Results of the election & Christian higher ed.

[laughing lioness]

 

University President Warns of Loss of Intellectual and Religious Freedom and Numerous College Closures

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma Wesleyan University President, Dr. Everett Piper, is speaking out about Presidential candidate Barack Obama's statements regarding staffing practices for faith-based organizations. "I am very concerned" says Piper. "Senator Obama's statements that appear on his campaign's web page, as well as, those spoken at the Saddleback Civil Forum and his July 1 speech in Ohio, should cause all universities that are Christian in faith and practice to be concerned for their very existence."

 

"The issue is one of freedom of association in staffing" Piper states. "Since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all faith-based colleges and universities have had a religious exemption when it comes to hiring faculty and staff." Piper goes further: "By definition an Evangelical college has always had the right to expect its teachers to be Evangelical, a Jewish college could hire only those who are Jewish, a Catholic school could require its faculty to be Catholic and so on. This has been common sense and common practice. The logical privilege and legal right of a school to refuse employment to those who hold views antithetical to the institution - to its ideological, theological, and historical moorings - to its very mission statement and reason for existence - has been a given. It would be absurd to force a Jewish school, for example, to hire an advocate of Al Qaeda ideology. Students and parents choosing such a school would assume that, by definition, they would not have someone teaching such a worldview."

 

Piper says his concerns stem directly from Obama's own words. "In Obama's July 1, 2008 speech in Ohio the Senator contends that if an organization benefits from federal grants it can't make any staffing or hiring decisions 'on the basis of religion.' Furthermore, on his official campaign web page Barack Obama clarifies that under his presidency 'religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs; and [faith-based organizations] can only use taxpayer's dollars on secular programs and initiatives.' Finally, in the Saddleback Civil Forum with Rick Warren, Obama commented specifically on Christian colleges and said 'When it comes to the programs that are federally funded, then we do have to be careful to make sure that we are not creating a situation where people are being discriminated against [in hiring practices].'" Piper says the problem in Obama's statements is this: "Almost every college in the nation - religious or secular - has students who qualify for and receive federal funds in the form of grants, loans, and scholarships. Students have always been able to use these dollars to go to the college of their choice. But Obama's position clearly indicates that this freedom could be in jeopardy and that students may only be able to use such grants and loans to attend schools that are secular in their worldview and behavioral codes." Piper goes further: "My question is this (and Senator Obama does not provide an answer): Will students be prohibited by law from using their financial aid to attend any school that hires faculty in a manner that is consistent with its Christian faith, values and theological distinctions? Will the funding that flows from the student to the institution - funding that has been available since the GI Bill of the 1940s - be averted? Will students lose their ability to attend a Christian college and will the colleges by default lose a primary source of revenue?" "If so" says Piper "hundreds of colleges and universities across the land would be forced into immediate financial exigency and imminent closure."

 

Piper summarizes by saying "As far as I can tell, this conversation at this level is unprecedented. At no time in our history has the religious and intellectual freedom of the academy been held up to such ambiguity. Does it really make any sense to require Christian organizations to hire those who explicitly deny Christian orthodoxy and explicitly violate Christian orthopraxy?"

 

Oklahoma Wesleyan University is a Christian liberal arts university recognized by U.S. News and World Report and Forbes.com for its excellence. Its mission statement calls for the integration of faith, learning, and living in all disciplines with the Primacy of Jesus Christ, the Priority of Scripture, the Pursuit of Truth, and the Practice of Wisdom as the University's distinct foundation. For more information on Oklahoma Wesleyan or Dr. Piper go to www.okwu.edu or call 918.335.6234.

 

FYI: Christian graduate schools of psychology are accredited by American Psychology Association. It is what allows future Christian Psychologist to be licensed and earn a living. APA threatened to pull their accreditation around 2001/2002 because of their standards of faith and practice and it was only the direct intervention of the Bush Administration under the Department of Justice that prevented them doing so. Under Obama the Department of Justice will do exactly the opposite.

[Pammy]

own island. Anyone ready to move there and start over?

:confused::confused:

[motherofjoy]

I personally have no problem with faith based organizations having no access to federal (or state/local) tax money - or for that money to be strictly controlled with secular restrictions. Just as the pro lifer is discouraged at the thought of their money being tied to the payment of abortion, so I am appalled that my tax money should pay to indoctrinate anyone into a certain religious belief. Go Obama!

[Melinda in VT]

I have mixed feelings about this. I attended a university run by the church in which I grew up, and I think there are some legitimate concerns with such universities.

 

I'd have to read more about a proposed plan before I knew if I thought it was a good idea.

[Haiku]

This does not mean that religious institutions can't hire whom they choose with their own money. It just means that you can't say to someone, "Here, we have this federally funded program and we need someone to work it, but you can't get the job because you're not our religion." I don't think this is any different than the way things have always been. If you want only people of your religion working for your religious organization, great! Just don't ask the government/taxpayers to pay for it. If you take taxpayer money for a certain program or position, don't discriminate in hiring for that program/position on the basis of religion. IOW, I think it is program-specific and not institution-specific.

 

Choosing a religious college and using federal funds to pay tuition is not the same as refusing to hire someone because they aren't your religion. I think the tuition question has already been settled.

 

Tara

[In The Great White North]

Choosing a religious college and using federal funds to pay tuition is not the same as refusing to hire someone because they aren't your religion. I think the tuition question has already been settled.

