Liberty University un-recognizes College Democrats
posted at 2:49 pm on May 22, 2009 by Allahpundit
Notre Dame redux: To what extent should a private Christian university lend its imprimatur to people or groups that are pro-choice?
And what if they’re not really pro-choice?
Diaz said he was notified of the school’s decision May 15 in an e-mail from Mark Hine, vice president of student affairs.
According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the university’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violators could incur one or more reprimands under the school’s Liberty Way conduct code, and anyone who accumulates 30 reprimands is subject to expulsion…
“He said it wasn’t us. It was the national Democratic Party,” which the campus club’s constitution supports, Dervish said. The campus club also opposes abortion and supports the traditional view of marriage, Dervish said.
“His bottom line was, ‘You can’t be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative,’” Childress said.
Hine denied saying that…
Hine’s e-mail said, “The candidates this club supports uphold the platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of Liberty University.”
Not sure why the school suddenly decided to act on this now; maybe they were inspired by the bishops who came out against Obama’s ND degree or maybe it’s a reaction to the number of states that have legalized gay marriage recently. Needless to say, had a secular private school de-sanctioned the College Republicans for supporting “immoral” practices like war and capital punishment, we’d be up in arms. Is the only difference here that Liberty derives its morality from religion? Or are we agreed that this is a bad precedent?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Liberty is a private, Christian university with a specific mission and standards. They are free to make their own rules and in this case no one should be surprised. Do any of you honestly believe LU should lend its name and support to the Democratic Party? Gimme a break, that’s ridiculous. If LU received public funds this would be entirely different, but the students at LU are I’m sure, quite familiar with their standards and whether or not we like them makes no difference.
Speechlesstx on May 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM
How can you openly oppose the national DP on those issues and then turn around and vote for those DP candidates? It’s a direct contradiction to your beliefs. Remember, it’s not about what you say you believe, it’s the action you take for your beliefs.
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Oh, the list is endless……let’s see….there’s…ah….uh……
well, what about Ward Churchill, eh? Never was there a better example of the open-minded, tolerant liberal.
BobMbx on May 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Insanity… try even mentioning a SCIENTIFIC problem with Darwin’s theory on a PUBLICLY-FUNDED campus if you wanna seem some denial of “open, reasoned debate.”
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM
I’m agreed. I’m less bothered than I would be had this not been a private school but still bothered enough that I’d avoid that school.
If group itself had been pro-choice, that would be one thing, but it doesn’t seem that anything about them other than their political leanings make them at all at odds with the school.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
There’s a pro-life group already on campus. No need for an “almost pro-life” group.
BobMbx on May 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
True in the larger sense (and it is a very fair question to ask these mush brains)… but I lived in AL and most Dems ran as Pro-Life candidates. Many were “historical” Democrats and distanced themselves from the national party.
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Well, not entirely true. You can do it at a local level, but not to run for federal office. Don’t you have to eat a live baby to be a DNC member? Maybe I just think I read that somewhere.
TugboatPhil on May 22, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Am I to read this as “DixieCrats”?
BobMbx on May 22, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I did qualify my statement by saying that they had to tangibly oppose the national DP on the life and marriage issues… but in the end, I am puzzled why any pro-Life, pro-Marriage voter would openly identify with the DP. It puzzles me, but I’d at least them make their case.
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
That is the quote of the day.
This should be asked of every Democrat. We are on to something here.
faraway on May 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Liberty is a different animal altogether. I am amazed that they have such a high student body enrollment. But kids know what they are getting into when they go there. It’s not really a surprise. And it’s a private institution so it can do what it wants.
Liberty is likely the most conservative Christian school in America now. Likely more than Bob Jones.
ThackerAgency on May 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
so what?
bluelightbrigade on May 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Eh, they’re a private school. Let them do what they will. Many state schools require some pretty PC policies out of even the academic clubs.
