Posted on 11/01/2011 12:19:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Shorter University in Rome, Ga., is requiring its employees to certify that they are not gay as a condition of employment.
All 200 employees of the Baptist university, located about 65 miles northwest of Atlanta, received a "personal lifestyle statement" last Wednesday, which they must sign or risk being fired. Employees must pledge to be "active members of a local church" and to abstain from, among other things, drug use, premarital sex and homosexual behavior.
"I reject as acceptable all sexual activity not in agreement with the Bible, including, but not limited to, premarital sex, adultery and homosexuality," the statement reads.
Employees must also certify that they "have read and agree with the personal lifestyle statement and will adhere to it in its entirety while employed at Shorter University. I understand that failure to adhere to this statement may result in disciplinary action against me, up to and including immediate termination."
Don Dowless, president of Shorter, told Atlanta TV station WSBTV that "anybody that adheres to a lifestyle outside of what the biblical mandate is would not be allowed to continue here."
Supporters of the statement say that Shorter is a Southern Baptist school and that employees who have chosen to work there already know they are expected to adhere to Baptist principles. It is also a private institution, which means it has the legal right to hire whomever it wants.
"Anything that is not biblical, we do not accept," Dowless said.
Joe Frank Harris Jr., chairman-elect of the Shorter board of trustees, justified the policy in broader terms in a press release.
"The 'why' is really simple: What you stand for matters. Proverbs 3:5-6 tell us to 'trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight.' If we acknowledge Him, He will make this university's path straight," Harris wrote.
Is Lifestyle Policy Extreme?
But critics say the new policy goes too far.
"I recognize that the university has the legal right to do this, but just because it is legal, it isn't necessarily morally right," an anonymous gay employee told The Georgia Voice, an Atlanta gay newspaper.
"We now will live in fear that someone who doesn't like us personally or someone who has had a bad day will report that we've been drinking or that we are suspected of being gay," the employee said. "What happens then? There is no defined process, and even if there were, there is no way to absolutely prove or disprove the accusation."
In addition to questioning how the policy will be enforced, he criticized it as being overly broad and arbitrarily condemning some actions over others.
"I don't see homosexuality as being any less congruent with Christianity than judging people, sexual deviance, dishonesty, pride, lust, envy, sloth, etc.," he said. "My response is simple: Why is homosexuality so much worse than anything else in the Bible? Why does a homosexual deserve to be fired any more than an obviously egotistical person, or a lazy person, or a dishonest person?"
He added, "The bottom line is that I am a gay Christian and I made a decision to be around other Christians. I'm not alone, and it is sad to see organizations shun people like me. I'd assume that if you're a strong Christian, you wouldn't need to turn those away who sin, and instead you'd welcome them with open arms because they love Jesus."
LOL but... what would they do to make a female employee prove she’s not a lesbian?
I don’t like this. How does one prove you are not gay if the angry or envious falsely accuse you? How does one prove one was not drinking in public? There appears to be no explanation for how an accusation would be handled spelled out in the policy . Would there be an investigation? Suspension? Termination?
Drinking is particularly problematic. I was once approached by colleague at a party who surpassed to see me “drinking”. It was club soda and lime. Mistakes are that easy.
I’ve also had people assume that I’m gay because I’m very short, very thin, and I work in the arts. (I guess most artists are fey in their minds?) When I disclaim it to them they merely take me at my word. Would that be good enough for a formal investigation?
“LOL but... what would they do to make a female employee prove she’s not a lesbian?”
“Err, no Mam, it’s not harassment. If you look here at Internal Policy Number 26244 it says…right here…that it’s a requirement for employment. No, Mam, there are no speaking parts, this is a university. I suppose you get to speak, but Internal Policy Number 26245 says that you won’t speak about my performance; just yours.”
Agreed, which is why I said “often” instead of always.
My cousin is gay and is one of my favorite people.
I also have gay friends who simply want to live a quiet life.
He simply has to not commit sodomy. Big difference.
Everyone needs to learn the correct terminology. Being "gay" means you embrace and affirm the lifestyle and are likely engaging in sodomy and other sexual perversions.
Being merely homosexual can mean that you just suffer from same-sex attraction but do not condone, celebrate, affirm or politically champion this perversion; although you may occasionally engage in homosexual acts in moments of weakness, knowing that they are wrong.
There is a world of difference in the two labels.