 

 

I don't think the tuition question is settled at all. I believe this very issue is why Hillsdale and Grove City Colleges don't accept federal funding, student loans, etc.

 

Similar situations at the secondary level are decided differently all over the country. In some states, parochial school students get busing and special ed services; in other states they don't. In Vermont, towns without a high school pay a student's tuition (up to the state per pupil rate) at any high school in the country, even Phillip Exeter, but not at a Catholic or Christian high school.

 

IOW, I think it is program-specific and not institution-specific.

 

I don't think so. Once an institution accepts any federal money at all, a whole bunch of federal regulations suddenly apply.

[astrid]

I personally have no problem with faith based organizations having no access to federal (or state/local) tax money - or for that money to be strictly controlled with secular restrictions. Just as the pro lifer is discouraged at the thought of their money being tied to the payment of abortion, so I am appalled that my tax money should pay to indoctrinate anyone into a certain religious belief. Go Obama!

 

:iagree::iagree:

astrid

[mom31257]

I personally have no problem with faith based organizations having no access to federal (or state/local) tax money - or for that money to be strictly controlled with secular restrictions. Just as the pro lifer is discouraged at the thought of their money being tied to the payment of abortion, so I am appalled that my tax money should pay to indoctrinate anyone into a certain religious belief. Go Obama!

 

I can definitely understand where you are coming from; however, as a graduate of a Christian College, I don't feel that most of my classes "indoctrinated" me. I was a math and business major. There were religious classes and services. You definitely felt that you had a common bond with the other students. Most subjects, even on a religious campus, are still secular in nature. There were non-Christians from the community who attend because it was a very good school. Our pre-med program had one of the highest acceptance rates to medical school among private colleges. We also had one of the best music departments as well.

 

I did not receive any federal money to go to college. My father was denied the chance to attend college, and he would not allow me to apply for aid. I did receive academic scholarships, but he paid for all the rest. If I had received it, I would have felt that finally my Dad got a little something back for all the years of paying in taxes. We get so few choices on how our tax dollars are spent. This has seemed one area where we at least get some choice with it.

 

The benefit of many in our society receiving a higher education must surely far outweigh the "harm" that might come from some attending religious institutions. Besides, I'm sure there are many forms of "indoctrination" that take place at secular universities. Are secular university professors going to have to keep their religious or non-religious beliefs out of their conversations and teaching? You really can't separate a person from what they believe. It always finds a way out of the heart.

[teamturner]

Wow! This is yet another post that has the potential to become an abortion debate. If someone chooses to attend a Christian school, or a Muslim school, or whatever religious school wouldn't we the taxpayers be paying for that too? That's not discriminating against any one religion. Or one wants a totally secular education, the taxpayers pay that too. Aren't there classes in some universities that perhaps teach classes that many in America would object to? I'm thinking of the LGBT 101-Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans. Studies or Pornography 101. Are we really going to say as a nation that a person who seeks a federally funded grant or loan that is to a school or subject matter that we are opposed to then it should not be given to them? These are adults that are making a conscious decision to study in the way they want. What choice is a fetus given about being terminated? We're equating school choice/indoctrination (of adults) to what some believe to be murder? Not the same in my book.

[motherofjoy]

Wow! This is yet another post that has the potential to become an abortion debate. If someone chooses to attend a Christian school, or a Muslim school, or whatever religious school wouldn't we the taxpayers be paying for that too? That's not discriminating against any one religion. Or one wants a totally secular education, the taxpayers pay that too. Aren't there classes in some universities that perhaps teach classes that many in America would object to? I'm thinking of the LGBT 101-Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans. Studies or Pornography 101. Are we really going to say as a nation that a person who seeks a federally funded grant or loan that is to a school or subject matter that we are opposed to then it should not be given to them? These are adults that are making a conscious decision to study in the way they want. What choice is a fetus given about being terminated? We're equating school choice/indoctrination (of adults) to what some believe to be murder? Not the same in my book.

 

The difference is, all those classes are secular in nature. I don't want my tax dollars spent on a religious education, regardless of the religion. I don't want my tax dollars spent on any faith based initiatives, education, welfare programs, or research. Any faith. The government spends tax money on many things I don't agree with, not the least of which is public education, yet there's a need for that and so I wouldn't vote against it. Faith based doesn't mean Christian Only. The Christians don't own the rights to faith. I used the analogy of abortion in my post because that's an issue that many faith based voters object to having their tax money spent on, and I understand their displeasure. Their displeasure is comparative to mine, as far as where tax money is spent.

[Melinda in VT]

For me, the issue of federal dollars going to support religious education is not as great as the issue of federal dollars going to support institutions that do not honor intellectual freedom. Professors losing their jobs for publishing books that are deemed religiously unacceptable. Students being kicked out of the university because their religious beliefs change and they are unwilling to lie about it.

[KarenNC]

Any organization is free to hire anyone they want, offer any program they wish, etc as long as they do it with their own money. They are free to set religious limits on who can use their services, associate with them, etc as long as they are using their own funds to do so. They are not free (or should not be) to do so with taxpayer money. If they *choose* to accept federal or state funds, they are *choosing* to also accept the restrictions that come with those funds, the restrictions that are decided upon by the lawfully elected representatives of *all* those taxpayers.