Upstater85 on May 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM
In 2004, the state DP took out a full-page ad crowing (pun intended) that the ALDP was Pro-Lfe, pro-gun, pro-death penalty and pro-military. “Historically” the ALDP is “progressive” on economic issues (Wallace used the word “progressive” quite a bit in his early campaigns).
That said… I was a county GOP rep (in a HEAVILY Democratic county) and I didn’t believe the state DP as far as I could throw them… they still endorsed every anti-Life, anti-gun, anti-capital punishment and anti-military candidate from Maine to Hawaii.
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM
we have some that in Washington. Constitutional errancy. They want it to be a liberal, fluid document to be changed with the next opinion poll.
With the pedophile protection act for some reason, they didn’t bring in pedophiles to testify.
seven on May 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Not really. Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” marked a return among conservative Republicans to the Social Gospel view of Christianity’s role in politics–the same one endorsed by most Catholics today. Classical Liberals opposed the Soviets because they were totalitarian and anti-capitalist, whereas conservatives opposed the Soviets because they were anti-Christian.
Religion–any religion–is a combination of theology, philosophy, and tradition. I think theology qua theology is stupid, but not necessarily damning. Thus, I judge a religion’s relative merits based on its philosophy and tradition. I do not take terrible offense to Judaism or to Catholocism, but I do have contempt for Islam, Buddhism, and wicca/new age paganism, among others.
I’ll admit having been that way in high school, but that was a long time ago. It is objective, rather than personal, judgments, that drive my dislike of evangelicals.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
The Reign of Terror, another brilliant analogy. This brand of Liberalism does want to purge society of anything Christian and Jewish. We need to think of it like a religion akin to Marxism. Arthur Koestler warned us that Marxism and Christianity are not compatible in Darkness at Noon, but now we have Darkness in America.
Blue Collar Todd on May 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
What if these students were trying to work within the Dem Party to draw it back to one of its core principles of sticking up for the little guy? Dems should be all about protecting innocent life and vulnerable women from the exploitation of abortionists.
There’s always that question: do you leave an organization that’s gone off-track, or do you remain and try to redirect it from the inside? I had to ask myself that question regarding membership in the NEA. Some pro-life conservatives become members and try to influence the organization. In my case, I decided it was better for me to not join and deprive them of the use of my dues money.
SheofTwoMinds on May 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Peer pressure. Or a basic human need to belong to a group, which leads to some strange combinations. As an example, who would say they do not support MADD when asked, even while holding a beer?
BobMbx on May 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM
And here we have it, folks. Life isn’t life until it’s outside the womb, when our soldiers will go around shooting it.
Cause a terrorist is closer to a baby than a fetus is.
Partisanship is not proof of values.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Oh geez my cousin went to this school. I helped her move into her dorm.. the whole place was mad creepy.
Not to mention the crappiness of being in a girls dormitory filled with chicks who do not put out.
thereverendag on May 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Definitely a Southern thing. I lived in AL for one year while my Dad was at the Air War college…I’ve seen a lot of southern democrats who lean in more of the traditional sense when it comes to abortion and traditional marriage type issues. And I would bet that many have a problem with Obama not because of his skin color but because of his pro-abortion stance. Yet, I think the bigger issue that many Christians don’t want to deal with is understanding that every action they take against their faith (voting for pro-abortion candidates) is the insidious wearing away of that very faith. It’s going to come down to the day when everyone has to stand before God and explain themselves.
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Maybe they were the ones asking the questions…..
BobMbx on May 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Glad to see there is at least ONE university that stands for its own principles.
Listen up Notre Dame.
Sapwolf on May 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Nobody’s been expelled. Nobody’s grades have been adversely affected. Nobody’s free speech has been denied. Liberty University has decided to hold the line against the perceived evils of the current Democrat philosophy by not letting that club use the university’s name, it’s grounds or it’s advertising potential. No students have been harmed in the pursuit of standards. Buy some Brasso, AP. Your rhetoric is getting dull.
