was as you believe an attempt to get the rule changed, I used BJU’s online application, which at that time DID ask for the race of the spouse. Call BJU, they won’t deny it. The application, which no longer asks for the race of spouse is available online at: http://www.bju.edu/admissions/application.asp
I have a printed copy of that application form which at the time still asked for the race of the spouse. They removed the question on spouse’s race sometime after I posted the letter and email on my website. Anyone who wants a copy of that form can send me their fax number or mailing address.
Your argument that I would have posted it is interesting. I didn’t expect BJU to cave in and remove the question from their application. That doesn’t mean I manufactured it. If you want a copy let me know. It’s yours for the asking.
As far as me charging starting trouble, sure I’m guilty as charged. I didn’t go to the government and ask them to shut them down. I simply posted the information so that people know this type of stuff still occurs. Do they have the right to this policy? Sure. 100%. I also have the right to tell the world. I didn’t remove their tax exempt status. I wasn’t on the scene then. I don’t believe in taxation, it is akin to slavery. Everyone should get to keep their money, including BJU.
I don’t support quotas or set-asides either, it is no different that what BJU was doing, classifying people and doling out “rights” by race. It is morally wrong in any case. I agree with BJU’s right to discriminate as a private institution, but I also believe I have the right to scream it out to the world so that people can make their own judgements about whether or not to send their child and their money there.
Sincerely,
James Landrith
Editor & Publisher,
The Multiracial Activist http://www.multiracial.com/
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Freedom:
**Once again, there is a good chance this guy manufactured the situation.
Is there a copy of the application on his site? I saw that he had scanned in the original copies of the other letter so you could see them.
I think if the application specifically asked about whether or not you were inter-racialy married then we would see the actual application on this guy’s site.
I am going to guess that he wrote it somewhere on the application in an effort to stir up controversy.
(in my head I imagine the application done as usuall with I AM INTER-MARRIED across the top. On the back I imagine a a picture stapeled on with the a picture of a 7 foot tall 400 pound black guy holding a 4 foot tall blonde as can be white midget)
This guy obviously has an agenda. Personally, I agree with it. I’m the last person in the world you are going to see condeming inter-racial marriages. But I think this guy went charging in there with every intention in the world of stirring up trouble.
James,
Congratulations. It looks like you helped make a difference in the policies at BJU. At the very least you kept the issue warm until a larger awareness forced a real change.
Please read my posts. I agree with everything you have done 100%. In fact, I am in a inter-racial relationship and their policy killed me.
But without knowing you or your situation, I had to guess at what preceded the letters you received. I made it quite clear that I did not know for sure, but that it was a possibility.
I have no reason to doubt your story, or the events that you describe.
You differ greatly from many of the posters here in that you do not think the government should be invovled in this at all.
Handling things like this through individuals, not governments is exactly the way I think it needs to be handled. I have never defended their policy, only their right to have it without being treated differently from other religous organizations by the government.
With the exception of getting your situation wrong, you and I probably have the closest views on this situation out of everybody on the thread.
As a Christian involved in an inter-racial relationship, I want to thank you for your efforts to change their policy. I hate it when a racist attitude is equated with Christianity.
Since it looks like you are the person with the most personal knowledge of the situation, what is your take on thier policy change?
(suddenly this thread got interesting again)
I stand by my last post, but I just want to say that I wasn’t all that far off base about you manufacturing the situation. I might not have gotten the specifics correct, but I have been surfing you site and the links. I found this:
My point was, that it seemed to me that you went to a little effort to get the letters. This wasn’t something that happened in the normal course of your life. Without having you here to post, it was impossible to to know what parts of the story were normal everyday stuff, and which parts were a response to things you did specifically to get that response.
Still, I agree with your agenda and I don’t think you did anythig wrong. But the fact is that I wasn’t wrong about my impressions, only the details.
Here’s the link:
http://www.thestate.com/headlines/a1docs/aaron_bobjones27.htm
I think the new policy is nonsense, especially BJU’s stance that few people get interracially married because of social stigma. I think he would be surprised to know that South Carolina has had the largest growth of interracial marriage in the last few years of any place in the country. He is attempting using secular social pressure to reinforce a flawed religious belief and that has nothing to do with Jones’ previous arguments that interracial dating was banned due to a fear of one-worldness. Wouldn’t that argument be basing religious doctrine on secular views? Last time I checked, God spelled out his intentions and didn’t need the like of a Bob Jones to do it for him. (I know, I know preaching to the choir) Anyway, I think the new policy is only a little better, but not much better than the old policy. I doubt many of the parents who send their kids to BJU will sign permission letters. Bob Jones should just admit that he didn’t really get rid of the ban, he only replaced with it the stigma of having to get parents involved. Why should an 18 year-old have to get Mommy and Daddy’s permission to date interracially? Would he apply that argument to voting? Eating habits? Choice of toothpaste? If he’s going to apply parental restrictions there, he should be consistent and require parental permission for everything else as well. That would be more honest and seem like less of the cop-out it is.
I understand your point, it just appeared to me previously that you were saying that I did something special aside from filling out the applications questions. Sure I did it to create public awareness of BJU’s policies, I’ve never denied that. I just misunderstood what you were saying. I’m pretty used to getting beaten up over this issue, the Census, and everything else and can occasionally jump the gun.
Hey James,
I noticed your site critiques those on the white side of the racial divide, but only touches on those on the black side.
Specifically, you mention Trent Lott and Bob Jones, but I don’t see a section devoted to Sharpton or Farrahkan.
Does your page change all the time, and these are issues that have been addressed in the past? I read your sections on the census, and you do mention how black leaders have resisted allowing people to check one box.
And I read this:
So I know you see that there is a problem on both sides of the issue. I’m just looking for evidence that you take both sides to task.
BTW…I loved this page:
aschrott wrote:
Is divorce forbidden by the Southern Baptist church, like it is by the Catholic Church?
Or did BJU bar him from their campus because he used drums? 
My understanding is that each Southern Baptist church has its own policy on that sort of thing. The church I grew up in didn’t prohibit anyone from being a member, but you couldn’t be a deacon if you had divorced and remarried. I can’t imagine a church saying that he was not welcome–isn’t that missing the point?
I’m still confused about the drums, though.
Dr. J