Read the editorials for a more balanced view. I often get beat on because of my editorials which some people feel are especially harsh on the NAACP and Kweisi Mfume in particular. Also, Harold McDougall, former Washington Director of the NAACP gets burned quite often. See “Councils, Caucuses and Consequences”, “My Favorite Bigot” and others for a more balanced view of my targets. The about.html file could use a little tweaking and is only a snippet of what I work for. I do, however, see your point.
If you liked the Bill of Rights Enforcement Page, you’ll probably like sci-fi writer L. Neil Smith’s email publication, The Libertarian Enterprise, which is on the same site.
For the record: BJU didn’t exactly drop its ban on inter-racial dating. They require the student to have a signed parental permission slip to date outside of one’s race.
So now I guess if they enforce the policy against someone, it’s really enforcing the commandment to honour one’s parents. Or so, no doubt, we’ll be told.
(I gleaned this from the Monterey Herald, which lacks an online version.)
According to the same ex-BJUer friend, BJU does not allow the use of percussion in music making. Not sure why, but I think it has to do with the emphasis they place on music as an element of praise and devotion, rather than as an art form or something to be enjoyed. Perhaps they feel percussion is too visceral or distracting from sentiment. I’ll see if I can get a clear answer from him at some point and I’ll get back to you.
As for the divorce–again I have to rely on second-hand info. I don’t know how many different “Baptist” churches there are, but whichever one BJU is affiliated with strictly forbids divorce. My friend was a traveling preacher/singer within the church and made his living moving from congregation to congregation leading them in worship for special services. He has not been allowed to preach or attend church since his divorce, and the majority of his friends and “family” have disassociated themselves from him–for that reason only.
I apologize for not having better specifics or references. This is all based on a couple of conversations with a trusted friend, and my main reason for posting was to express my concern after having seen the devastating personal effects that BJU and it’s associated religious subculture have had on someone I care about.
-A.
I apologize for not having better specifics. This is all based on one account from a trusted friend.
“I don’t get any smarter as I get older–Just less stupid”
when I say my friend was “not allowed” to preach or attend church, what I mean is that it was made very clear to him that he was not at all welcome. I don’t know if anyone would actually attempt to prevent him from going if he chose to weather the hostility. I’m quite sure they wouldn’t hire him to preach though. It ruined his music ministry business, and he has since had to start his life over completely.
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.
Who said anything about controlling churches? Isn’t BJU classified as a school?
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
As I haven’t finished reading the thread yet, I don’t know if this has been brought up yet or not. Waste’s point is exactly right. Any college in this country can do anything it damn well pleases on its campus. BUT, once you ask for a federal tax exemption or federal funds, then you have to play by the government’s rules. Which means no discrimination. Remember the Citadel and VMI? The ruling was that they could continue to be single-sex colleges. However, they could not be tax-exempt, and they could also not get any more federal funds. Same thing for Bob Jones.
Also, on the tax-exemption. Revoking a church’s tax-exempt status is NOT discriminating against religion. If tomorrow the Catholic Church (which I am a member of) decided to never allow blacks inside its churches again, I would HOPE it would get its little old tax exemption revoked. That’s just the government taking a benefit away. It’s not saying the church can’t do whatever it wants, it’s just saying it’ll have to pay taxes. shrug
Winner, SDMB’s Biggest Chat Addict
“Only two things that’ll soothe my soul - cold beer and remote control.”
I’m not sure whether this thread is too flamey to bother with, but here goes:
The Supreme Court has clearly indicated that one’s religious beliefs do not give one the right to disobey the law.
Now, my interpretation of this and the “wall of separation” idea is that churches clearly should not be tax-exempt at all. Churches can be big business, even to the extent of selling capuccino and beanie babies, but they get to do so tax-free so long as they can get the IRS to decide that they are a religion. The problem with taxing religions (like Mormonism ca. 1978) that don’t play by the rules isn’t that the government is being discriminatory in handing out punishing taxation- it’s that they are being discriminatory in rewarding some religions with special privileges but not others. If Congress decided to tax religions, then so long as they decided to tax all religions then I think the precedent clearly indicates that Churches have no constitutional right to break the tax laws. I personally think it would be a lot fairer if non-profit organizations got a blanket tax-free status. If your religion is for profit, then it doesn’t deserve tax-free status. If your charity doesn’t have a religious bent, then it clearly does deserve tax-free status. Not an entirely unproblematic stance, but at least it’s more clearly constitutional than what we have now.