 

It is no more right to have a test of faith in order to get a job at a federally funded program than to have a test of appropriate skin color or appropriate ethnic background or appropriate gender.

[motherofjoy]

For me, the issue of federal dollars going to support religious education is not as great as the issue of federal dollars going to support institutions that do not honor intellectual freedom. Professors losing their jobs for publishing books that are deemed religiously unacceptable. Students being kicked out of the university because their religious beliefs change and they are unwilling to lie about it.

 

I've love to read the documentation about professors losing their jobs or students being kicked out of schools for religious reasons. I googled but wasn't able to find any articles. Thank you in advance!

[teamturner]

But these *funds* are first given to an individual student who *chooses* a religious school. So we are telling the student to limit their choices to those that some view as acceptable. I'm not happy about my tax dollars going to fund art that mocks my religion but hey that's the way it goes sometimes. If you ladies are going to take the position that no federal college loan or grant monies can be used to go to a religious school, then I think those of us who oppose some of the secular (a world view that is often hostile to those who are religious) schools teaching/indoctrinating/class offerings should object to those same funds being used for that. If you take this whole "I object to that " argument then we could apply that to a ton of stuff from all different POV. I understand that abortion has since been the sacred cow of witholding of federal funds. But we are talking about life and death on that one and if we going to ere on one side or the other then I'd rather we ere on the side of life-promoting use of federal funds. That's just my POV.

[Audrey]

I personally have no problem with faith based organizations having no access to federal (or state/local) tax money - or for that money to be strictly controlled with secular restrictions. Just as the pro lifer is discouraged at the thought of their money being tied to the payment of abortion, so I am appalled that my tax money should pay to indoctrinate anyone into a certain religious belief. Go Obama!

 

 

You go girl!

[Daisy]

You know it doesn't just get limited to universities. CA has already passed a law that affects all religious charitable groups that take state funds. If you take state funds you cannot refuse to hire a homosexual. That means the Christian foster care agency, the Christian preschool who accepts children on reduced income, the Christian university who offers Pell Grants or Student loans, etc.

 

Personally, I believe we must stop being dependent on government funding because it requires compromising our moral beliefs. You can't stand for truth while accepting hush money.

 

I'll take it a step further and say the government is overstepping it's bounds. It has no right to be funding any of those programs. It should stay out of education and social issues altogether.

[jojomojo]

If we're talking about not allowing programs to directly receive federal funds, I can see the argument. But if we are strictly talking about a student who receives federal aid choosing to attend the school of their choice, that's a slippery slope. If students are no longer allowed to use that aid for religious studies or for religious institutions in general, it should apply to all religious studies (or all institutions offering religious studies). Matters of the heart and what they truly put their faith in should not matter at all (so whether it is secular study of religion, or religious study of religion).

 

And if we're going to take it THAT far, to further control where aid is used, we should require more control in welfare. Surely we would have to disallow recipients to use cash assistance (TANF, unemployment, etc) on anything religious.

 

Obviously, the above is not going to happen. And I think we all realize that how aid is used isn't always in a way we would personally agree with. If it isn't a life or death situation, sometimes we just have to suck it up and choose battles.

[Cricket]

I wonder if this should apply to other areas as well. When I went to college, I joined the Young Republicans. All groups had to have a faculty advisor. There wasn't a single faculty member on campus who was a Republican. We settled for using the only libertarian faculty member. All others were registered Democrats. Schools that hire only Democrats should lose their federal money too. :)

[motherofjoy]

You know it doesn't just get limited to universities. CA has already passed a law that affects all religious charitable groups that take state funds. If you take state funds you cannot refuse to hire a homosexual. That means the Christian foster care agency, the Christian preschool who accepts children on reduced income, the Christian university who offers Pell Grants or Student loans, etc.

 

Personally, I believe we must stop being dependent on government funding because it requires compromising our moral beliefs. You can't stand for truth while accepting hush money.

 

I'll take it a step further and say the government is overstepping it's bounds. It has no right to be funding any of those programs. It should stay out of education and social issues altogether.

 

There's always that option. It's not limited to religious organizations you know, ANYONE who accepts federal money has to abide by federal discrimination laws. All states have similar, but in some cases, less restrictive laws.

[Melinda in VT]

I've love to read the documentation about professors losing their jobs or students being kicked out of schools for religious reasons. I googled but wasn't able to find any articles. Thank you in advance!

 

You have a PM.

[teamturner]

If we're talking about not allowing programs to directly receive federal funds, I can see the argument. But if we are strictly talking about a student who receives federal aid choosing to attend the school of their choice, that's a slippery slope. If students are no longer allowed to use that aid for religious studies or for religious institutions in general, it should apply to all religious studies (or all institutions offering religious studies). Matters of the heart and what they truly put their faith in should not matter at all (so whether it is secular study of religion, or religious study of religion).

 

And if we're going to take it THAT far, to further control where aid is used, we should require more control in welfare. Surely we would have to disallow recipients to use cash assistance (TANF, unemployment, etc) on anything religious.

 

Obviously, the above is not going to happen. And I think we all realize that how aid is used isn't always in a way we would personally agree with. If it isn't a life or death situation, sometimes we just have to suck it up and choose battles.

