Mass. town attempts to ostracize Christian college over its beliefs

[rangerrebew]

Mass. town attempts to ostracize Christian college over its beliefs


21

Monday

Jul 2014

 

Posted  by Mary W. in Christianity, Education, Obamacare, Persecution of Christians, Religion, Religious Persecution   
 
 

Gordon
◾Gordon College is a Christian school in Wenham, Mass. with a faith statement that expects students and faculty to “refrain from sexual intercourse” outside of traditional marriage.
◾Salem, Mass. canceled a contract with Gordon over its beliefs regarding sexual morals.
◾The town has a strict anti-discrimination ordinance.

The town of Salem, Mass., has pitted itself against Gordon College after the president of the private Christian school added his name to a public letter to President Obama asking for a religious exemption from a planned federal mandate.

The expected executive order would force any organization receiving federal funds, including religiously based organizations, to hire people whose sexual conduct may not fall in line with their beliefs. Gordon says the mandate would be an “infringement on religious liberty” and “the rights of faith-based institutions to establish a set of standards and expectations for their community.”

Gordon’s statement of faith and conduct defines marriage as the “lifelong one-flesh union of one man and one woman.” It also clarifies that the school is against “homosexual acts,” not “same-sex orientation,” and claims that it expects its students and faculty to “refrain from any sexual intercourse—heterosexual or homosexual; premarital or extramarital—outside of the marriage covenant.”

“Signing the letter was in keeping with our decades-old conviction that, as an explicitly Christian institution, Gordon should set the conduct expectations for members of our community,” Gordon College President Michael Lindsay said in a statement. “Nothing has changed in our position.”

Lindsay was among 14 religious leaders—including evangelical pastor Dr. Rick Warren and Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America Dr. Stephen Schneck—to sign the letter earlier this month.

Schneck told Campus Reform Thursday afternoon that he “hasn’t received any pushback” after endorsing the letter, but the same cannot be said for the president of the liberal arts college tucked away in northeast Massachusetts, just a little over six miles north of Salem in Wenham.

Contract Conflicts

It was Lindsay’s signature that prompted Salem Mayor Kimberly Driscoll to publicly chastise the school, calling the small Christian college’s longstanding policies of expressly forbidding homosexual practices “offensive” in a statement released by the city. Driscoll went on to say that the city was revoking its contract with the college over the management of the city’s Old Town Hall facility.

“While I respect your rights to embed religious values on a private college campus, religious freedom does not afford you the right to impose those beliefs upon others and cannot be extended into a publicly owned facility or any management contract or a publicly owned facility, like Old Town Hall,” she said.

Gordon has contracted with the city since 2008 to maintain, operate, rent, preserve, and improve the Old Town Hall, which includes a museum and large hall space, in return for using the facility for educational functions. The school says the contract was due to end in August and that it had planned to drop its management of the facility.

“Gordon determined many months ago that we wanted to get out of the event-planning function of managing the facility, and to refocus on our energies on the related educational activities,” the school maintains. “The agreement between the two parties allowed the City to opt out of the contract early, and in the context of the recent media attention, the City decided to exercise its option.”

Dominick Pangallo, chief of staff for Driscoll, told Campus Reform that Salem was planning on resuming management of the facility as of September 1.

“[ S]ince Gordon’s student conduct policies are in direct conflict with the City’s non-discrimination ordinance, which was adopted earlier this year, we acted to terminate the contract early,” he said in an email. “That conflict, which came to light as a result of President Lindsey’s [sic] letter advocating for an exemption from federal anti-discrimination policies ability, led us to the conclusion that we could not continue our contractual relationship with Gordon as it violated both the letter and the spirit of the city’s law.”

Pangallo said that any organization has the ability to rent out the facility, including faith-based organizations, as long as they comply with routine licensing, fire prevention, and potential police detail requirements. Old Town Hall does serve as a wedding venue where straight and homosexual couples can wed.

Accreditation Rumors

Following Salem’s termination of its contract with Gordon one month early, a regional accrediting agency rumors flew claiming that the college’s accreditation was in jeopardy. Yet in a letter sent to the school on July 15, the Chair of the Commission of the New England Association of Schools & Colleges (NEASC) made clear that Gordon’s accreditation is safe.

“[T]here is no chance that an action withdrawing Gordon College’s accreditation or placing the institution on probation would be taken at the Commission’s September meeting,” Barbara Brittingham wrote.