What about drinking? Wine is mentioned in the Bible but it is never forbidden outright (St. Paul even tells Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach’s sake.) I don’t know if beer is mentioned in the Bible; I’m sure whiskey and rum are not. So is it a violation to drink any alcoholic beverage, or only those mentioned specifically in the Bible?
"We now will live in fear that someone who doesn't like us personally or someone who has had a bad day will report that we've been drinking or that we are suspected of being gay," the employee said. "What happens then? There is no defined process, and even if there were, there is no way to absolutely prove or disprove the accusation." So you're gay, and you're objection to the policy is....what, exactly? That you might falsely be accused of being gay? But....you are gay. Right?
That's an incredibly weak objection coming from someone who actually is gay. The risk of a false accusation is non-existent.
Wine mentioned in Scripture is not necessarily alcoholic, as “new wine” is merely the juice of the grape. It’s a fallacious assumption that many make, but is wholly unfounded.
Shorter is not the government nor a government run institution; of course it has the right to invite into its employment and its association those persons who share the values and beliefs that Shorter wants to uphold.
Why, in the land of Liberty, that right should be questioned ought to be the real story in the news.
The new wine of Acts 2.13 which the witnesses thought the disciples had been drinking (wrongly) was clearly alcoholic, or they wouldn’t have thught that the disciples were drunk. The wine at the wedding feast of Cana was definitely alcoholic—the groom says to the chief steward “every person sets out the good wine first and when they [the guests] are drunk the lesser” (John 2.10); that is a general statement but the presumption is that the guests at that particular feast were drunk or at least a number of them were by that point.
I don't either.
It may sound harsh but Romans 1 makes it very clear that sodomites are "given up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:" (Romans 1:24) God has "given them over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28). One can harden himself so much that God permanently hardens him and rejects him (Exodus 4:12, Genesis 19:13, Jeremiah 6:30, Romans 1:26)
A "gay" Christian is an oxymoron.
The Big Tent Chrisitians would say that that was one of the 'savage texts' and shouldn't be cited because of its unholy attitude.
Ephesians 5:18
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Ephesians 5:17-19 (in Context) Ephesians 5 (Whole Chapter)
1 Timothy 3:3
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 1 Timothy 3:2-4 (in Context) 1 Timothy 3 (Whole Chapter)
1 Timothy 3:8
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 1 Timothy 3:7-9 (in Context) 1 Timothy 3 (Whole Chapter)
1 Timothy 5:23
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. 1 Timothy 5:22-24 (in Context) 1 Timothy 5 (Whole Chapter)
Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Titus 1:6-8 (in Context) Titus 1 (Whole Chapter)
Titus 2:3
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; Titus 2:2-4 (in Context) Titus 2 (Whole Chapter)
1 Peter 4:3
For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 1 Peter 4:2-4 (in Context) 1 Peter 4 (Whole Chapter)
THESE VERSES ARE NOT ABOUT GRAPE JUICE.
First of all, a christian is someone who believes in the Bible and the authority of the Bible- God’s Word as the foundation for their faith and for all that is morally acceptable, therefore somebody can not be a strong Christian and be gay, if someone is openly or homosexual, or a sodomite whatever you want to call it and says it is ok, they are not a strong Christian, and obviously don’t care about what God says and what God wants, they only care about what they want,
secondly, in regards to alcohol, lets see Jesus goes around calling people to follow him, teaching them and working with them to clean up their lives, he also heals people, making the lame to walk, giving the blind their sight, making people whole, common sense anybody could understand is that Jesus would not choose for his first miracle to make something that caused people to get drunk, he also wouldn’t make something that was rotten, thats not in his character, he would knowingly be sinning if he made alcohol- not going to happen Habakkuk 2:15-Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also” anyways thats what I think.
"common sense anybody could understand is that Jesus would not choose for his first miracle to make something that caused people to get drunk, he also wouldn’t make something that was rotten, thats not in his character, he would knowingly be sinning if he made alcohol"
Your not thinking it through to the real point. Why not blame God for making grapes that ferment too. He provided all the means to sin then too(a hand to hurt, a sexual organ to sin outside of marriage). It is like the argument about the gun that murders. Its people who murder. It's people who get drunk.
So you are saying God is guilty for his creation because they can be used for sin. Does not hold up. IMHO.
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Proverbs 30:5)
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:23)
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)
They will find God's wrath "savage."
they will not prevail unless they echew all federal and state funding including student loans.
Yes indeed.
Al Sharpton, is that you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.