 

:iagree:

[Laurel]

You know it doesn't just get limited to universities. CA has already passed a law that affects all religious charitable groups that take state funds. If you take state funds you cannot refuse to hire a homosexual. That means the Christian foster care agency, the Christian preschool who accepts children on reduced income, the Christian university who offers Pell Grants or Student loans, etc.

 

 

Why is this a bad thing?

[FloridaLisa]

You know it doesn't just get limited to universities. CA has already passed a law that affects all religious charitable groups that take state funds. If you take state funds you cannot refuse to hire a homosexual. That means the Christian foster care agency, the Christian preschool who accepts children on reduced income, the Christian university who offers Pell Grants or Student loans, etc.

 

Personally, I believe we must stop being dependent on government funding because it requires compromising our moral beliefs.

 

 

This is how the federal government has come to regulate so many historically state and local issues -- through categorical and block grants that come with strings or mandates.

 

There is also always the possibility that the federal government could decide not to give a tax exemption to churches and other para-church organizations that refuse to comply with its mandates.

 

Lisa

[Liberty]

Does this mean we should cut medicare/medicaid payments to Catholic-run hospitals? (or should nuns get the boot?) Should we say to the veteran coming back from his tour of duty that he CAN"T use his GI bill to go to a Christian college? Well, heck, shoudl we allow any employee of the federal government to spend their tax-funded incomes on religious activities (or, at that point, has it been laundered enough for the secular purists?).

[OnTheBrink]

But these *funds* are first given to an individual student who *chooses* a religious school. So we are telling the student to limit their choices to those that some view as acceptable. I'm not happy about my tax dollars going to fund art that mocks my religion but hey that's the way it goes sometimes. If you ladies are going to take the position that no federal college loan or grant monies can be used to go to a religious school, then I think those of us who oppose some of the secular (a world view that is often hostile to those who are religious) schools teaching/indoctrinating/class offerings should object to those same funds being used for that. If you take this whole "I object to that " argument then we could apply that to a ton of stuff from all different POV. I understand that abortion has since been the sacred cow of witholding of federal funds. But we are talking about life and death on that one and if we going to ere on one side or the other then I'd rather we ere on the side of life-promoting use of federal funds. That's just my POV.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Brigitte]

The difference is, all those classes are secular in nature. I don't want my tax dollars spent on a religious education, regardless of the religion.

 

Hmm, last I saw, the public universities are full of courses on religious topics and offer degrees in religious studies. Do you want those courses dropped for the offerings of public institutions?

[Kelli in TN]

.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Kelli in TN
Never mind

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

.

 

WARNING: Both links embedded here are pdf's.

 

Kelli, if you still want to know, this professor is taking this and extrapolating it what was said in the OP's post.

 

My understanding is that the Bush administration also had the caveat about funding faith-based organizations that if they took federal funds, the *parts of the organizations mission* that used the funds had to apply them for everyone, not discriminate in hiring for that part of the program, and only use the dollars for the secular programs and initiatives.*

 

This did not keep colleges from getting Pell grant students, etc. I mean, even BJU now accepts federal "funding" via Pell's and federal student loans that are guaranteed. When I was there, this was akin to selling out, compromise, and ushering in secularism and the New World Order. But times change, and so do policies.

 

So I think this is a tempest in a teapot. The world is not going to end when President Obama is sworn in. Life as we know it won't cease. This is one person's opinion on how a faith-based initiative limitation will be applied, but it remains to be seen if this faith-based initiative plan which is virtually identical to the Bush plan is going to make religious colleges crash and burn.

 

(If I'm wrong about the Bush plan, please somebody cite it for me.)

 

And I will totally delete this if you don't want it here, since I see you deleted your previous post.

[TeacherZee]

I wonder if this should apply to other areas as well. When I went to college, I joined the Young Republicans. All groups had to have a faculty advisor. There wasn't a single faculty member on campus who was a Republican. We settled for using the only libertarian faculty member. All others were registered Democrats. Schools that hire only Democrats should lose their federal money too. :)

 

No because they shouldn't be allowed to ASK what party affiliation they have, what religion they have, what their sexual preference is etc.

 

Hmm, last I saw, the public universities are full of courses on religious topics and offer degrees in religious studies. Do you want those courses dropped for the offerings of public institutions?

 

As long as they are open to teaching ALL religions I have no problem with it. We need to teach people about different religions because it is the basis for so many peoples identity, not to mention many conflicts in both history and modern time. By understanding the different religions we can better understand these conflicts.

 

It is a university taking federal money and teaching that one religion is the only truth that I have a problem with.

[mazakaal]

If we're talking about not allowing programs to directly receive federal funds, I can see the argument. But if we are strictly talking about a student who receives federal aid choosing to attend the school of their choice, that's a slippery slope. If students are no longer allowed to use that aid for religious studies or for religious institutions in general, it should apply to all religious studies (or all institutions offering religious studies). Matters of the heart and what they truly put their faith in should not matter at all (so whether it is secular study of religion, or religious study of religion).

 

And if we're going to take it THAT far, to further control where aid is used, we should require more control in welfare. Surely we would have to disallow recipients to use cash assistance (TANF, unemployment, etc) on anything religious.

 

Obviously, the above is not going to happen. And I think we all realize that how aid is used isn't always in a way we would personally agree with. If it isn't a life or death situation, sometimes we just have to suck it up and choose battles.