Brittingham said that it is “common practice” for the Commission to review any school with as much media attention as Gordon has garnered over the past few weeks, but if the Commission decides to take any action, it will not be to withdraw accreditation.

“Glenn Beck is not happy”

According to Driscoll’s office, it is not just Gordon College that has received backlash from the president’s signature. The mayor claims that conservative news outlets, such as Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, are “not happy with [the Salem] and have incited “patently offensive” phone calls to her office, calling out residents of Georgia and Texas specifically.

Driscoll says that she is donating $5 to the North Shore Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth (nAGLY) for every call received. As of press time, the mayor’s office says they have received around 150 calls.

“[W]e have determined these donations total about $3,000 in just the last roughly 36 hours,” Driscoll wrote on her Facebook page Thursday night. “We have received at our office just under 150 calls and emails, but I’m rounding it up to 150, so that is an additional $750 from me.”

The mayor’s chief of staff told Campus Reform that Driscoll is not donating any city or taxpayer funds.

Historically Pro-LGBT

Salem’s retaliation against Gordon’s president is unsurprising considering Salem boasts a strict anti-discrimination ordinance, the first in the North Shore region to do so.

“It is the policy of the City of Salem to uphold the human rights of all persons in Salem and the free exercise and enjoyment of any and all rights and privileges secured by the Constitutions, Laws, Ordinances and Regulations of the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Salem,” the ordinance states.

Salem was also given a perfect score for 2014 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a progressive LGBT civil rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization. HRC cited the city’s ordinance, its LGBT-inclusive policies, and newly appointed LGBT liaisons in the mayor’s office and police department as motivating factors behind its scoring.

“As a progressive, welcoming, and diverse community we have a large and growing population of LGBT residents and visitors,” Pangallo said. “By designating an LGBT liaison in both the Mayor’s office and the Police Department we provided a recognizable point of contact.”

http://theresistanceunited.com/2014/07/21/mass-town-attempts-to-ostracize-christian-college-over-its-beliefs/

[musiclady]

Way back in the late sixties when I was at a Christian college, the President of the college refused to accept federal funds because in doing so, the school would be subjected to laws that might go against Christian principles. 

Prescient, I'd say.

Too bad most Christian colleges/universities didn't stick with those principles, because now that we have our first overtly anti-Christian administration, what our President predicted decades ago is happening, and Christian colleges are in a very difficult situation.

[mountaineer]

“While I respect your rights to embed religious values on a private college campus, religious freedom does not afford you the right to impose those beliefs upon others and cannot be extended into a publicly owned facility or any management contract or a publicly owned facility, like Old Town Hall,” she said.

This is the illogic of the left. Gordon asks its students to behave a certain way. It's beyond a huge leap to say the college's management of Old Town Hall constitutes the imposition of religious beliefs. Gordon has merely stated its beliefs, it hasn't imposed them on anyone.

“As a progressive, welcoming, and diverse community we have a large and growing population of LGBT residents and visitors,” Pangallo said.

We welcome diversity of thought so long as it is identical to our beliefs, that's all. 

[Dexter]

Way back in the late sixties when I was at a Christian college, the President of the college refused to accept federal funds because in doing so, the school would be subjected to laws that might go against Christian principles. 

Prescient, I'd say.

Too bad most Christian colleges/universities didn't stick with those principles, because now that we have our first overtly anti-Christian administration, what our President predicted decades ago is happening, and Christian colleges are in a very difficult situation.

This administration is no more overtly anti-Christian than any other. Obama and the Democrats are a lot of things, but front linesmen for a war against Christianity is not among them.

[mountaineer]

This administration is no more overtly anti-Christian than any other.

Thanks for clarifying. 

[musiclady]

This administration is no more overtly anti-Christian than any other. Obama and the Democrats are a lot of things, but front linesmen for a war against Christianity is not among them.

It's always good to get the pro-Obama perspective from you, Dex.

(P.S. maybe you should read more).

[Dexter]

It's always good to get the pro-Obama perspective from you, Dex.

(P.S. maybe you should read more).

Please find one post where I ever implied that I was pro-Obama? Not believing things that aren't true does not make me an Obama supporter.

[raml]

The Obama administration is anti Christian and to say it isn't is ridiculous.

[Dexter]

The Obama administration is anti Christian and to say it isn't is ridiculous.