SKYFOX on May 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
My guess is that you are probably not terribly familiar with historic Evangelical, Catholic or Jewish theology… but this is not the forum…
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM
So the proposition you cannot be a Nazi and a Democrat ought to be equally objected to? Or a Marxist and a Christian?
The radical Left that are running and setting policy in the Democratic Party are advancing a racially cleansed version of National Socialism or Totalitarianism. Well if you look at Obama’s policy towards Israel, maybe not so racially cleansed after all. The basic commonality is that the individual is not sacred but reduced to a mere number having value only based on an arbitrary decision by those in power.
Blue Collar Todd on May 22, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Baloney. If you were “over it,” you never would qualified your religious experience with “my parents forced me.”
Religion is now and forever will be something you associate negatively with your parents, whom are also a negative in your mind, no doubt because they have disowned you by either word or action.
TMK on May 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM
How do you know? How do you know some fundie professor who was otherwise unaware of the group and the people in won’t start knocking a few points of the grades of members?
thereverendag on May 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM
So you’re trying to argue that all Democrats agree with everything Democrat politicians do?
Does that mean you support amnesty for illegal immigration? I mean McCain was just the nominee. What about uncontrolled spending and rampant pork?
Only Left in the sense that it was liberal, meaning a change. The Party of Lincoln was also liberal in its time just not Democrat.
Mock all you want, but it’s accurate. Had God meant “kill” he wouldn’t have commanded them to kill so many people. Ever read the Bible, specifically what came after the Ten Commandments? We’re talking about a very bloody time when even women and children were slaughtered during war and when the punishment for breaking these commandments was death.
Really hard to argue then that God was against capital punishment and war when he commanded them to do both on such frequent occasions.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Which is groundless. Jesus commanded his followers to take care of the poor. He didn’t tell them to steal from their fellow citizens and give other people’s money to the poor.
Objective? Doubtful.
We don’t. No one does. We don’t know if there aren’t some professors there knocking off points for Republicans either. You can make up any argument you want, if that’s what you think is important.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM
So you admit its an apples-oranges comparison, then?
bluelightbrigade on May 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Private is private. The term “precedent” doesn’t even make sense in this case because the decision carries no weight outside the school. Maybe you’re thinking of all those public schools that have banned ROTC in the name of gay rights. Now that’s a precedent.
Ronnie on May 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Nothing to see here, move along.
Libery is a private university, but as opposed to Stanford or whatnot, they actually have a moral mission as well. Private institutions should not be forced to give quarter to grounds that work against the mission that they have. Note that Libery didn’t expel the students or refuse to educate them. It also didn’t say that membership in a Democratic club that was formed and met outside of campus was groups for being expelled. Rather, it simply denied them charter from the university or the right to use its facilities to meet to discuss things that were contrary to Liberty’s mission. Put another way, organizations must not be forced to commit suicide.
If Stanford did the the same thing (terminate the Democrat or Republican groups), I’d be much more insulted as it’s basically a secular University and shouldn’t have an axe to grind. Ditto with any public university, in fact. I’d also disagree if Liberty had expelled the students completely. IMO, policing thought is really a bad precedence.
Put another way, universities like Notre Dame, Liberty, BYU, etc., are different. Does that mean they can do anything they want? No, but it does mean that they should not be forced to give quarter to groups that work against the very mission upon which they were founded.
PersonalLiberty on May 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Based on my experiences at the University of Texas, the Dems aren’t the ones to worry about. Liberal, yes, but generally friendly people who understand mature political discourse. It’s the groups like the International Socialist Organization and the Palestinian Solidarity Committee that revert to shouting and ad hominem attacks.