 

 

This is what I'm wondering. Does federal grant money go to religious private universities? How much do these universities depend on federal funds? Or are they talkiing about students not being able to use their federal grant money or student loans? That would seriously disturb me.

[Haiku]

My understanding is that the Bush administration also had the caveat about funding faith-based organizations that if they took federal funds, the *parts of the organizations mission* that used the funds had to apply them for everyone, not discriminate in hiring for that part of the program, and only use the dollars for the secular programs and initiatives.*

 

 

That is what I was trying to say in my first post. One of my kids receives services from a religiously affiliated social service organization. When we were there yesterday, I asked about this. What I was told is that any program they run which utilizes federal funds must be impartial in terms of hiring practices and service provision. Any programs that are run entirely out their own funds can be run however they like.

 

Tara

[Bev in B'ville]

of the woman who was saving for a trip to Disney on food stamps thread.

 

Many people posted that once the government gave money or food stamps to her it was hers to do with what she wished and if she wanted to save "extra" money on a vacation then she should. What if she wanted to spend the money, for instance, on sending her child to a private Christian school? Would this then change your opinion? Should government then intercede and tell her how that money is to be spent or that she can't spend it on something religious?

 

Personally, I think that the more government interferes in our lives, the more freedom we lose. I don't like the idea of losing more freedom. If government gives students money for college, it should not then turn around and tell them where/when they should go to college. If gov't can tell people where they can go to college then the logical next step will be to tell them what they can or can't major in. What if a person goes to a state university and majors in theology? Should the government say no because it's a federal student loan or scholarship?

 

Extending this to schools, once federal government gives the money to schools, it should not then be involved in how that money is spent or who is hired or not hired. It's silly to even entertain the idea that a Christian school should hire a Jewish professor or vice-versa or that a Muslim school should hire Christian or Jewish teachers. Honestly, I would think that most teachers who have a chosen faith would be uncomfortable in a setting diametrically opposed to their beliefs and would not apply to begin with. Why would an atheist or agnostic even apply for a job at a faith-based school/university when there are shortages of teachers at gov't schools? I would think that person either has an agenda (e.g. trying to prove a point) or is a masochist.

 

Bottom line: I don't think government should interfere at all with our liberties and they already interfere too much as is.

[TeacherZee]

o

 

Extending this to schools' date=' once federal government gives the money to schools, it should not then be involved in how that money is spent or who is hired or not hired. It's silly to even entertain the idea that a Christian school should hire a Jewish professor or vice-versa or that a Muslim school should hire Christian or Jewish teachers. Honestly, I would think that most teachers who have a chosen faith would be uncomfortable in a setting diametrically opposed to their beliefs and would not apply to begin with. Why would an atheist or agnostic even apply for a job at a faith-based school/university when there are shortages of teachers at gov't schools? I would think that person either has an agenda (e.g. trying to prove a point) or is a masochist.

 

Bottom line: I don't think government should interfere at all with our liberties and they already interfere too much as is.[/quote']

 

I can see your point especially if there are other jobs they could take. And I think that a Christian college is perfectly within its rights to hire a Christian professor to teach, the Bible, Church History etc. But I don't think they can take federal money and then ask for statements of faith for someone teaching say English or Maths. Does that make sense?

[Melinda in VT]

Honestly' date=' I would think that most teachers who have a chosen faith would be uncomfortable in a setting diametrically opposed to their beliefs and would not apply to begin with. Why would an atheist or agnostic even apply for a job at a faith-based school/university when there are shortages of teachers at gov't schools? I would think that person either has an agenda (e.g. trying to prove a point) or is a masochist.[/quote']

 

What about the professor or student whose religious beliefs or practices change once hired or accepted to the school? Should a student be entitled to finish his or her degree? Should a professor be fired?

 

(I'm on the fence on this issue, but these questions are the sticky ones for me.)

[Bev in B'ville]

I can see your point especially if there are other jobs they could take. And I think that a Christian college is perfectly within its rights to hire a Christian professor to teach, the Bible, Church History etc. But I don't think they can take federal money and then ask for statements of faith for someone teaching say English or Maths. Does that make sense?

 

 

and remember, this is just my opinion.

 

My dd took an online class last year from a Christian school. The literature class was mostly ancient literature and, as such, included the Bible in addition to The Illiad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid and others (for a total of 11 literary works - so the Bible was 1 of 11). Now, this particular school has been very good about using secular materials (especially in their sciences) which is why I really like this particular online school. All that to ask (and just suppose for a moment that this was a Christian school/university that dealt with federal monies): Should gov't then restrict the teachings, as well, to eliminate any mention of God or gods? That would eliminate a plethora of literature, both ancient and modern. That would eliminate many historical speeches by Lincoln, Jefferson, Churchill, Washington. I could go on and on. Shakespeare would even be eliminated.

 

The question to ask here is where do we draw the line? I think that gov't should stay out of this issue entirely. The liberty to choose our education (and isn't that why we all homeschool), including the inclusion of Bible classes and the Bible in other types of classes (literature, history, etc.) if we are so inclined should be a personal decision and not based on gov't influence. Additionally, the gov't should refrain from discrimination based on religion in educational matters.

 

The only time I think gov't should intervene is when extremist views, which could result in the taking of innocent lives, is being taught. For example, the extremist Muslims (which is, by far, a minority of Muslims) teach that people should be converted to Muslim or, if they refuse, die. That's extremist. The gov't should deal with that and I would feel the same if there was a Christian organization teaching that philosophy.