You know there are Christians that vote Democrat, right? If your argument is that Obama secretly has a plan to undermine Christianity, well, I can't really prove that wrong, but you can't prove it right. I decipher reality based on things that can be proven. 

[musiclady]

Please find one post where I ever implied that I was pro-Obama? Not believing things that aren't true does not make me an Obama supporter.

Right.

Whatever.

[musiclady]

The Obama administration is anti Christian and to say it isn't is ridiculous.

It's also extremely ill-informed.

[mountaineer]

I posted this on the Obama LGBT executive order thread, but it's also appropriate here:

The White House’s Continued Disregard for Religious Liberty
By Andrew Walker
July 21, 2014 3:36 PM
National Review

Whether it is stubbornness against the protests of Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, or the errant adoption of such phrases as “freedom of worship” in place of “freedom of religion,” the White House seems determined to apportion out the exercise of religion according to how it sees fit.

Today, the White House went farther down this path, signing an executive order inserting the categories of gender identity to preexisting federal workforce discrimination laws, while also banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for employees of federal contractors.

According to the text, the order will have no broad religious exemption, despite calls for such from a broad coalition of religious leaders (no doubt a decision influenced by the protests of key gay-rights activist groups). Instead, it amends Executive Order 11246 protecting federal contractors’ employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It also adds gender identity as a protected category under Executive Order 11478, a federal workforce nondiscrimination order. President George W. Bush had previously amended executive order 11246 in 2002, giving federal contractors with religious affiliation the right to prioritize religion in the hiring process. The Bush amendment remains in place.

Of course, the executive order is not without its problems.

Today’s actions demonstrate the continued, cavalier disregard for religious liberty emanating from the Obama White House. Any talk of religious liberty coming from this administration continues to be mere lip service. Add this to the parade of horribles that already includes the coercive HHS mandate.

The full implications of the executive order aren’t entirely known. While the effects of the order could prove to be limited given the unknown number of religiously oriented federal contractors, activists who favored the executive order don’t care. While favoring more expansive LGBT workplace protections, activists are willing to accept incremental gains where they can get them.

The White House’s executive order is a tactical move to bring what will surely be further sweeping regulations, such as the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), into law. Today’s actions hasten the coming marginalization of institutions such as Gordon College, a Massachusetts college facing scrutiny after its president, Michael Lindsay, affixed his name to a letter with other religious leaders asking for broad exemption within the executive order.

What the executive order communicates is that the fundamentalism of the sexual revolution is no longer revolutionary but the status quo, and this seems to be the case with ever-increasing ascendency.

Religious groups — whether contractors, grant recipients, non-profits, educational institutions — have no desire to single out gay persons for discrimination. Most reasonable individuals stand firm in the belief that an individual’s sexual orientation matters little to nothing with respect to his job performance. Rather, what these groups desire to do is to conduct their vocations in a manner consistent with their beliefs.

The decision by the Obama administration to include the ambiguous, fluid categories of sexual orientation and gender identity into non-discrimination law for federal contractors produces a legal juggernaut. The executive order will likely threaten the long-term prospects of religiously oriented federal contractors to pursue their callings with integrity. By his actions, President Obama has tipped the scales more toward the expressive individualism of sexual liberty, over and against the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty. The sexual revolution marches on; and it doesn’t allow for dissenters.

[Atomic Cow]

You know there are Christians that vote Democrat, right? If your argument is that Obama secretly has a plan to undermine Christianity, well, I can't really prove that wrong, but you can't prove it right. I decipher reality based on things that can be proven.

They can call themselves Christians all they want, but real ones are not going to vote for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian individual who has gone out of his way to marginalize and eventually criminalize their beliefs.

[Dexter]

They can call themselves Christians all they want, but real ones are not going to vote for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian individual who has gone out of his way to marginalize and eventually criminalize their beliefs.

I disagree with the idea that Democrats cannot be real Christians. Though, I am agnostic, so I suppose my opinion on what is or isn't a real Christian is irrelevant. Nevertheless I think stuff like this scares off the moderates and ultimately hurts the GOP more than anything. There are a lot of Democrats that are good people and some good Christians, and most people are willing to accept that fact. Your intolerance is hurting the party you support.

[mountaineer]

The Federalist: What's Happening to Gordon College is Just the Beginning
Joy Pullman
July 18, 2014

What’s Happening To Gordon College Is Just The Beginning 
There is far more government bullying ahead for every private school, charity, parachurch organization, and even churches.


A Christian college in Massachusetts requested the freedom to live out its ideals, and since some powerful people don’t share those ideals they’re set to destroy Gordon College—unless it agrees to retreat to the closet.

In June, Gordon’s president added his name to a public letter asking President Obama to not force religious organizations into hypocrisy. Obama plans an executive order that would be the equivalent to many organizations of forcing Human Rights Campaign to hire adherents of Westboro Baptist Church. It would force anyone who receives federal funds to hire people whose sexual conduct disgraces all the world’s major religions.

Gordon, like every other observant religious institution in the world, does not want to be forced to hire people that represent the opposite of what it stands for. For that, it’s been pilloried in the press and persecuted by apparently every local public official who gets morally high from judging Gordon’s beliefs. It has already lost a contract with a local town to manage its historic town hall, and its accreditation will soon be under review—all for merely signing a letter. Gordon is only the vanguard. There is far more of this ahead, for every religious school, charity, parachurch organization, and even churches. So it’s time to pay attention to the tenderhooks of tyranny.

Don’t Take Federal Money, Even Though It’s Yours

Gordon is at federal mercy, first, because it takes federal money. Nearly every college receives federal funds, because the federal government is the nation’s largest sponsor of subprime higher education—meaning, of course, it is by far the largest provider of student loans, made freely available without discrimination upon the basis of academic merit or likelihood of college completion.

This would be only an economic problem, not an individual liberty problem (besides the tax extortion), if the feds ever sent people’s tax dollars back to them with no control measures attached. But they don’t. Control is half the point of getting it in the first place. It’s a fishing expedition, and you’re the catch. Although a few other colleges (such as my alma mater, Hillsdale) realized some time ago that federal money inherently threatens freedom, most are so hooked they would now have to dissolve if they did not accept it. Liberty University, for example, of Virginia and Jerry Falwell fame, regularly makes news for being among the top consumers of federal Pell Grants. It got a cool $81 million from the feds in 2010-11.

This isn’t just a college problem. It’s a charity problem, and parachurch problem, as our own Mollie Hemingway made very clear when discussing the World Vision debacle. It’s even a private K-12 school problem, since private schools can take federal lunch money (and its accompanying, idiotic regulations), have their teachers trained by their public school competitors, and more.

Accreditation May Be Worse

The danger to Gordon’s accreditation, however, may be worse, because it’s a far less visible instrument of control. Without accreditation, it’s difficult for an education institution to function, because accreditation gives the school a license to hand out real diplomas, and for its course credits to transfer to other institutions.  ...

Rest of article

[musiclady]

The left is using the militant homosexual agenda to destroy religious liberty and silence those who uphold Christian morality.  It is the crowbar that radicals have been patiently developing for decades in order to force their own 'religious' ideals on the rest of the country.

All the Christian colleges that have been flirting with the leftist agenda may have a rude awakening in the next two years when they lose the right to teach moral values that oppose the amorality of the Obama government.

[musiclady]

I disagree with the idea that Democrats cannot be real Christians. Though, I am agnostic, so I suppose my opinion on what is or isn't a real Christian is irrelevant. Nevertheless I think stuff like this scares off the moderates and ultimately hurts the GOP more than anything. There are a lot of Democrats that are good people and some good Christians, and most people are willing to accept that fact. Your intolerance is hurting the party you support.

The Democrats who are good people and even good Christians are only able to be so because they are willfully blind to the absolute amorality and downright evil that their own party supports.

I agree that it's possible to be a Democrat and a Christian, but only if one is ignorant, stupid, or keeping his or her eyes sealed shut.

[rangerrebew]

This administration is no more overtly anti-Christian than any other. 

They are not anti-Religion, they are anti-Christian and pro Muslim.

[Dexter]

The Democrats who are good people and even good Christians are only able to be so because they are willfully blind to the absolute amorality and downright evil that their own party supports.

I agree that it's possible to be a Democrat and a Christian, but only if one is ignorant, stupid, or keeping his or her eyes sealed shut.

I could be wrong, but I thought we had determined at some point that you do or are starting to believe that the system is rigged and that both parties are now compromised. If that is true then both parties are toxic and destructive, no? It's not just the Democrats; it's the system as a whole. I apologize if you were not one of the people that agreed with that.