Take for example when we hosted Ashcroft and Horowitz on two separate events. The Dems who showed up sat quietly in the audience and were genuinely there to hear the other side. The Socialists, on the other hand, delayed Horowitz’s speech for about a half hour with chants calling him a fascist and McCarthyite, and held up fairly offensive signs throughout Ashcroft’s speech and jeered and heckled him the entire time.
Liberty’s a private school, so they can do what they want, but seeing as how abortion is only one small plank in the Democratic platform, this seems to be to be a bit of an overreaction. University’s are always going to have a majority of liberal students, and to me, an organization affiliated with the Democratic Party, believe it or not, might cause the liberal students to actually moderate their positions.
Colin Harris on May 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I’d only disagree with you on this point Esthier. When arguing the case for Liberty its about their Christian principles and bylaws, which a group of students who vote Democrat would be going against because of the platforms concerning abortion. I think it’s hypocritical for a person to say they are Christian yet vote for a pro-abortion party. A Republican voting for McCain really isn’t the right comparison because it has nothing to do with the Christian representation issue.
You are spot on about the capital punishment and war thing. Helloo..arch Angels anyone? lol
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Way to go, Liberty!
What is the “bad precedent” they’re setting? Consistency in their principles?
If they believe abortion is the murder of an innocent life, how could they possibly condone any person, group or party advocating for abortion?
Pro-lifers call abortion what it is — MURDER — but treat it as if it were a minor offense. They excuse those who practice it, utilize it, profit from it, expand it. Really, excluding a Democrat group from campus is pathetically mild.
But at least Liberty is more consistent than other Christian colleges in the country. Schools like ND can’t be taken seriously. They imply Obama is a baby murderer and then honor him with a degree. Only a crazy person could abide such inconsistency.
therationalactor on May 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM
I think it’s a disservice to your argument to make any distinction between a religious or secular private university. Just because the college doesn’t have a religion mission statement, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have one.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM
He didn’t tell them not to, either. He said, “render unto Caesar,” and “lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,” and “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” A progressive Christian party could justify their platform simply by saying they are taking away merely earthly wealth, in the process helping the expropriated to find salvation in the afterlife. You may well disagree with this interpretation, but you cannot dismiss it on a prima facie basis.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM
My only question is how’d LU end up with a Democrat club to begin with?
Akzed on May 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM
FIFY. It’s clearer w/o the weasel words.
Akzed on May 22, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Your hubris regarding your own inductive skills is astounding. I happen to be at my parents’ house as I type this, taking a break from caring for my dying father, whom I forgave years ago. I also happen to be a “he.” Care to make any other erroneous assumptions?
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Good, liberty can do whatever they want, so can Notre Dame.
Somehow I think Notra Dame’s decisions will matter more to more students.
Squid Shark on May 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I read exit polls showing that over 20% of Evangelical Christians voted for Obama. Here is one report.
Are Evangelical Christians who voted for Obama not Christian?
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I didn’t say I agreed with expropriation of the productive classes; I just said you could use Christianity to justify it, and that historically Christianity has been interpreted by many people as justifying such expropriation.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I have no doubt if Jesus wanted us to take away “earthly” wealth to help the poor, he would’ve said so. He was pretty clear on what should and shouldn’t be done. Trying to interpret the unsaid is useless folly.
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Who says a Democrat has to vote for a pro-abortion Democrat? It’s not as though no pro-life Democrats exists, and it’s not as though a Democrat is always going to vote in every election.
And it’s wrong to judge someone’s spiritual life because of their political beliefs.
I already made the case for war, but that doesn’t mean all wars are justified. Considering Bush did nothing to reduce abortions, and it was unlikely McCain would have either, had I felt that it was wrong of us to be in Iraq or Afghanistan, there’s no reason I couldn’t make a biblical reason for voting for him.
And no, Amnesty is not a religious issue, but it is one many Republicans strongly disagreed with McCain on and voted for him anyway, deciding that the greater good was to have him in the White House than to have his opponent.