 

As always, just my $.02.

[Bev in B'ville]

What about the professor or student whose religious beliefs or practices change once hired or accepted to the school? Should a student be entitled to finish his or her degree? Should a professor be fired?

 

(I'm on the fence on this issue, but these questions are the sticky ones for me.)

 

I am a Christian. If I converted atheism, or Muslim, or Judaism, while attending a Christian school/university or teaching at same I would think that I would then be too uncomfortable around my peers to remain. *I* would want to transfer to a place where I felt more comfortable. That seems like common sense to me and, again, I don't think I would need gov't's help figuring that out. If I chose to remain, for whatever reason, then I would have to accept that the people around me would either choose to distance themselves from me or, alternatively, try to convert me back through (I hope) philosophical discussions (and not through other means).

 

I also think it's well within the right of a religious organization to be free from gov't influence, but should not be discriminated against by the gov't. If I signed a statement of faith to teach at or become a student at a religious school and I violated that, then yes, I could expect to be fired/asked to resign/asked to transfer. I think this is in line with contracts organizations make employees sign stating they won't share their trade secrets with competitors. If I signed such a statement and violated it, then I could and should expect to be fired.

 

As always, just my $.02.

[Harriet Vane]

I can see your point especially if there are other jobs they could take. And I think that a Christian college is perfectly within its rights to hire a Christian professor to teach, the Bible, Church History etc. But I don't think they can take federal money and then ask for statements of faith for someone teaching say English or Maths. Does that make sense?

 

As a Christian, no, that does not make sense, because I believe the presence of God to be everywhere, in everything. God is the lens through which I see everything. For me, there is no "secular" subject matter. I do not compartmentalize that way, though I readily acknowledge that obviously a Bible class is more overtly and obviously about God than a math class.

 

I do read and utilize "secular" materials because I believe that God is the author of all truth, so any resource that shows truth ultimately affirms God whether or not that was the intent of the author. I also read and utilize materials that contain a specifically non-Christian perspective because I wish to understand the world that I live in and the people around me.

 

However, when choosing to expose my children to materials that are antithetical to our faith, I process that and dialog with them actively and attempt to show the differences in the biblical perspective on God versus the perspective that resource holds. Everything we read and discuss is filtered through the perspective of our faith.

 

If my children were attending a Christian school, I would expect that all teachers, even the English and maths teachers, would teach from a specifically Christian perspective. This would be less of an issue in math, but it would definitely be an open, ongoing, almost daily issue with English. I have a degree in English and understand clearly exactly how much philosophy gets discussed in a great books class. I also understand clearly the radical difference the faith of the teacher makes--I read several works at my private, Christian high school that were taught from a Christian perspective. I then re-read those same works in a college class taught by a man who was not just non-Christian but actively hostile towards Christianity. His hostility made honest discussion impossible.

[TeacherZee]

As a Christian, no, that does not make sense, because I believe the presence of God to be everywhere, in everything. God is the lens through which I see everything. For me, there is no "secular" subject matter. I do not compartmentalize that way, though I readily acknowledge that obviously a Bible class is more overtly and obviously about God than a math class.

 

I do read and utilize "secular" materials because I believe that God is the author of all truth, so any resource that shows truth ultimately affirms God whether or not that was the intent of the author. I also read and utilize materials that contain a specifically non-Christian perspective because I wish to understand the world that I live in and the people around me.

 

However, when choosing to expose my children to materials that are antithetical to our faith, I process that and dialog with them actively and attempt to show the differences in the biblical perspective on God versus the perspective that resource holds. Everything we read and discuss is filtered through the perspective of our faith.

 

If my children were attending a Christian school, I would expect that all teachers, even the English and maths teachers, would teach from a specifically Christian perspective. This would be less of an issue in math, but it would definitely be an open, ongoing, almost daily issue with English. I have a degree in English and understand clearly exactly how much philosophy gets discussed in a great books class. I also understand clearly the radical difference the faith of the teacher makes--I read several works at my private, Christian high school that were taught from a Christian perspective. I then re-read those same works in a college class taught by a man who was not just non-Christian but actively hostile towards Christianity. His hostility made honest discussion impossible.

 

I am sorry your teacher was open and actively hostile towards Christianity, that is such a shame.

 

I am currently doing a degree in English at a state university. We have recently read a book with quite a bit of religious imagery and references to the Bible (although the book itself would probably be categorised as very anti-religion). During the discussion several of my classmates expressed regret over not knowing the Bible better because they felt that they missed several key points in the book. Our teacher actively encouraged us to seek out the Bible references and they were central to the book. He was actually very excited when I (with my very limited bible knowledge) stumbled on a point in the book that he had previously not seen. This to me shows that you don't necessarily have to be a Christian to be able to pick out Christian themes in a book and do a good job of it.

 

I am actually studying the Bible on my own right now because it is so prevalent in literature that I feel I need to have at least an idea of what it says in order to see the bigger picture in many books. My next project in that arena will be the Koran because so much modern literature is coming out of Islamic countries.