[musiclady]

I could be wrong, but I thought we had determined at some point that you do or are starting to believe that the system is rigged and that both parties are now compromised. If that is true then both parties are toxic and destructive, no? It's not just the Democrats; it's the system as a whole. I apologize if you were not one of the people that agreed with that.

I'm not the one,  but the Republican party, unlike the Democrat party does not stand for abortion at any stage of development for any reason with no parental notification and no medical controls on abortion factories.

So I will reiterate my position that to be a Democrat and a Christian you have to willfully blind yourself to the evil that your party stands for.

[mountaineer]

UPDATE

Gordon College Will Lose Accreditation over Behavioral Standards
Oct. 1, 2014


Gordon College has been given 18 months to recant. If they do not change the standards for sexual behavior in their “life and conduct statement” (which prohibit “sexual relations outside of marriage” and “homosexual practice”), they will lose their accreditation*:

The higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges met last week and "considered whether Gordon College's traditional inclusion of 'homosexual practice' as a forbidden activity" runs afoul of the commission's standards for accreditation, according to a joint statement from NEASC and Gordon College.

The commission asked Gordon College to submit a report next September. The report should describe the process by which the college has approached its review of the policy “to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures are non-discriminatory,” the statement said….

In its joint statement, NEASC and Gordon College called the review process a “period of discernment” that will take place over the next 12 to 18 months…. [The president of NEASC’s higher education commission] said the long time frame that Gordon College has been allowed for the review is appropriate considering that Gordon College's policy is "deeply embedded in the culture of the college" and such things "don't change overnight."

How reasonable of the commission to give Gordon College 18 months to come to terms with overturning the thousands-of-years-old Christian view of acceptable sexual behavior.

This 18-month reprieve is nothing but theater, of course. Gordon College will not convince the commission their standards are “non-discriminatory.” Gordon College will explain the difference between behavior and identity, between a person with same-sex attractions who agrees with the biblical standards and one who doesn’t, and the difference between banning a person because of his sexual orientation and banning particular behaviors among all students that go against the biblical view. And then the commission will reject it.

How do I know this? Because this is what happened earlier this year when Gordon College publicly argued for the “right of faith-based institutions to set and adhere to standards which derive from our shared framework of faith.” That controversy ended with the termination of their city contract to maintain Salem’s historical Old Town Hall and their student teachers being removed from public schools. Here’s what the college said then:


In our statement of faith and conduct we affirm God’s creation of marriage, first described in Genesis, as the intended lifelong one-flesh union of one man and one woman. Along with this positive affirmation of marriage as a male-female union, there are clear prohibitions in the Scriptures against sexual relations between persons of the same sex.

It is important to note that the Gordon statement of faith and conduct does not reference same-sex orientation—that is, the state of being a person who experiences same-sex attraction—but rather, specifically, homosexual acts. The Gordon community is expected to refrain from any sexual intercourse—heterosexual or homosexual; premarital or extramarital—outside of the marriage covenant. There is currently much debate among Christians about the nature and causes of homosexuality, and about a faithful Christian response to same-sex attractions, but we acknowledge that we are all sinners in need of grace, all called to redeemed humanity in Christ.

We recognize that students at Gordon who identify as LGBTQ or experience same-sex attraction have often felt marginalized and alone, and recognize the pressing need for a safe campus environment for all students.

That wasn’t enough then, and it certainly won’t be enough now. But it should be.

Setting standards for sexual behavior is not the same as discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation—it’s not discrimination against single people because of their heterosexual orientation, and it’s not discrimination against gay people because of their homosexual orientation.

Consider this: I can think of three names off the top of my head right now of people who have same-sex attractions (and are open about it) who support the boundaries Christianity sets around sexuality and write for esteemed and popular conservative evangelical Christian ministries and/or whose books I recommend: Nick Roen, Sam Allberry, and Wesley Hill. No one is interested in kicking them out of anything because of their same-sex attractions, because that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they subscribe to and live by the biblical view of sexuality, not their sexual orientation. There is a relevant distinction between the two.

Therefore, just as having a sexual behavior standard for people with opposite-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against heterosexual people, so having the same standard for people with same-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against homosexual people. But the commission won’t see this because our culture is no longer capable of making a distinction between “sexual identity” and behavior. ...

Read the rest at Stand to Reason blog