We’re all forced to make those kinds of choices in a general election, and Obama’s campaign talk was on reducing abortions, not on how he’d expand them.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
John 12:4-6, Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,
“Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
There’s a lot of theft that masquerades as concern for the poor.
Akzed on May 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Uh, who cares? I think its great. This will save any future Democrats from having the humiliation of having the prestigious “Liberty University” on their resume.
dcwvu on May 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM
When you squeaze a wax nose to make it look like an ear, you aren’t interpreting the nose you’re remaking it.
Akzed on May 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Apparently a few withstood the brainwashing ritals during the annual “Welcome Freshman!” festivities.
dcwvu on May 22, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Argumentum ad tacitum is inadmissable in a debatge among honest people. There are about a billion things that Jesus didn’t say. Conscripting Him into your agument on this basis is illogical.
Akzed on May 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM
No one is preventing them from doing so, the university has no objections to them working on this on their on time. LU just cannot – for reasons obvious to me – lend their name and support. It’s their right to do so.
Speechlesstx on May 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Well, you are the world’s foremost authority on scriptural interpretation, so I guess I’ll have to take your word for it.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Oh. I guess they were all tax and spend bisexual abortionists before they got there and got brainwashed and all.
Akzed on May 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
In my opinion, no. If you ask those same evangelical christians if abortion is okay and they say yes, then they are not true evangelical christians. If they say no, then the next question to ask would be “why is it okay to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if it goes against christian belief?” I’d like to hear that answer. Labels of being a christian mean nothing..it’s all about the action
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM
One thing I always wonder: If there isn’t a God, then where do our freedoms come from? (Our Founders realized this when they wrote the Declaration) I don’t think anybody with a brain would say “rule of law” because that really means we are in the kind and gentle hands of our fellow man……
and the 20% of the “evangelicals” who voted for Obama are the reason you can’t be both. They were the “liberal” (or more than likely, black) evangelicals…which is a oxymoron if ever there was one……..
colonelkurtz on May 22, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Actually there could be a major legal situation here. LU accepts GOVERNMENT grants and loans. All we need now is a good lawyer and these guys are toast…
dcwvu on May 22, 2009 at 4:39 PM
There you go again, interpreting as said something I didn’t say. Folly.
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM
I am glad you cleared that up.
Squid Shark on May 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Yeah he also didn’t tell them not to eat their babies either, so…
Yeah, which again has nothing to do with stealing money from others by threat of imprisonment so you can spend their money better than you assume they would have.
And really, the second two would be more appropriate here if you were talking about the rich using their own money, but you’re not. You’re talking about money that has been taken from other people through no choice of their own.
Surely we can agree that the difference is large.
Yes, and he could also say that he’s helping those poor savages find God by pointing a sword at them saying, “repent or die.”
Maybe you can explain to me what the difference would be.
The Bible says lots of things seem wise to the foolish.
The same could be said of forced conversions, after all, if the after life is all that matters, who cares if you have to murder some people to save them?
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Then they disowned you by behavior, and I always use the feminine gender when the username is gender non-specific, epecially with liberals and atheists, who are feminine in both thought and deed.
TMK on May 22, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Here’s another one…if there isn’t a God, then where does morality come from? That one always stumps the atheists and naturalists.
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Confused, misguided, deceived at best. In open rebellion against what Jesus taught at worst. Take for example the Liberal revision of the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25. Liberals now use this passage to legislate immorality and a pretext to marginalize Christians, the exact opposite of what was intended. Remember President Obama asserts this passage on the “least of these” to justify many of his policies and yet does not apply them to the unborn or newly born. If the unborn and newly born to not epitomize such a category then I fail to see who does.
Blue Collar Todd on May 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM
I’m sorry, but I really don’t believe placing a vote is an action. Doing something, actually trying to help pregnant woman find alternatives, that’s real action.
A vote is meaningless. It’s no guarantee that you’re even electing the kind of political positions you want. Did anyone here believe a Republican-controlled Congress would let all of that spending get out of hand?