[Haiku]

Many people posted that once the government gave money or food stamps to her it was hers to do with what she wished and if she wanted to save "extra" money on a vacation then she should. What if she wanted to spend the money' date=' for instance, on sending her child to a private Christian school? Would this then change your opinion? [/quote']

 

Once the money is given to her, it is hers. She should be able to spend it on what she wants. The same is true, imo, of college funds. Once a student qualifies for financial aid, that student should be able to make his or her own decision about where to get the education (and that is the way vouchers work here where I live ... vouchers can pay for parochial schools).

 

I see that as different from giving money to an institution and allowing that institution to discriminate against people. An institution that discriminates is closing doors on citizens; a person who chooses a college is not.

 

Tara

Edited October 18, 2008 by TaraTheLiberator
typo

[Harriet Vane]

I am sorry your teacher was open and actively hostile towards Christianity, that is such a shame.

 

I am currently doing a degree in English at a state university. We have recently read a book with quite a bit of religious imagery and references to the Bible (although the book itself would probably be categorised as very anti-religion). During the discussion several of my classmates expressed regret over not knowing the Bible better because they felt that they missed several key points in the book. Our teacher actively encouraged us to seek out the Bible references and they were central to the book. He was actually very excited when I (with my very limited bible knowledge) stumbled on a point in the book that he had previously not seen. This to me shows that you don't necessarily have to be a Christian to be able to pick out Christian themes in a book and do a good job of it.

 

I am actually studying the Bible on my own right now because it is so prevalent in literature that I feel I need to have at least an idea of what it says in order to see the bigger picture in many books. My next project in that arena will be the Koran because so much modern literature is coming out of Islamic countries.

 

Your teacher was a rare gem--I am glad you had that positive experience. When I was at university, most of my teachers did not comment on faith one way or the other. I did have a couple (I can think of 3 off the top of my head) who were openly hostile towards Christianity to varying degrees.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I had one, absolute gem of a professor, who was a practicing Jew but made a genuine effort to understand and explain biblical allusions in the literature she was teaching. She was proactive about it and honest in her academic assessment. My range of experiences with these different teachers, as well as my experience in a private high school (I went to public school for the elementary years) have definitely shaped my perceptions.

 

I too have an interest in reading the Koran. Islam has become a powerful presence in the modern world and I would like to understand that culture better. My hope is to study sometime (in all my free time:rolleyes:) over the next 2-3 years, and then re-read the Koran together with my dd when she gets to high school. My hope is for her and I to read the major works of the dominant world religions in order to understand them first-hand.

[OH_Homeschooler]

I personally have no problem with faith based organizations having no access to federal (or state/local) tax money - or for that money to be strictly controlled with secular restrictions. Just as the pro lifer is discouraged at the thought of their money being tied to the payment of abortion, so I am appalled that my tax money should pay to indoctrinate anyone into a certain religious belief. Go Obama!

 

:iagree:

[OH_Homeschooler]

I can see your point especially if there are other jobs they could take. And I think that a Christian college is perfectly within its rights to hire a Christian professor to teach, the Bible, Church History etc. But I don't think they can take federal money and then ask for statements of faith for someone teaching say English or Maths. Does that make sense?

 

I don't think you need to BE a Christian to read, understand, and teach about the Bible or church history. I see what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that a Biblical scholar can be quite competent without being a Christian. So as an academic subject matter, I don't see why you'd have different hiring standards for Christian-based topics than for English or Math. But I DO think it's a right of any privately-funded organization to establish whatever hiring guidelines they see fit.

[Kelli in TN]

Once the money is given to her, it is hers. She should be able to spend it on what she wants. The same is true, imo, of college funds. Once a student qualifies for financial aid, that student should be able to make his or her own decision about where to get the education (and that is the way vouchers work here where I live ... vouchers can pay for parochial schools).

 

 

 

:hurray: Thundering Applause. (sometimes I really miss rep)

[motherofjoy]

Hmm, last I saw, the public universities are full of courses on religious topics and offer degrees in religious studies. Do you want those courses dropped for the offerings of public institutions?

 

A private school steeped in a religious traditions and dogma, practicing hiring discrimination, and expecting religious conviction from every student is not comparable to taking an elective class in an institution that does not practice any of the above. And in my experience, "religious" degrees are assigned as Philosophy degrees in anything but a college of divinity or private college. But to answer your question, no, I don't think elective courses in comparative religion should be dropped, and I'm sorry if you read my response that way. I'm clearly opposed to my tax dollars going to support an institution's possible discriminatory practices.

[KarenNC]

I also think it's well within the right of a religious organization to be free from gov't influence' date=' but should not be discriminated against by the gov't. [/quote']

 

Exactly how should an organization expect to be both funded by the government and free from government influence at one and the same time? When I accept a salary from an employer, I am no longer "free from the influence" of that employer in many many ways. While my child is being supported financially by me, she is not "free from my influence". When a program accepts a privately funded grant, that program is not "free from the influence" of the granting agency in the way that it spends those funds.

 

The answer is very simple. If one is not willing to abide by the rules associated with accepting money from a certain source, one should not accept such money. It is disingenuous (if not actively dishonorable) to accept it and then say "but I should be free to do exactly what I want with it solely because I am associated with a religion". That is not equal treatment for religious organizations, much less discriminatory. It is *preferential* treatment in that they would be allowed to disregard the rules that apply to all other organizations receiving the same funding.

