We actually teach morals only by example, even to our own children, for whom we actually are responsible. When we try to force people, including children, into believing in our rules, all they learn is that we have more power than they have. “Spare the rod; spoil the child” means that we are obligated to teach our children God’s laws, “rod” being God’s measuring stick, not that we are suppose to beat them when they disobey those laws. The more beating we do, the less likely the children are to accept those laws.
How am I justified in expecting other adults to adhere to my rules, to which they have made no commitment? Nowhere did Jesus grant any of us the right to pass judgment on others, much less enforce our rules on others, whether we’re running a church, a school, or anything else. Furthermore, Jesus authorized not even one denomination therefore every denomination is, by definition, man-made.
So rather than forcing good teachers who were hitherto devoted to Shorter, out of their jobs, a Christian school might set a better example by taking a little bit more seriously 1st Corinthians 13: 1–5:
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
“And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not their own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.”
Does this sound like the current Baptist administrative body at Shorter College?
Shorter has the legal right to require these statements.
However their stance is bigoted and intolerant. All from a religion that promotes tolerance.
Please explain what Hyper Tolerance" is defined as.
Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the belief that since Shorter is not breaking the law everyone should keep their opinions to themselves.
You Wrote: It presumes that the accuser is the moral authority on right and wrong, the very thing they seek to criticize.
I reply: None of the letters i have read presumes moral authority. They do exercise their 1st amendment right to express their opinions.
Shorter's policy seeks to remove all freedom of choice from faculty.
In addition to being hypocritical and bigoted it's simply Un-American.
Rhuidean
"Shorter affirms new direction as faculty resign"
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37918
It looks like it originally appeared in the Georgia Baptist Convention's Christian Index publication.
The article, while sympathetic to President Dowless, seems to give a good summary of both sides of the controversies at Shorter.
Some interesting stats:
*"Shorter employs 'about 105 to 108 faculty' during a normal academic year"
*"Normal attrition averages between 20 and 25 at the end of the spring semester"
*At least 36 have departed this year, some due to the Personal Lifestyle Statement.
"The north Georgia university, with 3,000-plus students, is affiliated with the Georgia Baptist Convention.
"Shorter graduated 485 students May 4."
Questions and comments:
*20 to 25% normal annual turnover seems high
*Just 16% of the student body graduated in May -- shouldn't it have been more like 25%? Does this reflect a high student attrition rate? Or just a lot of kids graduating at other times in the year?
This world is big enough for all of God's flawed creatures (including bigoted dictators) so I am pretty certain that a campus of higher learning and education should be "big" enough to accept all of God's children without the need for institutionally-placed restrictions. For the love of God.....
Sounds like you've bought into the circular argument that "just because it's legal doesn't make it right." While it's an attractive talk-point...it's glaringly incoherent. It presumes that the accuser is the moral authority on right and wrong, the very thing they seek to criticize.
That's one of the most arrogantly judgmental statements I've read here in a while, and there have been plenty of others. I've provided several, to be honest about it.
Well said.....
Rhuidean
http://rn-t.com/view/full_story/18719736/article-Broome’s-catch-shown-on-ESPN?instance=sports_page_secondary_story
“Shorter University: From Education to Indoctrination”
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=19626
“Religious Freedom Champions at Shorter University”
http://www.newsinfaith.com/?p=4096
“Baptist University Loses Third of Faculty Over Lifestyle Statement”
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/05/baptist_univers.html