Yes, and it’s also been used to justify things like The Inquisition and slavery. Does that automatically mean the Bible actually supports those positions?
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:47 PM
One of the other things Jesus didn’t say is, “thou shalt oppose stem cell research,” but conservatives seem to have no trouble advancing that particular argumentum ex silentio (argumentum ad tacitum doesn’t mean what you think it means). Further, and more to the point, Jesus also never said, “thou shalt support capitalism and oppose attempts to implement my teachings through tax policies.”
To reiterate: I was merely stating that, historically, more Christians held the opinion that the government should redistribute wealth to the poor than held the contrary one. It is a historical accident that today’s evangelicals are opposed to welfare state policies.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Wileygrl3-
I heard a radio show featuring Hitchens who tried to avoid that very question by saying that “you can find basic morality in any primitive tribe” which of course wasn’t an answer and the host didn’t have enough time to ask “but where do those feelings come from in the primitive tribe?”
colonelkurtz on May 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Forced conversion was another policy supported historically by most Christians. The scripture was the same, but their interpretation differed from yours. Maybe they were praying about it harder.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Almost all private colleges, including the Ivy League, that were started by conservative Christians have been gradually taken over by Liberals who now do not allow conservative Christian views to be expressed. Liberty is smart to “nip it in the bud” now, so it won’t get out of control later.
mydh12 on May 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM
hicsuget-
Christians don’t oppose stem cell research; they oppose having an abortion to get the genetic material. Especially when there are now better, more proven ways to harvest them from your own body.
Ya gotta pay attention here….
colonelkurtz on May 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM
The exit poll I posted was of ONLY WHITE EVANGELICALS. About 25% voted for Obama.
While White Evangelicals are the amongst the most reliably conservative and Republican of voting groups, they aren’t monolithic and they can’t win elections without forming alliances with other ethnic and religious groups. At this point, Republicans can’t win nationally unless we can attract independents and moderate or conservative Democrats.
So, how does it help us attract possible allies if we are banning, shunning or insulting them, such as by claiming they aren’t Christian?
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I disagree…a vote is as close to action as you can get when it comes to law and policy. Of course there are other actions you can take such as encouraging teen abstinence, adoption, or running for office yourself. Yet the action of voting is very powerful. Votes counted for Prop 8 in a state where no one thought it was possible. One persons vote may seem like nothing, but when that one person turns into a hundreds of thousands, then that one action you take makes a difference.
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Another false generalization, nancy-boy. Contra Christianity, virility is a virtue in classical pagan philosophy. Aristotelian ethics teaches that a man should act in accordance with his nature as a rational animal–that a man should be a man. By stark contrast, ever see any video from the Promise Keepers rallies, or catch this article that HA linked to a few weeks back? Let me put it this way–your daughter’s maidenhood is safe around Christians.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. Don’t try and mock me as though I care about who’s “praying harder.” If you want to discuss this as an adult, then fine. If not, you’re really wasting your time, something I’d guess is valuable to you right now.
That’s because they go off of the verses that talk about God knowing us while we were still unborn, still cooking in our mothers’ wombs.
So we see the fetus as a life. The Bible is very particular about protecting life.
If you had similar verses for government theft, I’m open to hearing them.
Ah, now you’re on to something. Jesus never talked about political arguments. So true.
But he did talk about theft and about personal responsibility. Please feel free to show me verses that would indicate theft is somehow OK when the government does it.
No one here missed that. Though you seem to enjoy using Latin, your arguments have been very easy to follow.
I’m only arguing that just because a lot of Christians used to believe that, it doesn’t make it so, i.e. slavery, “repent or die” and killing witches.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM
It means that the Bible cannot, by itself, conclusively be used to argue either pro or contra those positions. On slavery in particular it is quite ambiguous.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Loxodontia-
You make my point….if they voted for obama, what good are they to the party???? If only the party can become democratlite, (even though McLame was the moderate candidate these fine folk should have recognized and voted for, yet didn’t!)
colonelkurtz on May 22, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Poor Chris Hitchens…I have faith someday he’ll see the light. I loved CS Lewis’s book “Mere Christianity”. He kept going back to “where did morality come from if not from God?”