Edited October 18, 2008 by KarenNC

[KarenNC]

Many people posted that once the government gave money or food stamps to her it was hers to do with what she wished and if she wanted to save "extra" money on a vacation then she should. What if she wanted to spend the money' date=' for instance, on sending her child to a private Christian school? Would this then change your opinion? Should government [u']then[/u] intercede and tell her how that money is to be spent or that she can't spend it on something religious?

 

As I recall the thread (and I may be mistaken) and based on what I understand about the way food stamps work (admittedly sketchy), the woman was not able to (legitimately) take the food stamps and exchange them for tickets to Disney as implied. She had to use those food stamps for their intended purchase---buying food. She is not even given full latitude in which foods she can buy with them, nor can she exchange them for cash.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm#10

 

There is a difference in using "extra money" (in this case, money not restricted by the funder) for something and using money that is restricted in some fashion in a manner inconsistent with the rules governing its use. If the money is given to the educational institution for secular programs that fall under the rules against discrimination *followed by every other institution receiving those funds* and the educational institution then attempts to unlawfully discriminate in hiring using those funds, there's a problem. If they use privately donated money to hire only their co-religionists for a separate project, that's another matter.

[seanda]

If the government only gives grant or loan money for secular education they are not separating church and state.. they have made the national religion humanism or athiesm. Instead if you allow people to choose to use that money at any educational institution of any faith or no faith at all... then you are not choosing any one religion and you are truly upholding the Constitutional intent. Our Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[Bev in B'ville]

Exactly how should an organization expect to be both funded by the government and free from government influence at one and the same time? When I accept a salary from an employer, I am no longer "free from the influence" of that employer in many many ways. While my child is being supported financially by me, she is not "free from my influence". When a program accepts a privately funded grant, that program is not "free from the influence" of the granting agency in the way that it spends those funds.

 

The answer is very simple. If one is not willing to abide by the rules associated with accepting money from a certain source, one should not accept such money. It is disingenuous (if not actively dishonorable) to accept it and then say "but I should be free to do exactly what I want with it solely because I am associated with a religion". That is not equal treatment for religious organizations, much less discriminatory. It is *preferential* treatment in that they would be allowed to disregard the rules that apply to all other organizations receiving the same funding.

 

will have to agree to disagree on this particular issue. I've already stated my case so I'm not going to rehash it here again.

[KarenNC]

If the government only gives grant or loan money for secular education they are not separating church and state..

 

As I see it, in this discussion the government (ie the collective will of the American people as enacted by their elected representatives) is *not* only giving grant or loan money for "secular education". We are giving grant or loan money only to educational institutions that agree not to discriminate against certain groups in their hiring practices for the programs funded by that money because we, as a people, have decided that discrimination against these group is not a value we want to encourage or fund. The educational institutions themselves are deciding that discrimination on one measure or another (be it religion, race, disability, national origin, what have you) in all their hiring practices is a core characteristic of their identity and cannot be altered.

 

Big difference. If a private non-religious college decided it was unwilling to even consider hiring people of Mexican descent who are otherwise fully qualified for the position *only* because they are of Mexican descent in order to preserve the non-associated with Mexicans identity of the school, it would also be problematic.

Edited October 18, 2008 by KarenNC

[Annabel Lee]

If the government only gives grant or loan money for secular education they are not separating church and state.. they have made the national religion humanism or athiesm. Instead if you allow people to choose to use that money at any educational institution of any faith or no faith at all... then you are not choosing any one religion and you are truly upholding the Constitutional intent. Our Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

 

:hurray::iagree: It's not "freedom from religion", it's "freedom OF religion".

 

 

Just another thought (and I'm just using Christianity as the example, but you can apply it to any other religion as well) :

How would a non-Christian teacher at a Christian university teach some of the more abstract, intangible things about that faith? Not all courses offered at Christian universities are based purely on studies of the Bible, Biblical or church history, etc. Some courses automatically assume Christian belief. For example, courses titled "Experiencing God; Knowing and Doing the Will of God" or "Growing in Your Relationship with Christ" - how could someone who isn't a Christian teach things like this? For some aspects of faith, there is no go-to manual for a teacher to have studied, enabling him/her to learn it and then turn around and teach it. To pass along certain things pertaining to religious faith it takes more than a teacher can learn from books. It takes belief, passion, committment, and personal experience.

 

Could it really be deemed discriminatory to deny a person a position teaching a class such as the ones I described because they don't subscribe to the very beliefs they are supposed to be conveying?

If this sort of legislation was passed, Christian colleges may be forced to hire non- or even anti-Christians. Some may be as extreme as to see it as an opportunity to bring their own anti-Christian personal beliefs or otherwise conflicting agenda into those classes, which would be a disservice to the students who signed up specifically for Christian instruction.

 

There are too many public universities who are indoctrinating students in other beliefs (not just presenting them objectively) to enact this law based on the premise that gov't funding of religious education is wrong.

This is a democracy, we have free choice as adults what type of education we'd like, and we the taxpayers should respect this choice of our fellow taxpayers. If gov't funds are kept from students wishing to attend religious universities, I'd think enrollment levels at such schools would drop considerably. College is too expensive, barely affordable for many, even with financial aid. Witholding tax dollars for funding of education based on the offering of additional religious courses is a slippery slope, IMHO.

 

P.S. Atheism and humanism are religions as well. :tongue_smilie:

Edited October 18, 2008 by Annabel Lee
lots of grammatical errors :)