Wileygrl3 on May 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM
You can’t be a Republican and be a Christian…the fact is politics and religion are two separate distinct entities.
The two overlap in some areas, and in others they cannot co-exist.
That was the brilliance of our founding fathers, they understood that simple concept.
Sometimes a politician has to do something “unfaithful” and sometimes the faithful cannot fulfill their mission doing political acts.
One is earthly…the other is heavenly…man controls one, God controls the other.
right2bright on May 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM
You still have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion. Once again, historically, Christians did not believe a fetus was alive until it started kicking. The Bible is not clear either way, and it is impossible for you to prove that your interpretation is the One True Theology.
I don’t argue that the old interpretation is correct, either. All I am saying is:
1) if the Bible were crystal-clear on these matters there would never have been a difference of opinion between Christians acting in good faith.
2) because the Bible is not crystal-clear on these matters, there is room for divergence of political opinion among Christians.
3) because there is room for divergence of political opinion among Christians, Liberty University should not have kicked off the College Democrats.
hicsuget on May 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Ironic that the college name is “Liberty College”, but then they go and ban a campus club because it’s Democrat.
Not much liberty in that decision.
I have no love for the national Democrat party beliefs in pro-abortion, pro-Socialism, and pro-gay marrige, among other pro-reprobate stances, but this is just silly.
SilverStar830 on May 22, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Not at all. The only problem is our word choice. What was called slavery in biblical times is not at all what we call slavery.
Back then, you could sell yourself as a slave in order to pay off debts and many could earn their freedom if they’d saved up enough money. It’s much closer a musicians recording contract than the slavery that was legalized in America and still exists all around the world.
The Bible still had strict rules on how a master should treat a servant, and it much more closely resembles an employer employee relationship than slave and owner.
See Deuteronomy 15:12-15 for examples.
Also, the kind of slavery that was seen here, the kind where men were basically kidnapped and then sold, was expressly forbidden in the Bible.
Exodus 21:10
16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
And in the New Testament, those slave traders were considered morally repugnant.
1 Timothy 1:8-10
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that lawa is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound
The Bible really is unambiguous on the subject.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM
You do have a problem with history…throwing out all these facts…”most Christian”, etc…
You try to put facts during a period 1500 years ago, and apply them to now.
Most Christians, were plowing fields, trying to live their life…what you meant (or should have meant) is many Popes (and it is questionable whether many of the earlier Popes were indeed “Christian”), heads of state in the name of their Church did these acts.
It wasn’t until just a few hundred years ago that “Christians” even had a bible to read.
right2bright on May 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Being part of the Democrat party is inconsistent with Bible believing Christianity. A Democrat club has no more business being at Liberty than a Satanist club. Why have a club on campus that promotes evil?
Kjeil on May 22, 2009 at 5:19 PM
The bible is clear, you have several Hebrew words, often mis-interpreted. If you take the time, I posted all the examples some weeks ago, it is clear that slavery was acceptable, and you were even encouraged to “take care of your slaves”…and no these were NT slaves, in the real sense of the word, slaves.
Slave traders, like tax collectors were evil people…the bible doesn’t condemn the taxes, nor the slaves…but the collection and mis-use of both.
Here is a simple (a little inaccurate but the best in a short post)
As my earlier posts state, it is difficult to take something from 1500 years ago, and equate it to now. Terms, ideas, definitions, mores have all changed…
right2bright on May 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM
No, but I think pro-life pro-trad-marriage Democrats (and there are some left) should have the opportunity to affect change in their party. And some of those who can will start out in clubs like College Democrats. But they won’t get that chance at “Liberty” University, will they?
manwithblackhat on May 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM
How foolish, what a foolish statement…try Jerimiah 1:5 for a start, and there are many others. Psalms has references, you are just spouting off about something you obviously have little knowledge of.
right2bright on May 22, 2009 at 5:24 PM
No, it’s fairly explicit.
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you
Psalm 139:13
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.
Job 31:15
Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?
Psalm 22:10
On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
They might have not known they had a baby until then, but there’s certainly nothing to suggest that is true. Some talk of the time when the blood is formed, but that’s it.
That’s disingenuous. No matter how crystal clear a thing is, someone will always disagree, even in good faith. We’re human beings. That’s the whole point. If we were perfect, we wouldn’t need Jesus.
Given that 1 has not yet been established, this doesn’t work.
I already agree with that but for different reasons. Liberty can set standards and ensure that their students meet them. Had this club been pro-choice, I would have no problem with their decisions, because that club is being sent as a representative of the university.
However, my only beef is that they do not seem to be violating any university policies and yet were still denied the right to the club (they weren’t kicked out, by the way; there is a big difference between the two).
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Right, maybe you didn’t read my post, but you’re not disagreeing with me.
I even posted a link to one of those verses that you post in your quote.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 5:28 PM
?
JiangxiDad on May 22, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I disagree. You’re only voting for the man, not his vote. I see it as a very big difference. It’s very likely Obama will do little to nothing on this issue and be no different from Bush.
Maybe so, but it’s no substitute for real action. And I do not believe a person’s actions can be discredited because of their political beliefs.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I that what that “un” before ambiguous means?…my error.
right2bright on May 22, 2009 at 5:29 PM
The private school has a right to draw its line in the sand.
Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. made his first public comments today about the university’s suspension of the campus Democratic party club.
maverick muse on May 22, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Yeah, meaning I don’t at all think it’s ambiguous. It’s cool.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM
It is a private Christian college, what do you not get? They have doctrinal positions and a specific mission, should they abandon those for the sake of tolerance and diversity or should they as a private Christian college be allowed to set standards?
So they accept students who pay their tuition with federal aid, should we also tell churches how to run their congregations because they have members who receive federal funds?
Speechlesstx on May 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM
It’s dumb to suggest this as “precedent”. First of all if it is a “precedent” then it makes the controversial claim that the owners of private property get to decide what happens with and on their property, or the name attached to that property.
They might decide that all Young Republican clubs need to be shut down on public campuses as a result. I wouldn’t put it past them to decide that they are “equivalent”. They are taking over what was once the largest corporation on earth–and simply because they would not let them renegotiate union contracts.
The Constitution might not be a suicide pact, but a Pander-crat-enforced union contract appears to be.
Meanwhile, I’d have to support if a fully private institution disassociated themselves from Republicans, in order to maintain my stance about private property, and I can live with other people’s decisions.
Axeman on May 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Yes. Kneejerk dogmatic reactions are contrary to the spirit of unity. I think, though, that the school will realize what was excessive on their own part. They believe in grace for all, and can exercise their own repentance as a model for their political opponents to follow, though don’t hold your breath (and if you do, don’t claim “torture”).
maverick muse on May 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM
We censor pornography, I don’t see how that’s any different from censoring Democrat Party hate speech.
– paraphrasing Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) (except he said Republican).
jeff_from_mpls on May 22, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Thanks for posting that statement from Jerry Falwell. Here’s a link and a part of the quote again:
– Liberty University President Jerry Falwell
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Speechlesstx on May 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Excellent point. This entire “separation of church and state” needs to be turned on its head. /Moderation/.
In defending what matters, don’t get caught up presuming the opponent has the right of way in discourse.
But BEFORE drawing the line, it is always wise to take all things into consideration so as not to go too far in defense, too soon, jumping the gun.
maverick muse on May 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »