The Daily Ping

The 10,000th Ping will be published on May 24, 2027. Paul will be just about 50 years old.

February 9th, 2000

Bob Jones: Bigot, Homophobe, University President

I hadn’t even heard of the Bob Jones University before today, so perhaps I shouldn’t be too concerned about the position it holds in our society, but then again, I never back down from a chance to take a shot at the religious right and their hypocritical views. So here we go…

Good ol’ Bob Jones University has a pretty impressive web site and on the surface, their university seems to be pretty straightforward: a South Carolina University that offers “Christian young people the best opportunities for spiritual growth, academic training, and Christian service.” Sounds good, I guess.

But anything beyond a simple search on Bob Jones University digs up some of their gloriously Christian and loving beliefs:

  • They are no longer a tax-exempt institution because they will not allow interracial relationships. I guess that leaves me in the cold if, for some reason, I wanted to go back to school and get a Comp Sci degree from them. Incidentally, you can see that they don’t hide this fact on their application for admissions. This is the second time they lost their tax-exempt status — in the 1970’s they did for refusing to admit black applicants.
  • They’ve banned gay alumni and threatened to have them arrested if they show up on campus.
  • My buddy Bobby Jones called Catholicism and Mormonism the “world’s religious deceptions”. Love that tolerance, Bobby!
While it’s easy to laugh at people like this (it’s a wonder that they manage to make it through each day without killing themselves or someone else), it’s also a bit frightening that this University, in effect, teaches hate. And before you even get there, as you’re reading the application, you’re being taught that “You better date within your race!”

The reason BJU is in the news right now (and how I found out about them in the first place) is that it’s a typical location for Republicans to campaign in order to gain the vote of the far right. I don’t necessarily have a problem with Conservative viewpoints, but to actually care what these intolerant, racist nutjobs actually think about you, you must be pretty far to the right yourself. I wouldn’t want to be Alan Keyes (who, incidentally, is coming to the BJU campus) — they might not allow him on campus being that he’s a double-doozy: black AND Catholic (the horror!).

Not much else needs to be said, really. Browse through their site for a laugh and then swing by the recent news articles (from Yahoo!, not the BJU site) for the real deal on this Heavenly institution.

(And by the way, Bob Jones III frightens me. Why is it that the religious right always look so evil?) -ram

Posted in Politics

FROM: Tim
DATE: Sunday November 19, 2000 -- 2:05:49AM
Ryan MacMichael - Regarding your 02/09/2000 Ping. Seeing as how I hadn't heard of Ping or you before stumbling onto you via Google - I shouldn't care what you think about a decent, academic rigorous, religious school that has fine graduates (inlcuding the investment banker-attorney I work with and multiple graduates in the US Congress. "it's a wonder that they manage to make it through each day without killing themselves or someone else" -- love that tolerance Ryan! I like to browse through the site you contribute to for a laugh. And by the way, you frighten me. Your pretty quick to judge a school without having set foot on the campus. Why is it that the liberal left always look like stupid nerds--Bill Gates?)



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Sunday November 19, 2000 -- 2:13:05AM
Tim -- I have no problem with organized religion or Christians whatsoever, but my problem comes with educational institutions that didn't remove restrictions on interracial dating from their literature until this year. I have no doubt that there have been "fine graduates" from Bob Jones University, but please explain to me how you can attack me for tolerence when you're in support of a University that does not allow openly gay alumni onto their campus.

I'd love to be enlightened, though, Tim. If you have rebuttals for any of the specific charges made against your school over the last 20 years, feel free to address them. I'm listening.



FROM: Robert
DATE: Sunday November 19, 2000 -- 11:14:52AM
"Why is it that the liberal left always look like stupid nerds--Bill Gates?"

Tim--It's funny that you can kill your own credibility so fast after trying to tear someone else's down. I have no ill feelings about saying I hope you and anyone like you dies a painful death.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Sunday November 19, 2000 -- 2:12:18PM
Robert -- Always our good will ambassador... heh. :)



FROM: Matt
DATE: Sunday November 19, 2000 -- 3:50:15PM
Death is not something that should be hoped upon anyone Robert. Man you need to get out of that mindstate, thats some sick shite.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Sunday November 19, 2000 -- 11:11:10PM
I found this sentence couplet to be quite telling, from Tim's post:

Your [sic] pretty quick to judge a school without having set foot on the campus. Why is it that the liberal left always look like stupid nerds--Bill Gates?)

I'm interested in seeing your reply to Ryan's questions, though, Tim.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday November 20, 2000 -- 12:38:09AM
Paul -- I have a strange feeling that Tim won't be returning. Call it a hunch.



FROM: Tim
DATE: Monday November 20, 2000 -- 10:33:38AM
Ryan - since you're listening, I'll speak again. Regarding other comments made on your web page of fine literature (which I'm likely authenticating by this response). The label that Bob Jones University is "my school" was made in haste. I hold a degree from a public, state school in the western United States.

I will let Robert's kind words of life & kindness stand on its own.

I am astounded that I have to elucidate the next point: as to the Bill Gates comment, I was referring to Ryan's attack as to the physical appearance of the man, Bob Jones, as being "evil." A party usually resorts to ad hominem attacks when the arsenal of reason & logic are rendered ineffective.

As to the arsenal of reason & logic, I have absolutely no patent bias or judgments against the gay lifestyle or racial minorities. Bob Jones University should have the right to exclude any person they desire from entering their campus for any reason (the campus is private property, not a public institution, let alone a public forum of any type as they receive absolute no federal tax dollars). Yes, the university restricted inter-racial dating (which I personally oppose on a multitude of levels); however, the same liberty afforded this school to allow these policies is the same liberty that affords the gay couple to do what they please in their home (which is also obviously private property, not a public institution, let alone a public forum).

As to the question of race that Bob Jones University asked on its application for admission, I had to check the "white" & "male" boxes numerous times on the scholarship applications I made for college. Yes, the forms claimed the race & sex information was voluntary, but numerous state & federal court cases have shown that these forms are used for granting minority scholarships. As a white male I should be brimming with racism because our state schools give out more scholarship money to African Americans and women disproportionately than to white males.

As to the alleged remarks by Bob Jones regarding Catholicism & Mormonism, this view is shared by millions of Protestants worldwide. The difference of opinion as to Catholic doctrine was the reason for the European Reformation instigated by Martin Luther. Luther, Wesley and other protestant leaders throughout history did NOT believe all religions lead to the same destiny. Again, who are we to label as hateful & evil because of their religious beliefs?

Many Fundamentalist, Jewish Synagogues restrict women from worshipping in the synagogues simultaneously with men, but there is no outcry of intolerance or hatred uttered towards this group from the pages of Ping. Sunni Muslim practice also places women in a subservient role, requiring wives to walk behind husbands in public. This religious practice may also seem to be abnormal or intolerant; however wishes of painful death and accusations of hate are not pointed against this group either versus the truly hate filled attitudes toward fundamentalist Christians.

In talking with graduates of Bob Jones & law enforcement officials in the Greenville, SC area it is interesting to note that there has never been a case of rape (of any type), murder, assault or serious acts of vandalism or theft within the confines of the school. While I attended college there were cases of each of these crimes (except murder) on the campus of the school I attended. What horrible things the students at Bob Jones must be learning!! (that was sarcasm Robert).



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday November 20, 2000 -- 11:05:41AM
Tim --

Good to hear back from you. I was hoping you wouldn't be a one-time visitor who commented and then left.

The label that Bob Jones University is "my school" was made in haste. I hold a degree from a public, state school in the western United States.

My mistake. Re-reading your original message, I realize I misinterpreted the tone.

Bob Jones University should have the right to exclude any person they desire from entering their campus for any reason (the campus is private property

Maybe this is the case, however 1.) they WERE tax-exempt originally and had their status revoked, and 2.) this doesn't mean they're beyond criticism. I have many issues with Christian fundamentalists (based on first-hand experiences) that I won't go into here, but whether an organization is private or not, I'm still going to voice my opinion on the issue.

Many Fundamentalist, Jewish Synagogues restrict women from worshipping in the synagogues simultaneously with men, but there is no outcry of intolerance or hatred uttered towards this group from the pages of Ping.

The pages of the Ping don't claim to be a complete picture of how either one of us feels -- don't take our lack of commentary on an issue indicate support of it.

As to the question of race that Bob Jones University asked on its application for admission

The link to the admission form now is no t what it was when I originally wrote this piece. Back then, they were also asking for the race of your spouse, regardless of whether or not the spouse was attending the school.

As a white male I should be brimming with racism because our state schools give out more scholarship money to African Americans and women disproportionately than to white males.

I've never had any problem with this -- the effects of white male supremecy are being felt to this day, and I see no problem with compensory action being taken to help even the playing field. But this isn't a Bob Jones-issue, so I won't go into it.

rape (of any type), murder, assault or serious acts of vandalism or theft within the confines of the school

I would attribute this to the fact that everybody there is very similar as far as their belief system. The case might be different if their student body was more representative of American society. Whether this is good or bad, who knows, but I do have a problem with a "University" that didn't allow black students admission until the 1970's.

I will admit that the University seems to be changing a lot of their policies, but the fact that they didn't do so until they began receiving negative press disturbs me. Their history is exclusionary, and I have a tough time believing that things can change that quickly.

Just my opinion.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday November 20, 2000 -- 11:10:57AM
Incidentally, BJU is not totally without federal funding... "Greenville County Council has supplied public monies to BJU, despite it's for-profit status" and BJU's art museum received federal funding as of 1998 (reference).



FROM: Robert
DATE: Monday November 20, 2000 -- 12:25:29PM
Tim--Just to clarify, I was making a sick joke. It's not always pleasant but neither is life. I'm glad you didn't take it too seriously. On the other hand, I feel a right to back up Ryan when people want to compare him to someone so widely villified as Bill Gates. And I do understand sarcasm. It is my favorite tool to deal with things I don't feel blasting outright.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday November 20, 2000 -- 2:18:59PM
Found an interesting article by a BJU graduate.



FROM: Monica
DATE: Tuesday November 21, 2000 -- 5:10:55PM
Even if this ping was years old and I found it, man oh man, I feel the need to say something, especially after reading the linked-to article. I hope my thoughts are not too disjointed.

man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh upon the heart" (I Samuel 16:7d)

Does that quote condone man's looking upon outward appearances? I should hope not. And that's why it doesn't make sense to me that there are any places, let alone those that espouse Christian values, taken straight from the Bible, that exclude or discriminate in ANY way against outward appearances. And what is an outward appearance? For me it isn't just about skin color or what you wear.

To me, the quote means that God cares about how we treat each other (with respect, kindness, and love, ideally) and how we treat God (the same). It does NOT mean to me that God cares WHO we love and treat with kindness and respect.
If two people of the same gender have intimate relations, and it is out of love and respect, who am I to say it's wrong?
Who am I to pass judgement on anyone, for any reason, anyway? Who REALLY is just in judgement, anyway? For me the only answer to the last question is: only God.

So then who's to say what religion is right or wrong, or what is blasphemous ("the Vatican's [blasphemous] religious art" was mentioned in the article), or who has a chance for salvation, or what interpretation of the Bible is the right one...
we can try to guess, we can theorize, we can build schools that teach what certain groups think the ideal is, but in the end, we DON'T know. Only God does.

So that's me on the soap-box.
What concerns me also is WHY people would choose to go to BJU. Are they not strong enough in their faith to be in other places? Do they think that they're better off in God's eyes to be around people of the same point of view, background, etc., all the time? (where is the chance to REALLY learn when you're in a homogeneous environment?)
And hey, what do BJU alumni and current students think of the KKK? It seems to me that, fundamentally, they're pretty similar groups. As for the violence on the campus of BJU, yeah, I'm sure the KKK members don't go after each other, either.
Ugh.



FROM: Monica
DATE: Tuesday November 21, 2000 -- 5:16:19PM
bonus points to anyone who realizes that "values taken straight from the Bible" is gleefully sarcastic :)



FROM: Ginneh
DATE: Saturday January 13, 2001 -- 1:02:44AM
Tim, I'm a Sunni Muslim and I have NEVER been subserviant to anyone, nor have I had to walk behind any man in public. Read a book about Islam, or better yet The Quran before you go posting false info about a religion which you obviously know nothing about.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday January 13, 2001 -- 11:03:21AM
Ginneh -- right on! Unfortunately, Tim seems to have disappeared after his second post, so I doubt we'll see him respond to yours...



FROM: dave
DATE: Sunday January 14, 2001 -- 5:52:42PM
Ah yes, BJU is back in the news...

John Ashcroft, now nominated for attorney general (where he could conceivably set back our society back to the 50s) spoke at their graduation a couple years ago, and said "America is different. We have no king but Jesus."

Hmm. I didn't know we were a monarchy. And although the majority of Americans may be Christians of various stripes, I think there is a sizable minority that would disagree with the former senator (who incidentally, to the credit of Missourians, was beaten by a dead opponent.).

It's people like this that give religion a bad name, and why I have flirted with agnosticism in recent years.



FROM: Amy
DATE: Monday January 15, 2001 -- 5:34:05PM
You say BJU is a bigoted, intolerant school.
Yet I think it's ironic how you can't tolerate those who have different views than your own.
I am a graduate from BJU who is proud of where I've been and where the Lord is leading my life.
I am not a racist nor do I hate those who aren't like me.
There are acts that I believe are sin such as homosexuality, and I base that on the Bible. I don't hate you if you don't believe the same way. I don't hate you if you are a homosexual. I may not like your sin. But I don't hate you at all. I love you like Christ loved and died for you and me. I base that on the Bible too.
I may not embrace your views, but I don't hate you for not believing the way I do.
So your views may be different than mine. Why do you have to hate me because of that.That's what I call intolerance.



FROM: Matt
DATE: Monday January 15, 2001 -- 6:02:05PM
My views I'm sure are basically the same as Amy's in many areas, so I don't really have to go on a long diatribe like everyone else. Anyway, I find it funny that people question things such as Ashcroft saying "we have no king but Jesus" and then forget that those same principles were what this nation was founded on. Yes this nation has a separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but it also was founded on the principles that we would rely of God to lead us through all our mistakes and trials and tribulations as a people of sin. People seem to think that someone like Ashcroft would set us back 50 years, and I have to admit I'm not too hip on his stances, however is where we are now better then where we were then? I would say in some areas yes. But in terms of family structure, respect for a people of faith and upholding of Biblical principles no.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday January 15, 2001 -- 11:29:49PM
Amy -- I'm not quite sure where you get that I hate people from BJU... I never once said that. What I said was that I disagree with what they believe (which is my right). And Bob Jones' hateful statements towards Mormans and Catholic offend me, as does the school's treatment of their homosexual alumni and their stance towards interracial dating up until recently.

In my opinion, when it comes down to it, there is no one perfect "truth," at least not one that we can confirm as such. I don't want to get into an argument about the Bible and it's place (entire books have been written about the incest that's rampant in the Bible as well as many "un-Christian" values throughout it, if the stories are taken literally), but it's clear to me that more people need more tolerance and understanding of others.



FROM: Belinda
DATE: Wednesday January 17, 2001 -- 6:21:55PM
Ryan--

One question for you. Do you even know WHY the interracial dating rule was established by Bob Jones University in the first place? Do your homework and then come back and tell us what you find out. I think it will be surprising.




FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday January 17, 2001 -- 7:43:40PM
Belinda:

Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage because it breaks down the barriers God has established. ... Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man.

From an article in the Boston Globe.

I think the quote itself says quite enough.

For what looks to be ongoing coverage on this issue, this page seems to be quite good.



FROM: Belinda
DATE: Wednesday January 17, 2001 -- 9:34:01PM
Yes, I have read that page...Bob Jones also states..
"Of course, we realize that this is controversial position and that there are many fine Christians who disagree with us on it. We recognize the right of other Christians to hold differing views; we only hope that they will recognize the sincerity and love with which we hold ours. Christian students of all races find a happy and harmonious atmosphere here at the University, and the number of minority students grows every year. We believe prejudice to be Biblically wrong, and it is not tolerated in the student body."

I think that also speaks for itself. HOWEVER, from what I understand, that is not why they originally established that rule. Many years ago, (when interracial dating was not a popular thing to do) they allowed interracial dating. But then the parents of a interracial couple threatened to sue the school if they allowed it to continue. One thing led to another, and probably because they didn't want to endure lawsuits for the rest of their lives coupled with an ever-growing "one-world" philosophy, they decided to make it a rule.

Bob Jones University doesn't teach hate Ryan. Yes, they disagree with Catholicism and Mormonism and ANY religion that directly opposes what the Bible teaches. But disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you hate them. If that were the case, I would say you hated Christians or were "Christian-phobic." Right? But since I don't know you, I can't say that. And if you were honest, you have to say that you really don't know Bob Jones or anything about that University. How many people do you know who have graduated from that College? I know many many people, some of which happen to have been my teachers in high school. Never once, have I ever heard them preach bigotry or hatred to me or anyone else. What if the situation had been reversed? What if George W. Bush or John Ashcroft had spoken at an institution that had "harsh" words about Christianity? Would we have the same "hoop-la?" I don't think so. But that's Ok. Because the Bible says that those who follow Jesus will be persecuted and will be hated.
That's why Christians have been fed to lions, had their heads chopped off and burned at the stake by Catholics and other groups for centuries. I only wish you the best Ryan and would encourage you to get a Bible, stay open-minded and really search the Scriptures for truth. Kindest regards!



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday January 17, 2001 -- 10:02:58PM
Belinda: Don't worry about me, I own several Bibles. And several translations of the Qu'ran. And Taoist literature as well as books from Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Caodaiism, and Rastafarianism. :)

Truth is, Belinda, when I wrote this article almost a year ago, I didn't know much about Bob Jones and his University and its history. But, honestly, as I read through the University's own site as well as writings by Bob Jones and representatives of his school, quite honestly, I became even more turned off. The history of exclusion disturbs me (backing down because of a lawsuit doesn't seem like much justifcation to me to discriminate against interracial couples) and their treatment of gay alumni is offensive to me.

I will say, though, that the main problem I see is their government funding. Though they don't receive direct funding anymore, there is still indirect funding of the school, which I believe I have a reference for in one of my earlier links.

Thanks for your contributions, Belinda -- a little debate is always nice. :)



FROM: Douglas Orr
DATE: Thursday February 1, 2001 -- 5:56:29PM
I've been a police officer for the past fourteen years. Today, I sit mostly in an interview room listening to the world's most horrifying atrocities. I hear how men violate their daughters. I hear how mothers kill their children. I listen to bigots boast of how they beat minorities for just that reason. I sit in disbelief of how "enlightened" our society has become.

Then, I think back to my days at Bob Jones University and how peaceful the campus was. Nobody ever fell out of a dorm window to kill themselves because of alcohol. Women didn't have to worry about being raped on their way back to the dorms. There were no security phones installed on every corner. I met each evening in groups with people who shared spiritual values like compassion and consideration with each other. Certainly, it was a place like none other.

I would give real money for just an inch of Bob Jones University in my life right now.



FROM: Matt
DATE: Thursday February 1, 2001 -- 6:05:00PM
Douglas-
I think where there is Christ there will always be that peace that you found at BJU. I know when I'm in church or a fellowship group on a regular basis nothing can get me down because I'm feeding my spirit with the love of God.



FROM: Carol
DATE: Saturday February 3, 2001 -- 12:16:29PM
All I can say is ditto to what those who defend Bob Jones right to believe and practice their faith have said. It was very obvious that the Ping article was written in ignorance, and that the person had absolutely no personal knowledge of what the school is really like. " Don't judge a book by it's cover."I would hate to say the impression I would get of the person who wrote this article, because I do not know him ,and therefore cannot really know his intent. I cannot judge his heart, but I believe that God does.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Saturday February 3, 2001 -- 12:29:13PM
I find it impressive that people will quickly judge Ryan by his one Ping article out of hundreds, and then turn around and say, "Don't judge BJU by a few media reports!"

Do as I say, not as I do.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday February 3, 2001 -- 3:32:16PM
Carol -- As I've said a number of times before, nowhere in my admittedly rude Ping did I say that they didn't have a right to their beliefs. But I have the same right to criticize their beliefs, especially when they are still partially funded (indirectly) by public tax dollars.

I even got an e-mail inviting me for a personal visit of the school when I'm in the area. And you know, if I am in the area, I will take the person up on their offer. I'll visit the campus with an open mind, but there better be someone there ready to answer my onslaught of questions as well.



FROM: FayJay
DATE: Saturday March 10, 2001 -- 7:10:35PM
Great article, Tim
I'm glad to see that it's not only non-whites that see the bigotry behing Bob Jones University. It's a sad fact, but Christian fundamentalism has been the cause of many of the history's atrocities, from The Crusades all the way up to the horrors of Bosnia. I have no problem with Christianity in it's true form, but I do have a problem with the fundamentalist right-wing interpretation. Schools like Bob Jones harbors those with this point-of-view, and I'm not afraid to say that it really scares me.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday March 10, 2001 -- 11:29:49PM
FayJay -- I think you meant to thank me (Tim was rather pro-BJU)... but, thanks. :) You've pretty much stated my beliefs as well... everyone has to find their own path to God, but it's unfortunate when it comes down to holding back others (culturally, physically, mentally) in the process.



FROM: Jay
DATE: Wednesday March 28, 2001 -- 4:04:49PM
Interesting to note that the masses all think they must find their own way to God, even though the Bible's instruction is in direct conflict to that notion...



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday March 28, 2001 -- 6:52:08PM
I don't quite get your point, Jay... if someone is finding his own way to God, then isn't the literal word of the Bible less important?



FROM: KJ
DATE: Thursday July 5, 2001 -- 3:24:01PM
"everyone has to find their own path to God, but it's unfortunate when it comes down to holding back others (culturally, physically, mentally) in the process"

This forum has long ended, but I do have to ask one question for the comment above, Ryan. Who exactly is being held back by BJU? The students? Faculty or staff? Please clarify!
Thank you.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday July 5, 2001 -- 4:45:06PM
KJ -- People that walk onto the BJU campus with a view different than what's expressed there. People that practice religions that Bob Jones considers the "world's religious deceptions." Gay alumni. Etc.



FROM: i am mike
DATE: Thursday July 12, 2001 -- 3:46:14PM
i know this forum is long over too, but i just had to say something.
regarding this statement made much earlier: "Amy -- I'm not quite sure where you get that I hate people from BJU... I never once said that. What I said was that I disagree with what they believe (which is my right)."

ryan, i am not going to rant or rave here. you have generally been very respectful to other people who comment about your article, so i will extend the same courtesy. i am a graduate of BJU. I nearly got kicked out three times. I don't agree with many rules/regulations doctrines, or actions taken by the administration there. i have to say that you may find differences with many things the school says and does, but the people who come out of BJU are not necessarily OF BJU mentality. like amy, i believe the Bible -- all of it. in the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. that is all i will say about that because #1 i believe everything the Bible says and #2 other people don't, so there is no use arguing about it. That being said, homosexuals are (generally) good people. i have not a met a homosexual that i don't like (not in THAT way). yes, i know plenty of them, i have worked with plenty of them, and i have not only gotten along with them, but i would also call some of them friends. where am i going with all of this? i'm getting there. Hang in there. homosexuality has nothing to do with how much i like someone or how "good" or "bad" a person is. i know plenty of Christians who live worse lives than some homosexuals. i'm not going to go on about how great homosexuals are, because i don't believe they are better than any other group of people in the world - just like Christians are no better than any other group in the world. different groups of people believe different things (even fundamentalist Christians), and every single one of them think they are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are 100% right about one thing (I’m sure not just about ONE thing, but that’s how the expression goes). It’s your right to disagree with BJU. It’s my right to go there and learn what I can from the Bible – from people who put a totally different spin on it. Other people have a right to write to you and express how angry or happy they are that you put up the article in the first place. And it’s BJU’s right
I hate clichés, but “don’t judge a book by it’s cover” is a great one for this circumstance. It fits in two ways here. First, I hated many of the things that went on there before I even went. I hate many of the things that go on there now. But I went through 4 ½ years there, and I have emerged untainted by what they have told me. I learned a lot about the Bible and it’s interpretations by people there, but I am not like them. If you knew me, you would agree, I promise you that. Even BJU says I am not like them (because I am banned from campus). And I don’t like the fact that people lump Christians into one big group. And secondly, I went there for 4 ½ years, so I can make a valid critique of the school. People who do not go there do not. Yes, you can take what a 70-year-old handbook (and nearly as old application) and make assumptions, but the fact is, the place is misunderstood. I have a BIG problem with how the school handles certain things. Many of my friends have been kicked out of the place for perfectly harmless things. I had been nearly kicked out three times. And now I am banned from campus. To tell you the truth, I don’t care if I ever see or hear of the place again, but I can say that the place is misunderstood. They don’t hate people. They hate sin (according to the Bible – according to their belief). And who is to say that the Bible is evil? Intolerant people, that’s who.
Ryan, you have not bashed the Bible yet (as far as I have read), so don’t feel as though I am attacking you. The only thing I want to get across to you is that just because people come out of that school, doesn’t mean that we are like them. And the only thing I want to get across to other people is, you don’t know what the school is really like. It is very misunderstood. I have written way too much. I just wanted to write down a lot of things I have been thinking for a while. Peace. I am mike
p.s. I am pretty sure that bju receives no federal money. The Greenville city council is a state organization. salaries and money raised by them are from state and local taxes – not federal.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday July 12, 2001 -- 5:20:22PM
Mike -- Thanks for the thoughtful post. It's an interesting take on the university from someone who wasn't particularly popular with the university itself. :)

Similar to the way that you don't hate the sinner, just the sin, I don't hate the people coming out of BJU (I don't think I've come across that way, and if I did, I apologize), but I definitely hate what BJU, as a university and an institution of learning belives and teaches.

Out of curiosity -- why were you banned from campus?



FROM: mike
DATE: Friday July 13, 2001 -- 7:59:43AM
ryan -- well put. no, you didn't come across as though you hate people who come out of bju. i just got the slight impression that you or other people might think that everyone who goes to the school or comes out of the school thinks like they do. no worries. i just wanted to throw another slant into it. however i feel about how accurate your forum is here, i have to say that that it's healthy for people to post their views (even if they are wrong :) yes, kidding.
why i was banned from campus... long story, but i will give it to you in a nutshell. there is a demerit system there. if you reach 150 in any given semester, you're kicked out. i got over 75 demerits for 3 semesters in a row. but with careful planning, i made the third semester of 75 my last one there anyway. after that, the university decided that i was not of university material. since they couldn't kick me out (i was done anyway), they just told me not to come back until i hear from them. that was december of '99. if you have any questions about the demerit system, let me know. i seem to be an expert now :)
so that's it. thanks for the interesting topic. you're right, debate is good. keep it up, ryan. peace. i am mike



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday September 19, 2001 -- 1:01:12AM
Here's a picture I've been meaning to post for quite a while...



FROM: A student
DATE: Sunday November 25, 2001 -- 6:59:29PM
Wow, this forum is really old! Still, I feel like I need to put my two bits in...
My grandparents graduated from BJU, and my mom was even born at the Barge Memorial Hospital (on campus). I was never really interested in going to BJU... (I am currently a high school junior), I am a year ahead, and I get really good grades, and after my PSAT I got a letter from MIT, so I was sure that that was where God wanted me to go (what an opportunity). However, because of circumstances after my sophomore year, I am now in the Bob Jones Academy. I never looked forward to it, but now I am glad that I came. The curriculem is challenging, and my teachers are supportive. One of my friends (Mikee) is interracial, and her parents (White and Filipino) are missionaries supported by Bob Jones... and they have been supported by Bob Jones as long as they've been on the field.
I have been to American public schools, and, quite frankly, I would rather wear hose EVERY stinkin' day, wear a skirt that allows my legs to freeze in the winter, and listen to chapel messages every day than EVER go back to the public schools. Why? It's more reasons than I care to type... I had friends in the public schools, and I still keep in contact with them, but I will never look upon my years in the public schools with happiness.
I have alot more to say, but perhaps not now... I have a research report due tomorrow.
-M-
P.S. You sound like a really nice person, Ryan, I just wish you didn't hate BJU so much... they're not perfect (I have my arguments against them that have nothing to do with rules), but they're doind their best for the students.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Sunday November 25, 2001 -- 10:17:34PM
"M" -- feel free to expand on your experiences at BJU, both positive and negative. I'm interested in hearing them.



FROM: M
DATE: Friday November 30, 2001 -- 10:42:06PM
I just got back from the "Lighting Ceremony". All the trees and bushes (and the Bridge of Nations) are now lit up with a ton a Christmas lights. It was alot of fun!
When I and my brother got to the Bob Jones Academy (my other brother will graduate from the college in 2 weeks), we laughed over some of the "rules" (these are not really enforced) in the handbook: guys are supposed to hold the door for girls, and girls should say thank-you. guys should stand when a girl enters a room, and no one can wear Abercrombie and Fitch or Birkenstocks. No big deal - I didn't mind having guys treat me nicely, and although my mom wore Birkenstocks sandals, I didn't wear the products of either of those companies anyways.
The guys do open the doors for me, but no one stands when a girl enters a room. I fit in really well here... even though I'm from California (I'm caucasian), and I'm not used to being in a school so predominately white.
I came to school a week late because I had been in Korea and Vietnam (there are alot of Koreans here... it was so much fun to introduce myself in Korean to them... I picked up alot of Korean words while I was there because I was staying with a family that didn't really speak all that much english), and my teachers worked with me to catch up - I don't think that I would have been able to keep up without them (except my Pre-Calculus teacher... he sometimes forgets that not all of us have our master's in Mathematics).
Maybe I'll put less positive things in later, but I don't have the time right now - I finished my research paper (62/65), but my teacher gave me a literature essay to do (she grades us REALLY tough on lit essays - they're not as easy as other papers), and I have finals coming up.
=)



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Friday November 30, 2001 -- 11:52:34PM
no one can wear Abercrombie and Fitch or Birkenstocks

What was the reason for this? Why these two companies?

Very cool that you got to travel to Vietnam. I've been there myself. :)



FROM: M
DATE: Saturday December 1, 2001 -- 3:13:20PM
I think they are boycotting A&C... there was a reason, but I can't remember, and they say Birkenstocks are too casual. Kids do wear A&C(especially when the clothing isn't labeled with the A&C logo), and I'm sure they wear Birkenstocks... the school just doesn't want kids to wear casual shoes when the rest of the dress code isn't casual.
Vietnam was cool, but scary. I and my youth group went to a cancer hospital (it was overcrowded and stinky), and sang nursery song to all the kids that could fit into the room we were in. They didn't understand us, but they laughed when we did the "hokey-pokey". It was very sad - someone told us how little the hospital did, and a doctor told her that she wasn't supposed to say that...oh well.
I have to finish my lit essay...



FROM: bojo
DATE: Tuesday February 12, 2002 -- 7:16:32 pm
Bob Jones practically worships their founder on founder's day. I'd like to see them broadcast what their founder said about blacks when he spoke at a fundraiser for the school to the KKK back in the 20's.
At BJU image is everything. No wonder they folded so quick on their interracial dating policy with a little pressure from the media. And they used to preach on the fact of how Biblical it was.
Hey, everybody's wrong sometime, but BJU nevers has the guts to admit it. What a shame.



FROM: dr
DATE: Friday March 15, 2002 -- 8:08:52 pm
I realize that this article is about a year old but I thought I'd go ahead and vent. I am a current student at BJU. My coming here was mostly due to my father's persuasion. But I have to say that I love it. Not all aspects of it, but I feel that this is where God wants me. God has worked so much in my life since I've been here. I'm not going to go into rules and doctrines now. There is simply too much to cover and I wouldn't know where to start. But if anyone has questions I would be happy to answer them. I think it's important to get info from an 'inside' source. I live on campus all but 3 weeks a year so I consider myself pretty 'inside'. :-) Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the university. A lot of things are misunderstood. And it is truly by the grace of God that this university stands today. my email is dmrogers_2000@yahoo.com
If you do have a question it would be best to email...I'm not sure when I would check the board again. Thanks!



FROM: Michael
DATE: Thursday May 30, 2002 -- 1:59:59 am
I have applied to BJU twice but never gone there. I could have been one of the first deaf students there. One of the things that convinced me not to go was the Fellows report. His report is part of the Biblical Discernment Ministries series of reports on that college. Now I know of one deaf student there and another who I believe just graduted from my high school, I am an '88 graduate, will go there this fall. If they want to go there, even in spite of my advice against going there, they will go. I did not agree with the interracial dating ban, I was somewhat surprised it was rescinded. It would, I admit, been more redeeming of the university had that ban been abolished BEFORE 2000. Bob Jones III would have admitted outright tha the ban hurt the college instead of saying the ban was a small thing. It was not a small thing for years, if I recall rightly. Interracial marriage, as well dating and sex is as American as apple pie. In other words, interracial dating, marriage, and sex is part of the American way.



FROM: Joe Cottrill
DATE: Friday September 27, 2002 -- 3:26:45 pm
So, another anti-BJU site. I am amazed that the ones who hate Bob Jones University are the ones who have never set foot on campus. I am a 1982 graduate of BJU. I am very proud to say that. Until you go there (and I don't mean just drive around and leave) and see for yourself and meet students, faculty and staff, don't talk about the school. I don't criticize how you live because I don't know how you live.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Friday September 27, 2002 -- 9:18:19 pm
Actually, Joe, I have been on campus and talked to people there.

But, that aside, I think I can criticize a school based on its history racist, bigoted policies just fine, especially when they're out there for everyone to see.



FROM: Joe Cottrill
DATE: Saturday September 28, 2002 -- 12:33:54 pm
Okay, since you have been there, I will at least give you that. Not many of BJU's critics have. Your other argument is really silly though. This is America, and if BJU wants to have its policies that others do not share, well big deal. As you indicated, they don't play the hypocrite and try to hide their beliefs. I don't subscribe to your ideals and you are free to have them. It still is not clear to me why you insist on criticizing an institution just because you don't like their beliefs or policies. You call them bigoted, but they are not. I went four years there and worked for the University as well. I think I know better than you, as your visits obviously do not amount to very much time compared to mine.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday September 28, 2002 -- 8:47:51 pm
bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

A ban, until recently, on interracial dating... shunning of gay alumni... referring to other religions as "religious deceptions."

Sounds mighty bigoted to me.



FROM: Greg
DATE: Monday September 30, 2002 -- 9:50:32 am
Here's a paradox for you.

Doesn't your anti-bigot statements make you a bigot yourself?



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday September 30, 2002 -- 10:18:41 am
Greg -- I don't think so (I had thought about that myself before my previous post). I'm not strongly partial to my own group, religion, race, or politics or intolerant of those who differ. In fact, I'm not at all partial to my own group, religion, race, or political affiliation -- I strongly support "other" members of different groups and their rights to express themselves, except where they are discriminatory in nature or infringe on others' liberties.



FROM: Dave
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 5:38:45 pm
Ginneh - (responding to a post on 1/13/01). How would you justify the dreadful treatment of women in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Iraq in the name of Allah. It took an American military presence to allow Muslim women to go to school in Afghanistan. Actually, from my secular education it seems to me that new testament Christianity was rather revolutionary in that it allowed females to partake in religious instruction in the face of patriarchal Roman/Greek world that considered women a sub-class.



FROM: dave
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 7:04:03 pm
this last post may be true, but the current brand of rabid Christianity is doing its best to deny women their reproductive rights. I believe just last week the president stopped funding UN population programs, in order to pander to the anti-choice crowd. It's not enough to limit women's rights here, our government feels the need to do it in countries where real gains in reproductive rights among women would slow population growth and the spread of HIV.



FROM: Chris
DATE: Thursday November 7, 2002 -- 3:38:32 pm
C'mon "d"ave (little d). What repdoductive rights do women in the U.S. NOT have? Abortion & RU 486 is legal in all 50 states. We are giving away condoms in our schools! As for the supposed problem of overpopulation & HIV (I assume your post refers to the geographic areas of Africa & portions of Asia) how much money is enough for these countries to get their acts together? I don't recall reading about any huge improvements in the pread of HIV or reductions in population during the Clinton years when we were throwing money at these countires. If you truly feel these are problems plaguing our world I hope you write a big check to U.N. as I'm sure they'd take your money to help with these problems. At least mainline Christian demoninations for centuries have founded & funded orphanages (old term), children's homes (new terms), women's shelters, women's hotlines, adoption agencies, health centers, hospitals - which are funded by charitable giving (from persons like me). . .



FROM: dave
DATE: Thursday November 7, 2002 -- 4:44:45 pm
What repdoductive rights do women in the U.S. NOT have?

At the moment, women in the US are among the most empowered in the world. But do you *really* think the Republicans and their so-called "mandate" are going to let this stand? John Ashcroft once went on record as being against the birth-control pill, the single most empowering invention ever for women!

I don't recall reading about any huge improvements in the pread of HIV or reductions in population during the Clinton years when we were throwing money at these countires.

You don't read about it because it's not flashy news. During the 1990s, Uganda made huge cuts in their HIV infection rates, and Senegal and Zambia leveled off, as did some Asian countries.

There haven't been reductions in population (except in Europe, but that's not my focus) but there *have* been reductions in growth rates in nearly every country in the developing world (poke around the US Census Bureau's International Database for proof), and this is thanks in part to the spread of contraception education. The cuts by Bush, a sop to the anti-choice crowd, will hinder these efforts.

At least mainline Christian demoninations for centuries have founded & funded...

Right. And the "faith-based" initiatives of the current administration will ensure that only denominations espousing certain beliefs will get funding to do these wonderful things.

If the US is going to be the world's leader, it will have to benevolent to maintain the world's trust. Neglecting developing countries in the name of winning a few more votes is not the way to do it.



FROM: Robert
DATE: Friday November 8, 2002 -- 3:10:46 pm
This "ping?!" started off as a discussion of Bob Jones University, but has turned into a chat regarding religion & geo-political policy, oh well.

dave, I'm actually rather liberal, politicallly, but I attempted to confirm your claim about Uganda, the 3rd or 4th link I hit when doing a google search of "uganda hiv infection rates" had a link to story claiming the evidence for Uganda's success in reducing HIV is quite weak. Again, I have no agenda here - the link: herehttp://www.africahome.com/annews/categories/scitech/1030146099.shtml



FROM: MIKE LARRY
DATE: Wednesday December 11, 2002 -- 7:13:53 pm
Interracial dating a no! hell i'm arabic and i love WHITE WOMEN i just think they are beautiful.....TAKE THAT BOB



FROM: Will
DATE: Thursday December 26, 2002 -- 3:43:59 am
Amazing ... I came across this site in a search for Bob Jones information outside of your regular news sources and the university itself.
Is Bob Jones the home of bigotry? Well, as former student, I believe I might possess a better perspective than some.
In essence, yes, much of the university is bigoted and insecure in their beliefs in that they cannot withstand criticism.
I think that is important ... they don't listen to others and they assume to know what others believe without having really shared time with others and made an effort to understand them.
Even you, Ryan, are very much guilty of this yourself. Look at your first offering concerning this topic. Look how you generalize about the students to whom the political speakers were addressing in the year 2000 - "racist nutjobs."
But, you seem to, because of your discussion with many BJU grads, both those who still support the university, and those, like myself, who have distanced themselves from much of their ideology, come a long way in tolerance.
Tolerance is gained through an openness and effort to learn of others, and not accept the soundbites and generalities or the media and political action groups.
Pretty strong words for a journalist, eh?
Take care all, and thanks for getting this ball rolling Ryan.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday December 26, 2002 -- 12:12:22 pm
Looking back, the "racist nutjobs" comment probably should have been clarified a bit... I believe I was talking more about the administration and "rulemakers" than the student body itself... or at least I hope I was. :)



FROM: Paul
DATE: Friday April 25, 2003 -- 10:36:37 pm
Ryan, you had some interesting points. Earlier on you mentioned that essentially there is no absolute truth. I know that our current post-modern philosophy is one of subjective truth. But without an absolute standard it is impossible to have a cultural moral compass. Of course you disagree with the university's policies on homosexuality. How can an institution or an individual tell someone else that there lifestyle is wrong? And there is the rub. When the Bible is the cornerstone of one's faith then you can clearly see homosexuality condemned as a sin (immorality). Until you have a saving faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, BJU will always seem like a hypocritical place. I know that you've been conditioned (or corrupted- depending on who you ask) by modern thought and so faith in something intrinsic comes much harder to you. Pray and ask God to remove the scales from your eyes and allow you to understand the glorious truth of His gospel, the Bible. I will be praying for you Ryan.



FROM: Carl
DATE: Wednesday April 30, 2003 -- 3:52:31 pm
Bob Jones does not "seem" like a hypocritical place- it IS. Here is a very typical story, I am a graduate from Bob Jones and spent nearly 4.5 years of my life there. Roughly 10 years ago, it was stated from the pulpit during chapel that they would NEVER allow pool tables to be placed in the 'dating parlor' because this portrays a bar like theme of which they will not mimic. Today, if you visit the 'dating parlor' (imagine a large furniture store with only a wide variety of love seats) you will see (at my last count) 9 pool tables.

I can speak endlessly about the hypocrisy of BJU, but the real reason to be scared of BJU is it tries everything in its power to suppress individuality and free- thinking in its students. My Alma mater is an embarrassment to me.

Other random thoughts:

Is Bob Jones still unaccredited? YES this is important despite what the school tells you; grad school can be competitive to get into and this does not add to your application package. Also, you cannot get an officer commission with a non-accredited degree.

I wonder what the payoff was to BJU from the Republican party to change their stance on interracial dating?

Are gays allowed on campus or has the Art Gallery taken a non-tax exempt stance to protect the school’s homosexual ban?

Did you know if you get expelled from Bob Jones you have to wait 2 semesters to return…if it is anything gay related it is 4 semesters

Latent homosexuality is very prevalent at BJU because you can attend 4 years of school, never talk to the opposite sex and nobody would every be the wiser. Try doing that in a frat house!!



FROM: Me
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 8:20:14 pm
Just stumbled onto this post, even though it is around 3 years old now. I am probably more qualified than anyone to discuss BJU--I went there for 10 years (7th grade on up), my wife went there for 12, my sister went there for 7 and my brother for 4 years. I graduated from BJA (high school) and then from their college, but was banned from campus about a year and a half later due to their not agreeing with my chosen career field (entertainment industry--and no, it's not porn). My brother was also kicked and and banned from campus because of too many demerits. While there, I wasn't a problem student and I was active in sports, drama, student body, etc. Even so, I received a "disinvite" to my high school's 10-year reunion because it was held on-campus (I wasn't going anyway) and I am not welcomed on school grounds--as they put it. However, some of those attending the reunion have illigitimate children, drinking problems and arrests. Guess I chose the wrong "sin". I could go on and on with details of my years there, but I wish to forget them. One of my favorites is how they sent my wife a letter requesting donations to the school, the same day they sent me a letter stating I was banned from campus. Classy and Christ-like at the same time. Nice. Yes, many of the things mentioned here in the previous posts are true. For both sides. But when it comes down to it, the question remains: Does BJU do more harm, or more good?

The answer is easy: they do way more harm than good. To their students, the faculty who have been sucked in, and to the community they pretend to care about. I know too many people who have been screwed up by them or screwed over and BJU has shown no remorse. They relish their little "victories" in the name of God. In fact, BJU has taken their screw-overs to the next level and threatened the families of those they are banning (threatening expulsion of a sibling, firing of a parent who works there, etc.--never physical). I have seen the letters and sat in the offices of those making these threats--one such threat happened earlier this year with another reunion debacle. Long ago I thought them to be a good organization, too. Then I was introduced to something called real life. Think what you want about them...if you went there, have never been there or are there now. Just remember their "bible" is not based on THE Bible. It is based on bias.

Peace.



FROM: zigfried
DATE: Thursday June 19, 2003 -- 1:46:04 am
and i'll bet there are plenty of black universities that don't allow whites into them.

it comes down to supply-and-demand. if enough people didn't like the university's philosophy, then they'd be out of business. since BJU is still in business, then it looks like enough people agree with their standards/practices.

now, if you want to talk about big time racists, let's have a little talk about jesse "shake em down" jackson...




FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday June 19, 2003 -- 9:21:51 am
and i'll bet there are plenty of black universities that don't allow whites into them.

Name one.



FROM: frank
DATE: Thursday July 17, 2003 -- 12:09:11 am
Bottom line:
BJU is not for everyone. Their philosophy is to train Christian young people to serve Christ. They stand on the Bible and what it says as objective truth; therefore, they have standards and policies that match. By the way:
did you know that the Bju vs. the IRS cases all ruled in favor of BJU in the lower and federal courts, that Ronald Reagen said that the attorney general would not pursue it any farther, and that the supreme court (which was known to be liberally biased) called the case up to them without an appeal (something that never happened before and has not happened again). When you think about, it is scary. The Supreme Court can now call cases in which the outcome is not to their liking up. I did not think that is right. Seems to me that the Supreme Court has become too powerful. Imagine if they were all hard right or left what they could do.

p.s. in every court other than the Supreme Court BJU won on "constitutional" argurments.



FROM: frank
DATE: Thursday July 17, 2003 -- 12:10:50 am
ps did you know Hillary Clinton has spoken at a blatantly feminist school?



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday July 17, 2003 -- 12:38:01 am
ps did you know Hillary Clinton has spoken at a blatantly feminist school?

And what does that have to do with anything?



FROM: frank
DATE: Thursday July 17, 2003 -- 1:14:34 pm
just wondering why the media never spoke out against it, since they are discriminating against men.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday July 17, 2003 -- 3:33:18 pm
Since when is feminism about discriminating against men?



FROM: Joe
DATE: Sunday August 10, 2003 -- 8:39:02 pm
Enough about BJU. I am sure there is something else to talk about. Do you hate anyone or anything else. I am tired of your site.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Sunday August 10, 2003 -- 10:27:46 pm
I guess people aren't reacting well to that Mandatory Daily Ping Viewing Law of 2001. Geez.



FROM: Mike
DATE: Friday October 24, 2003 -- 10:31:33 am
Can anyone explain BJU's demerit system? The different restriction levels and stuff? Thanks1



FROM:
DATE: Thursday December 4, 2003 -- 5:29:03 pm



FROM: Josh
DATE: Monday December 29, 2003 -- 9:48:50 am
Why you would want to go to BJU for a comp sci degree would blow my mind. One thing....not defending them....but making sure your facts are straight, the school had to open to interracial relationships. The reason I know this is because my friend was expelled for this and I believe it was two to three years later they removed this. Yes BJ has many many problems, and I am so glad to not have been involved woth them for over five years now.



FROM: Joe
DATE: Thursday February 26, 2004 -- 9:04:17 pm
Josh, your comments indicate you did not study English when you were there.



FROM: K
DATE: Monday March 1, 2004 -- 9:52:17 am
this is for mike who wanted to know about the demerits system at BJU.
well, it's pretty gay, i must say (ha ha.....no pun intended!) if you break a rule, you get a certain amount of demerits. here's a couple examples: one of my friends is a freshman at BJU this year. he got like, 10 demerits for not having his face shaved. (that's pretty stupid!!!) and he got a bunch more for going to the wrong vespers. vespers is a little nightime prayer/song meeting thing, i guess. (i don't plan on finding out because i don't plan on bein a "bojo!") poor kid- he's a freshman and it was in the beginning of the year! he made an innocent mistake! oh well. so yeah, that's basically what demerits are. i could easily understand them giving demerits to those who break a major rule (like a girl wearing pants outside of the girls dorms or something) but for going to the wrong vespers????? come on!! i go to a fundamentalist high school and i can't wait till i graduate this year! i'm pentecostal so i don't really agree with the rules or their views on certain issues. my parents told me that they don't want me to go to bob jones, thank god! way to go, mom and dad!! :) hope i answered your question!



FROM: AC
DATE: Monday March 1, 2004 -- 12:24:32 pm
From waaaay back in '00:

"liberal left" is quite unnecessary - you can say "liberal" or "left", I don't think "liberal right" or "conservative left" works any which way.

"Liberal Republican" and "Conservative Democrat" is fine.

Cheers,
AC

PS: Interesting that such a conservative school doesn't change their name to "Robert Jones University" (RJU). I mean, c'mon!, "BJ" U? HAHAHAHAHAHA



FROM: LEJ
DATE: Monday June 7, 2004 -- 4:44:00 am
Well...honestly, it's really sad that some of you are so misinformed about BJU...there is so much bitterness, ignorance and immaturity in many of these messages.

I also find it really interesting that some will answer questions regarding BJ's rules or its demerit system when they themselves haven't even been there to know. Any institution that is going to have success in its organization has to make certain rules and standards. There would be chaos otherwise. Furthermore, when you get your information from one who has a "bad taste in his mouth" from suffering the consequences of a breeched rule, of course one's viewpoint is going to be tainted and/or distorted. The fact is, all institutions have rules.....you break the rule, you have a consequence. That's just life, right?

I hope those of you who have a less than friendly view of the University will someday go and see for yourself. I am confident that, if you are an open-minded and reasonable person, you will change your opinion.

I am a BJU grad and extremely proud of my Alma mater.

Thanks for reading....



FROM: Rebekah
DATE: Monday June 21, 2004 -- 1:40:52 pm
I went to BJU for 2 years and it was horrible. It does provide an excellent academic process for students, but the legalism is ridiculous.

I had to take a year off of college just to become a normal person again after my experience at BJU.

Just two things for evidence of what sort of "higher education" this place is:
*no TVs, all music must be checked, no listening to "liberal" or unauthorized radio stations
*no speaking to members of the opposite sex off campus without a chaperone (because the girls might get pregnant from saying hello?)

While I was there I did have a crush on a Korean male but I was unable to proceed with dating him because I didn't want to go through the hassle of dating someone outside my race!





FROM: Ben
DATE: Thursday October 21, 2004 -- 9:01:06 am
LEJ,
Right on. Any institution that is going to have success in its organization has to make certain rules and standards. There would be chaos otherwise. You hit the nail on the head. That one idea is the key issue that has been missing from this whole "debate". Our government has rules that people from other countries think are ridiculous, but they are necessary for order and peace. I am currently enrolled as a student at Bob Jones, and I just discovered this forum last night. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks. Ben.



FROM: Ben
DATE: Thursday October 21, 2004 -- 12:53:35 pm
Right on LEJ. I think the idea you presented is the one most often overlooked when people are angry about something. Many people rush straight to their skewed conclusions without examining any of the facts.

Fact#1: BJU is a Christian university that seeks to promote and exalt Christ in all of its policies.
Fact#2: Since BJU is a private institution and receives NO FEDERAL FUNDING, it has the right to do as it pleases as long as its decisions are in line with the Bible.
Fact#3: It's true that BJU didn't accept Blacks until 1970, but neither did most colleges at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.
Fact#4: I am a current student at the university. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. My e-mail address should be posted with this.
Making judgements without real knowledge is the highest form of hatred, bigotry, and intollerence there is. Thanks. Ben.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday October 21, 2004 -- 5:04:58 pm
#1 - Yes, but there have been many bigoted policies in place that are used in the name of Christ (please explain the ban on interracial dating that lasted in their literature until 2000 (reference).

#2 - They *did* receive federal funding and lost it because of their policies. They still receive what could be considered "indirect" funding, though. As mentioned above: "Incidentally, BJU is not totally without federal funding... "Greenville County Council has supplied public monies to BJU, despite it's for-profit status" and BJU's art museum received federal funding as of 1998 (reference)."

#3 - It wasn't until 1974 that BJU started accepting black students, changing its policy only after being told they'd lose their tax-exempt status if they didn't. (reference)

#4 - I haven't checked recently -- does BJU still bar gays and gay alumni from being on campus?



FROM: Ben
DATE: Monday October 25, 2004 -- 9:44:21 pm
It's me again. A couple of your observations, Ryan, by your own evidence, are disproved.
#1: Define "bigot". It means different things to different peoples and ethnic groups. "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" is how the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it. That means that ALL Americans are bigots in the eyes of most Germans and French (not that we really care). We so often throw around the word "bigot" like it's the chiefest of insults, when in reality, everyone is a bigot to someone else.
#2 Every school, at some time, receives indirect Federal funding through tax incentives or credits. BJU lost its tax exemption, not on Constitutionality (if you'll read the case summary carefully), but on the biased opinions of some of the Justices. The Museum and Gallery is a separate, for-profit entity. It receives money from the STATE (not the Feds) because of the tremendous artistic worth of the collection (it is the largest collection of religious art in the Western Hemisphere). The M&G brings South Carolina a lot of money due to the volume of tourists who come to see it.
#3 Check your facts. The Court proceedings you linked to your last article clearly set the date of minority admission as 1971. "Negroes were completely excluded until 1971."
#4 If the University feels it is necessary to bar gays from campus, it has complete legal right to do so. I think a key definition that gets tragically lost in these types of debates is that of tolerance. People call BJU intollerant because it won't let certain people on campus. That is not "intollerance". "Intolerance" is the extremist Muslim view that we can't tolerate other religions, so we kill everyone associated with a particular group. That is not the University's standpoint at all. BJU tolerates, but does not "accept" these views. There is a crucial difference.
By the way, you said that you visited campus. I'm very curious as to what your impression was. Thanks. Ben



FROM: Random Guy
DATE: Tuesday February 1, 2005 -- 5:19:18 pm
I think too much of the discussion in the comments section has been spent on BJU's bigotry or lack of such, and not enough on the fact that it is an unaccredited university. While it's clearly far from a degree mill, I'm amazed that so many would be willing to spend 3+ years of their life attaining a degree that, when all is said and done, will be worth less than the equivalent degrees of most university graduates.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Tuesday February 1, 2005 -- 5:30:59 pm
Random Guy:

Your comment provides a nice illustration highlighting the average BJU student's poor judgment.

Nicely done.



FROM: Adam
DATE: Friday February 4, 2005 -- 3:50:58 pm
As a gay former (thankfully) student of BJU, I can honestly make the assertion that calling the school elitest is a gross understatement... the administration only care about the well-being of the more financiallly sound members of the student body. On a different note..I only wish that BJIII and all of the other administrators there felt the need to worry about the sin in their own lives then preach to me about the "Perversion" in mine. I did leave the University on my own accord, though had I stuck around I would have been forced to leave because apparently my imperfection is tragically less acceptable than my kleptomaniac ex-roommate.



FROM: Ben
DATE: Monday February 14, 2005 -- 5:45:56 pm
Okay Guys,
Here we go.
Random Guy:
#1 From your post, it sounds like you aren't fundamentally opposed to the University's standards or education. The whole accreditation barrier has been, admittedly, a thorn in the side of the University in years past. However, if you'll look at the students who have graduated from Bob Jones, they have had no trouble getting into medical, law, or other schools, despite their lack of accreditation. Why? Because Bob Jones has gained a reputation of excellence in academics. However,
#2 I am happy to say that the University is in the last stages of becoming accredited through the TRACS program (TRACS is a government recognized accrediting board).
#3 Ask people who have graduated from BJU if their degrees have been treated as less important than another institution's.
It is important to note that the University has not been accredited in the past because they would've had to submit to gov control over their curriculum. Obviously, that would have been completely unacceptable.

Joseph:
#1 Think for yourself. It will help you out in the future.
#2 Please tell us how you have better judgement than the average BJ student.

Adam:
#1 http://www.bju.edu/admissions/financial/aid.html Paste this into your web browser. On this link, you will find twenty-nine scholarships and other financial aid methods for current BJU students. That, of course, indicates that there are a lot of less-fortunate students (myself included) who attend the school. There is no evidence of pandering to the wealthy. Please give us some specific instances that are not based on pure conjecture.
#2 Okay... Now, please provide all of us readers with some specific instances of sin that each of the faculty members is NOT already working on. Nobody's perfect. But we are commanded to examine ourselves and let the Lord root out the various sins that are present in each of our lives. Your roomate's sin of theft is no worse than your sin of homosexuality which is no worse than any sin that I commit. The distinction is made by who is trying to conquer his/her sin. Is it safe to say that you had no intention of changing, but that your roomate did?

Just some thoughts from someone who cares. Look forward to hearing from ya'll! Ttyl! Ben



FROM: Richie
DATE: Tuesday February 15, 2005 -- 10:07:56 pm
For all those that have commented negatively about BJU, I must say that you yourselves are the ones that are wrong. The University is not perfect, but the fact that you express the bitterness in your hearts shows that you are in the wrong, not BJU. The rules that the University has are not for the sake of persecuting the students, neither do they have them for the sake of gaining favor with God (leagalism), but rather they are for order's sake.
In addition, the President and administration of BJU have never claimed to be perfect. Dr. Jones III constantly admits to short falls in his personal life when he preaches in chapel. He realizes that the only perfect person is the Jesus Christ, who is both God and man.
The true problem is that you are in rebellion against the Law of God, bitter against authority, and are unjustly hard set agianst BJU.



FROM: Theophilus
DATE: Wednesday February 16, 2005 -- 9:45:00 pm
To Random Guy:
BJU may not be my first choice for higher education, but I must point out that just because a school is not accredited the conclusion must be that the degree is worthless. I have heard stories of many BJU graduates that have obtained very high paying jobs in the business world. In fact, one BJU graduate was VP of Dr. Pepper. The reason businesses like BJ grads is that they know that they are more likely to ethical in their job, and the employer does not have to worry about low productivity or fraud. Pre-med and Pre-law majors easily get accepted into medical and law school after they graduate from BJU, and have great success in the fields of medicine and law. The only problem with having a degree form BJU is trying to get political office, especially on the national level. So over all, a degree from BJU is worth as much as a degree from Harvard or Yale, only at one-fourth the price.
And by the way, BJU is now accredited. Next time do your homework.



FROM: JEM
DATE: Wednesday February 23, 2005 -- 8:45:38 am
I find it interesting to hear this talk of BJU grads having worthless degrees and limited potential in the workplace. Yes, BJU grads do have higher ethics than the average person because of the sound Biblical training; however, that is not their only "selling point." As a BJU grad, I have earned two masters degrees, taught in the most difficult schools (also receiving state accolades for my accomplishments), become a principal with service in very difficult schools, and now influence policy at the state level. All of those accomplishments have come BEFORE the age of 30. In job interviews, I was asked the same hard questions and faced the same criteria as anyone else, and my talents/experience landed me those jobs. So, please do not sell BJU grads short and only give us "credit" for our ethics.

Is that success in my life related to Bob Jones? Partly, but mostly I have been blessed by the Lord. This issue of debating the pros and cons of the University seems to get the focus off the real issue -- where do you stand in relation to eternity? That concern is of utmost importance and I hope anyone reading this pauses to ponder that fact.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Wednesday February 23, 2005 -- 10:13:12 am
Yes, BJU grads do have higher ethics than the average person because of the sound Biblical training;

Wooo... wow.

Nice to see this Ping is making the rounds at BJU.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Wednesday February 23, 2005 -- 4:09:24 pm
The rules that the University has are not for the sake of persecuting the students, neither do they have them for the sake of gaining favor with God (leagalism), but rather they are for order's sake.

Mein Herren:

Das klingt gut. Ja, Arbeit doch macht frei! It's all about order, isn't it?

Deutschland uber alles, and all that and Nazis for Christ.

Heil Hitler!



FROM: Richie
DATE: Sunday February 27, 2005 -- 10:26:30 pm
Joseph,
One is not a Nazi just because they have order in their life. Believe it or not, order is a good thing. If there was not order on the roadways, crashes would be commonplace. If there was no order in court, chaos would reign. If there is no order at school, then the learning process is hindered, thus making the education worth less. The problem with you calling BJ students "Nazis for Christ" is that there are no similarities between the two. They are not racist. They do not hate people just because they are different from them. Yes, they do have the courage to stand up and say that certain things are wrong, but that does not mean that they hate the person that is doing wrong. You may not be able to comprehend this concept, but that does not mean it can not be done. Next time you write in German make sure that you are in a German speaking country. We are in America. We speak and write in English.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 9:46:24 am
Uh, Richie? America has no official language.



FROM: AC
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 12:35:56 pm
There are plenty of online dictionaries if a foreign language is too hard for ya to understand.

There are lots of people in America that speak and write in other languages in addition to English.

Take a class, it just might broaden your horizons - no reason to be so Anglocentric.



FROM: Theophilus
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 12:37:50 pm
JEM,
I find it interesting that you thought my previous posting was ment to be negative. I realize that most BJ grads have more than just good ethics as an advantage. I did not question the fact that you got asked the "same hard questions" as everyone else. It almost seem like you are trying to distance yourself from an "ethically sound" label. By the way, your success is totally because of the Lord's blessing, not just mostly. My eternal destiny is secure becuase Christ has saved me from my sin. Debating the value of a BJ degree does not mean that I don't have an eternal focus.



FROM: Ben Adams
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 2:21:42 pm
Hmmmmm...Let's think about this. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Mayflower Compact, Articles of Confederation, today's laws and legal briefs in the U.S....Yep. All written in English. It's not official, but it's what we do in America. Good goin', Richie. I'm with ya'.



FROM: dave
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 3:12:23 pm
Wow, if you can't tolerate other languages, you need to seriously consider if you can handle this newfangled Internet thingy. 'Cause, you know, there are foreigners using it too!



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 4:14:52 pm
Richie,

I do believe that order is a good thing--but I'm not talking about traffic. By the way, crashes are commonplace. Are your sad powers of observation the kind honed to a fine edge at BJU?

Hitler began his reign of terror by appealing to religious Christian conservatives. Have a looksee. http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm. Note: this may not be the best source of this kind of information, as I know that I have seen better. But it's all I have at the moment.

The point is, why do people have to be excluded so that the rest may be brought to order? That's the platform that the Nazis worked well with. But, as long as you weren't a Jew, you were safe, right? Similarly, as long as you feel that your soul has been saved, you're safe, right?
No one else matters but those who are like you because they haven't achieved what you believe you have, or simply are not entitled, for whatever reason, to what you are.

That's the seed that grows into all discrimination-based evils.

But that kind of thinking is a lie. Just as the Nazi regime went beyond killing Jews (Jews were simply at the top of the list of "undesirables," which included scholars, Christians who sympathized with Jews, people afflicted with physical and mental handicaps, common criminals and homosexuals and other "perverts."

All of these people were sacrificed by the Nazis in order to build the superior Master Race.

What is the vision of Bob Jones' master race? Sounds like some sort of conservative religious moral superiority nonsense to me.

Only the smallest of persons needs to put others lower than themselves to feel superior. One way to do this is to brand others as somehow spiritually inferior--some sort of undesirable, and exclude them. An entire university devoted to this practice is just wrong, whether or not it promotes order within the school's walls.

Racism is racism. A ban on interracial dating at BJU is no different to me than a 1930s Nazi ban on Christian/Jew marriages. If BJU is more tolerant of interracial relationships now, given BJU's record, I can only think that BJU was forced to capitulate to outside pressures (perhaps a desire to be accredited, perhaps?) rather than rethinking and restructuring its core values. If BJU were a university located in 1930s Leipzig or Berlin, would it have made a similar move, or advanced to even greater bans, like no Christian/Jew marriages?

I think the latter.

Ben Adams:

By the way, the old venerable documents of this country's independence were written in English not because the intended audience was American, but because the intended audience was English, specifically, the English nobility. But, had you decided that you wanted choose a language in order to print something that would be read and understood by the majority of those inhabiting what would become the United States at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and later, that wouldn't have been the easiest decision.

In fact, the German language was very widely spoken and published in the US until the Kaiser, and later, Adolf himself, made that language very unpopular to speak and print in the US.

As for all laws and court briefs, are you absolutely certain of your facts?



FROM: Ben
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 6:49:53 pm
Okay, here we go!
Paul: Correct, but English IS the accepted language for all things law and business-related.

AC: I hope you're not a natural-born American. If so, your lack of pride in your nation is disgraceful. Granted, hundreds of other languages are spoken within our borders, but English is by far the most prevalent, and, therefore, by our democratic principles of majority rule, English will be spoken.

Dave: Foreigners??? I think you've just proven my point.

Joseph: Hitler began his campaign by appealing strictly to Germany's hurt feelings after the Treaty of Versailles which, of course, was the result of Germany's loss of World War II. It is also important to note that Hitler was a Catholic, not a Fundamental Christian. The differences are astronomical. As Christians, we are commanded to love our enemies (the people that treat us like you do). We are commanded to act like Christ did. When He was crucified, He was still blessing His enemies. Even as they ripped out His beard, he harbored no evil intent for them. While they beat Him until He was not even recognizable as a human being, His thoughts were only for their eternal souls. As they thrust a spear through His side and spit upon Him, He asked His Father to forgive them. Hardly a doctrine of hate is it? Our goal, and the specifically stated goal of Bob Jones University, is to become like Christ. His only condition to being saved forever is that we place our trust in Him- unconditionally. We do not attempt to make ourselves feel important by debasing others. We seek to glorify Christ by telling others about Him. He came to earth from Heaven for the sole purpose of redeeming a lost and dying people, not to inspire the intolerence that is so often, unjustly, ascribed to Him. If anything, Christ is the most tolerant being to ever walk the face of the earth. Although we hated Him, He still loves us. The last verb is in the present tense.

For an answer to the second part of your assertion, Joseph, please see the answer to AC's post. By law, all American legal documents must be written in English. They may then be translated as necessary. There is no hatred here, only love. Please read with an open mind.



FROM: Ben
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 8:14:18 pm
CORRECTION: Sorry Guys,
the Treaty of Versailles was signed after World War I, not II. My bad:)



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Monday February 28, 2005 -- 9:08:48 pm
Our goal, and the specifically stated goal of Bob Jones University, is to become like Christ.

So Christ would have said, "Yes, I created you both, but because you're of the same sex, go away." or "Yes, I created you both, but because you're of different races, stay away from each other."?

BJU may say that you should strive to be like Christ, but historically, their policies have been pretty hateful.



FROM: dave
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 3:21:18 am
sarcasm n.

2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

(per dictionary.com)

I'll have to be less subtle next time.

And as an aside, I'd love to hear the "astronomical differences" between Catholicism and Fundamentalist Christianity. I remember when a "Christian" bookstore opened up in my largely Catholic hometown. When some of the more prominent parishoners when to the store looking for Catholic - oriented books, they were told "oh no, Catholics aren't Christian." That store didn't last three months.



FROM: AC
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 7:27:16 am
Ben:

"AC: I hope you're not a natural-born American."

Oh, my.

I'm actually not - I immigrated to this great country and got my citizenship a few years back (voting being my #1 reason). People like you scare me, which is why I am glad that I can vote now and help keep people like you from being elected.

I mean, really! Who cares where I came from? The point is that a foreign language shouldn't scare you if you see it on the Ping.



FROM: Ben
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 8:30:30 am
Ryan,
Nice to hear from you again! Okay, Christ condemns the sin of homosexuality over and over again in the Bible. So the answer to your first question is "Yes". The second question, however, is a little more difficult. I, personally, think that the interracial dating ban was wrong, but the University has repealed it, so it is a dead point.

Dave,
Catholics-v-Fundamental Christians:
Some of the major differences.
#1: Catholics believe in a salvation of works, Christians believe in one of faith alone. This leads right into:

#2: Catholics have no eternal security (because they can't know for sure if they are saved or not). Christians, however, can be sure that "Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38). We, as Fundamental Christians, know where we are going when we die because we have put our faith in Jesus Christ to save us.

#3: The "Priesthood of the Believer". This means that we, as Christians, can pray to God ourselves without the necessity of going to a priest. We need not confess our sins to anyone but Christ. This is a doctrine that is clearly taught by the Bible and has been perverted by Catholicism. "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Timothy 2:5).

#4: Purgatory never appears in the Bible.

#5: One cannot be born into the church. He/she must accept the Lord for themselves. No one else can do it for them.

If you want a specific set of arguments that are well thought out and well supported, I can e-mail them to you. These are just off the top of my head.

AC: I'm not implying that you can't speak your mind. I am saying, however, that a natural-born citizen of any country should have a sense of national pride (we call it Patriotism). If there is no pride in one's country, then something is wrong. By the way, where did you immigrate from?

Look forward to hearing from ya'll! This is fun! Ttyl. Ben



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 9:17:49 am
Ben:

So, those Americans who speak a foreign language at home have less pride in their country and are less patriotic than those who speak English at home? Here's another one: why don't you tell me which english is the acceptable English languange? British English? American English? English learned overseas which is full of its own idioms? Southern English, where they use words like "reckon" and "yonder?" Hip-hop and rap music English? Urban English? Country English? Fundamentalist preacher English, which often delves into antiquated Biblical verb conjugations such as "he that heareth me . . . " etc.? There will be no official language because just identifying what the language is becomes a problem. Moreover, the English language changes every day. One of the reasons it has become widely accepted as the foremost international language is its very malleability. It is peppered with foreign words and gains new ones every day. Therefore, foreign speakers can latch onto it more easily when learning it. The very name of the language shows that it is a foreign tongue. We call it English because it came from England. There's nothing inherently American about it.

Furthermore, your grandparents might remember a recent time when, if they were engineering, medical, or math students, they were required to learn French and German because those were the languages of science. If they were medical students, they had to learn Latin as well, which is the source of all the Romance languages, like French, Spanish and Portuguese.

Did you know that more English is spoken outside of the US than inside the US? Does that make it more American or less American? What would you say if you learned that the language spread because of the British Empire? English is the language of Great Britain. We speak it because we were colonized by Great Britain, just like India. If anything, our continued use of English simply shows that we still bow to what Great Britain thought was proper for us back when they owned us.

On other subjects:

Christ condemns the sin of homosexuality over and over again in the Bible.

Show me a quote from the New Testament in which Christ directly attacks homosexuals or interracial relationships.

By law, all American legal documents must be written in English.

Show me which law you're talking about. Provide a link if you can.

As for racism, didn't Jesus himself offend the Pharisees when he praised the good Samiratan at a time when Samaritans were generally treated like dogs?

What direct words of Christ support BJUs stance on racial intolerance?



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 10:47:27 am
Okay, Christ condemns the sin of homosexuality over and over again in the Bible. So the answer to your first question is "Yes".

I guess even if one agrees that homosexuality is a sin, why is the "forgiveness" part missing here?

I, personally, think that the interracial dating ban was wrong, but the University has repealed it, so it is a dead point.

But it's not a dead point. It's part of their history as a university and makes them out to be very hypocritical.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 10:48:36 am
Show me a quote from the New Testament in which Christ directly attacks homosexuals or interracial relationships.

Ten bucks it's the "lie with men" bit...



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 11:10:16 am
Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22: "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abhorrence." Similarly, chapter 20 verse 13 states that "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing. They shall be put to death."

But this is the Old Testament. I want the words of Christ himself. Let's go to the source of Christianity for direction on how a Christian should behave.

Oh yeah, I forgot this bit by Ben which goes "The differences [between BJU type Christians and Catholics] are astronomical. As Christians, we are commanded to love our enemies (the people that treat us like you do)."

I just love that. I haven't identified Ben as my enemy, but he has identified me as his enemy. What is Ben's definition of enemy, besides "one who questions" or "one who seeks knowledge" or "one who seeks proof" or even, "one who seeks peace"? I bet Ben, if he were born before Christ's time and were a devout Jew and card-carrying member of the Sanhedrin, would have idenitified Christ himself as his enemy. Didn't Jesus seek peace, question authority, educate and put the Pharisees to proof?



FROM: AC
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 7:32:42 pm
Ben, I'm from Germany originally. Modern day Germans are in general very sensitive to avoid discrimination and the like - and overall are much greener and liberal than what the last two elections have shown Americans to be....

That said, I love America, and understand patriotism and the bit - but you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

The bill to declare English as the "official US language" never passed - so there is no official language here in the States.

As a good Northern European all this religiosity makes me a bit uncomfortable, as I did not grow up with all the Bible quotations and the like... but am liberal enough to say that if that is what gets you going, go for it.

It's just not for me.

And BJU sounds like a terribly boring place (at least for someone like me).



FROM: Richie
DATE: Tuesday March 1, 2005 -- 10:14:22 pm
First, I have no problem with German or any other laguage. In fact, I am glad for the multiplicity of languages. It would be incredibly boring if everyone spoke the same laguage. I was just picking on Joseph for comparing BJU with Nazi Germany. Lighten up just a little. Personally, I have many different ethnicities in my family tree, and I have studied other laguages (French, Spainish, Icelandic, Latin and Classic Greek) so to say the I'm "Anglocentric" is no small stretch.
Second, None of the policies that BJ has had in the past meet the true definition of racism. The interracial dating policy applied to ALL races (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, etc.) and was therefore not discriminative. Even when BJ had the policy of not admitting black students, it was because it was culturally acceptable until the 1960's. Remember, BJU was founded in 1927. Segregation was commonplace even in the Northeast at that time. BJU simply made the mistake of being a decade behind the times. The Nazi ban on Christian/ Jewish marriages isolated two specific groups. The old policy of interracial dating applied to everyone.
Third, Christ is God, Dueteronomy is the Word of God, therefore Dueteronomy is the Word of Christ. If you need proof for Christ's equivalence with the Father, read the Gospel of John. And, when someone denounces the actions of another as sin, it does not have to mean that the denouncer personally hates the denouncee.
Please note, no one is forced by BJ to come to BJ. If that did happen, then you would have an obvious reason to protest the current or former policies of the institution. Then I myself would take a position at least similar to those who have written against the University.
Fourth, to say that car crashes are commonplace is not incredibly accurate. Yes, I realize that hundreds of accidents occur every day in the US, but that is hundreds out of Hundreds of millions. One in a million odds does not depict commonplace. And no, my "sad powers of observation" are not because of BJU. I have been at BJ for a long time, but that does not mean I don't get out in the real world. For the last six summers I have spent my time in the cities of Tampa and Kansas City. These aren't exiactly in the "Bible Belt". I am very aware that the rules of BJU do not equate with the inspired Word of God. Believe me, if any of their rules contradicted God's Word, I would let them know about it and, if they refused to do anything about it, I would leave straightway. I am not blindly loyal to the institution.
Fifth, Christ did not question authority because He is the authority. Christ pointed out the sinfulness of man and how man falls far short of God's perfect holiness.
Sixth, the fact that BJU repealed the interracial dating ban does not mean that the university is hypocritical. It shows that they are willing to make corrections when they are proven wrong. An example of hypocracy would be if they said that abortion is wrong, but they perform abortions in the university hospital. It would be like Dr. Jones saying that interracial dating is wrong, but he encourages his grandson to date a Korean. It all comes back to the true definitions of words.
Seventh, those who believe differently than me do matter to me. To say that I care only about those who believe like me is wrong. I don't fully agree with BJ on everything. I'm a Calvinist, and the vast majority(approx. 99.5%) at BJ are not. If I did not care about those who do not share my belief in Jesus Christ, I would not say anything about Him to them. I do not consider myself "spiritually superior" because I hold to the Biblical view of morality. My morals do not save me or gain me favor with God. The first time I broke God's law I was condemned, but by the mercy of Christ I was saved and my sentence to Hell was commuted. In deed people with different views from me have the right to hold to thier views, and as long as you are consistant, I will have the upmost respect for your oppinions even if I don't agree.
Eighth, BJU was not my first choice for college. FSU is my ideal.
In conclusion, BJU has admitted that the rules of prohibiting black students to enroll and that interracial dating are wrong and have changed their policies. This clearly shows that they are not racist, and that they don not believe that they are infallable. Also, Dr. Jones III is not a "homophobe" because he calls homosexuallity a sin. He does not have a phobia (that's Greek for fear) of homosexuals. He does not hate them personally. He just does not approve of their immorality.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 10:35:42 am
A few points:

Richie, you wrote the following:

"and as long as you are consistant I will have the upmost respect for your oppinions even if I don't agree."

Later, you wrote, "I'm a Calvinist."

And further, you wrote: "The first time I broke God's law I was condemned, but by the mercy of Christ I was saved and my sentence to Hell was commuted."

Doesn't a claim to have been saved completely contradict the cornerstone tenet of Calvinism, which is predestination?

I've taken the following definition from The Calvinist Corner, which appears to be a website devoted to helping defensive Calvinists explain and defend their religious beliefs to those who doubt the idea of Heaven's Gold Card.

"Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination."

The page goes on to using many biblical passages to explain that one is either saved or they are not. They only become aware of their salvation in various ways as God reveals it to them. As a Calvinist, you don't go from being condemned to being saved; you don't get a sentence to hell commuted. You are either “in Christ” or you are not.

As for whether car accidents are common, the fact is that they are. What evidence do I have? I’ve been in two of them, one of which I was seriously injured; in neither case was I driving. My wife was seriously injured in one before we met. Crashes are so commonplace that the auto industry has been ordered by the federal government to design cars that withstand the impact of collisions. They have also been ordered to install safety equipment at the factory, such as airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and seatbelts. If car crashes were not common, why do this? In fact, the statistics and resulting legislation clearly reflects that car crashes are not only common, but they are rampant. Some statistics show that reported vehicle accidents amount to five million accidents per year. There are 250 million people in the US. 250/5=50. One in fifty people will be involved in a car accident this year. That’s at least common to me. It’s well beyond epidemic. Please refer to the NHTSA website if you don’t believe me.

Furthermore, when I traveled thirty-five miles to work every morning on I-84, I quickly learned that I had to leave at least twenty minutes earlier than actually necessary because four out of five of my morning commutes were delayed due to a multi-vehicle traffic accident—that’s eighty per cent. The vast majority of mornings in which I commuted on I-84, I personally viewed wrecked cars, and plenty of times more than once per morning. I’ve even been lucky enough (sarcasm) to witness a few body bags being loaded into the meat wagon. You might not believe this, but a colleague just walked in. She had to take a ten minute commute to drop something off, was delayed and unable to complete her errand because a school bus hit a car right in front of her.

Richie, I don’t make this stuff up—I go to respected sources first for information. You seem to have no problem making stuff up, even about what you claim to be your own religion. You can look at something that is blatantly obvious and deny the fact that it exists, like how common car accidents are. If you did your homework, you would finally stop unknowingly spewing forth untruths and lies like a complete and utter moron. I seriously am not your enemy. I am trying to help you avoid falling victim to your own blindness.

Don’t be so easily led.

I will not speak further on this ping topic.



FROM: Ben
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 2:24:30 pm
AC,
Nice to hear from you again! Your actually from Germany? That's awesome! I've been taking German in school for the past four years. Any hints? :) How long did it take you to get the idioms down so well? I still mostly have no idea what I'm saying when I speak to tourists and such! Anyway, back on topic.

I think most Americans understand the basic political nuances that are going on in Germany. That it is a liberal country is a gross understatement (although the Netherlands is still worse). I realize that you haven't grown up in the same culture as most Americans and that your views will be, accordingly, different. I appreciate the sentiments expressed in your last post ("if that is what gets you going, go for it. It's just not for me."). Who knows? Maybe you'll come for a visit sometime. We have a great collection of European religious art!

Joseph,
Sorry you're leaving us! We were just starting to have fun! Thanks for the candid way that you expressed yourself. It was appreciated.

Richie,
Brilliant defense. I can't really add anything to it. It was pretty much thorough.

Ryan,
I'm looking up the references for the homosexuality rebuttals that you wanted. I'll get right back to you with those.

Dave,
Do you still want that "Differences between Catholicism and Fundamental Christianity" list? Haven't heard from you lately.

Everybody,
Where did the whole car wreck thing come from in the first place? I was getting so confused.

Look forward to some more spirited debate! Ttyl. Ben



FROM: Ben
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 2:27:02 pm
CORRECTION:
Please change "your" to "you're" in the first line of my response to AC. I still haven't gotten this whole grammar thing down yet.



FROM: Monica
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 3:07:56 pm
whoa, wait a minute, Richie--the ban on interracial dating was okay because it was across the board? I'm confused. Discrimination is fair when it's applied to everyone? That doesn't make sense to me.

Fortunately, they changed their policy. But instead of getting defensive about it, how about acknowledging a mistake was made, acknowledging that the university's leaders can make mistakes, and maybe they still are? I mean, what's wrong with saying "yeah, things could still be improved [at the school]" ?

Regarding the Catholic / "Christian" distinction. As far as I know, Catholics consider their religion as Christian, as do Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians .... it's unfortunate that what was a broad descriptor has now become a specific, non-inclusive word. In a way, by defining "Christian" to be fundamentalist/born-again, people have sent the message that Christians (in the newer sense of the word) are somehow better/"more Christian" than other groups who consider themselves also Christian (ie, Catholic). I really wish that people would use "Fundamentalist Christian" or "Born-Again Christian" instead of "Christian" (can you imagine the sense of humor of someone who'd call themself a "Bible-thumping Christian" :-) ?)

Something that confuses me is the idea that "Catholics believe in a salvation of works, Christians believe in one of faith alone." (from Ben's post yesterday morning). I don't agree that works alone is a good thing. Is someone a good person (saveable) just because they go to church at a certain time on a certain day? Not necessarily. It depends on what's in their head and heart, too. And I can't agree that faith alone is enough, either. What good is faith without action, and what good is action without faith?
It's like two lose-weight strategies: one says you can lose weight by eating all you want but get some exercise, and the other says you have to cut back on what you eat, but you don't have to exercise. I have a big problem with both of these diet strategies, as I have with the ideas of how one qualifies as "saved" as given by Ben.



FROM: Richie
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 4:15:43 pm
When I said that I have been saved, I said it with the full knowledge that God perdestinated my salvation from before the foundation of the world. I did not say that I came to Christ, or that I came to repentence. It was toltally the Work of God. He chose me. You really stretched what I said. Also, I did not make up those Numbers about car crashes. Those were the numbers I heard on the NBC nightly news. Of course I would take the NHTSA's word over NBC's. the issue is that the word "common" is a relative term, and that you were using stats from the whole year, not just one day.

Monica,
Yes, discrimination that apllies to everyone if fair because it's not discrimination! Discrimination means that one part of the group either get extra perks or that they have certain rights taken away. For example, If Congress said that everyone had to drink bottled water, then no one could get out of it and therefore it would not be dicsrimination. However, if Congress said that Hispanic Americans could not drink bottled water, but that everone else could, then there would be a case of discrimination. Also, did I make the claim that BJU was perfect today? By no means! I would be the last person to tell you that. All I said was that the interracial dating policy was not racist or discriminative. I never said that I agreed with it.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 4:59:39 pm
Side note: This page is a good read about "The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals," complete with rebuttal arguments.



FROM: Monica
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 5:41:53 pm
separating groups and saying that (for some reason) members of one group can't interact in a certain way with the other, but can act in whatever way within their own group ... that's discrimination. Whites can only date whites? Hispanics can only date hispanics? that's saying there's something different about those "races" enough that they can't date... that's discrimination.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 5:56:39 pm
I can't believe I'm going back on my word, but Richie, you are a dolt (not adult). I don't know why I'm wasting my time. We were talking about BJU, not you.

and that you were using stats from the whole year, not just one day.

First of all, dividing five million by 365 still leaves 13,698 crashes per day. That's not hundreds of crashes--that's thousands. Furthermore, taking a daily average of the amount of crashes per yer does not reduce the amount of crashes overall. Don't you see that? How are your math grades?

Two, directly quoting you, you said You really stretched what I said on the topic of predestination. If you look at what I wrote, you will see that I stretched nothing. I used your exact words. You are so busy defending yourself that you don't even know what you are talking about.

Third, another Richie gem, and I directly quote you Yes, discrimination that apllies to everyone if fair because it's not discrimination! Let's parse this one out. Pay attention, because you might learn something here. Let's start with a definition so we know what we're talking about.

dis·crim·i·na·tion n.
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

This is from dictionary.com. Looking at the definition, which includes racial discrimination, we see that we are dealing with the third sense of the definition of discrimination.

Look at the sentence before the first semicolon. Where does it say that treating everyone alike, in a discriminatory fashion, makes what you are doing not discriminatory? It doesn't.

Let's look at another definition: segregation.

seg·re·ga·tion n.
1. The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
2. The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.

Remember your history now. The proponents of Jim Crow said "separate but equal." In effect, they argued that they didn't discriminate because whites have their drinking fountains and blacks have theirs. And, guess what? It worked for a while until the effects of segregation became clear.

Bob Jones is saying that whites have their relationships and blacks have theirs. That's a form of segregation. Do you see the similarity or not?

But you are right. One may privately discriminate and segregate if he or she chooses, subject to a great many exceptions, particularly in the workplace and when dealing with educational opportunities. But any racial discrimination or segregation engaged in by any state entity is illegal. That's what Brown v. Board of Education said.

What about relationships? If BJU now allows interracial dating, what's the big deal? The big deal for me is that BJU is tainted. I can't believe people defend it.

Read this passage from Bv.BE

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does."

Further, "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place."

BJU walks a fine line and my guess is that someone scared it into quieting down on its racist agenda, or enticed it by allowing access to money by hushing.

BJU is not ostensibly public, nor is dating a fundamental right. A school's rule that there may be no interracial dating perhaps violates no laws. But it's ugly and sinful. It's also equally oppressive. Oppressing everyone, while making it even, does not make it right.

I'm amazed that such Godly people who make policy and attend BJU would stoop to making the laws set their moral barometer. Laws are not meant to shape morals. Laws set the basic bottom line acceptable behavior for those who would commit crimes otherwise.

Would a Christian, in a completely lawless society see fit to murdering another human being, simply because murder was not illegal? Okay, murder is against the Ten Commandments.

Where do the Ten Commandments authorize discrimination and segregation? Where do the Ten Commandments justify putting to death those men who lie with men, or anyone else? "Thou shalt not kill" is an unqualified directive; there are no exceptions to the rule.

Brilliant defense, please.

Why does this right wing idiocy bother me so? Because people like Richie and Ben cannot think for themselves. This is a clear fact. I'm not saying no one in the religious right can think for themselves--those at the top who pull all the puppet strings know exactly what they are doing. They take away Richie's and Ben's freedoms and Richie and Ben eagerly give them away in exchange for a false notion of eternal happiness in heaven. They do this every day by telling Richie and Ben how to act, how to behave, what to say to detractors (even publishing websites full of handy arguments).

Most insidious of all, they tell Ben and Richie how to vote.

By the way, why does the BJU website feature only photographs of sexy young girls and old middle-aged men? Imagine how you could manipulate an impressionable young woman if you had her believe everything you said about her spiritual afterlife, and more importantly, how to secure it. The very thought boggles the imagination.



FROM: Ben
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 6:58:56 pm
Joseph.
What a blessing (sarcasm). There was a time (approximately 5:55 today) that I respected your opinion, but you have just irreparably shot your reputation on this ping as well as your logic when you posted at 5:56:39. ENOUGH WITH THE CAR WRECKS!!! Even horses get some respite from beatings when they die, and this horse has already succumbed to rigor mortis. Give it a break. It has nothing to do with the important issues.
Let's start with your definition that you so dutifully spelled out for us. I'm only going to type this once, so take your biased glasses off and turn your eyes on for once. Discrimination, if applied to everyone, is defeated by its own definition and is therefore NOT DISCRIMINATION but has entered the realm of public policy. I can tell that you probably need an example to help you understand the really big words like "not", so here goes. We often use "discrimination" to denote that someone has really good taste (read "really rich people who want a big house away from everybody") as in "this house is just right for the discriminating buyer." If someone who had the money for a really nice house bought a dump that had no prospects for property appreciation, he would not be discriminating. He would be stupid. Get it? No? Let me try again. Armani suits are for the discriminating dresser. If a man treats every suit the same regardless of its quality and material, he is not a discriminating dresser. He is a normal American:) So we can see that if everyone is given the same rights and treated equally, discrimination is not taking place. It is only if the Armani is held as better than the suit from Kohl's that discrimination is taking place. So we come to the application. During the years of the interracial dating ban at Bob Jones (it is important to note that the ban was dropped FIVE YEARS AGO!) no one race was treated better than any other. Whites were under the same restrictions as Blacks who were under the same as Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, and any of the many other ethnicities represented on campus. No favoritism= no discrimination. Sorry Joseph. Your "arguments"are merely astigmatism.

What is most disturbing to me, however, is that the entire last half of your rather lengthy post is mere CONJECTURE. You have absolutely no proof to back up your statements that the University was bribed to keep its mouth closed. Please, please, please give me any documented proof that supports what you said. If you can't, I want you to admit publicly to the members of this forum that you created that "guess" from nothing other than personal bias. We will accept silence from you as an automatic response in the affirmative. Of course, I realize that confessions from members of your party are hard to come by (read "Bill Clinton") even under oath, so I'm not expecting an answer.

Which, of course, is my way of transitioning to the whole political "they tell Richie and Ben how to vote" tirade. First of all, no member of the administration or faculty has EVER told the students whom they should or should not vote for. Secondly, the students are allowed freedom of expression on campus (i.e. bumper stickers, buttons, etc.). No political rallies are held for either side.

I, personally, was very deeply involved in the reelection campaign for our current president. That is my right as an American. No one can force me to vote for a candidate whom I don't support. I vote my conscience. My conscience, and my good sense, told me to vote for George Bush. I vote morality over money any time. I think that state sanctioned murder of children is unconstitutional, unbiblical, and immoral. Take a look at the champion of abortion: Hillary Clinton (who has just changed positions entirely. Talk about a hypocrite). Standing right behind Hillary is John Kerry. Therefore, the choice was clear. My eyes are not diseased with the hate of anything that is conservative or Christian (the two are not synonymous).

So, Joseph, why not try a little bit of philosophical and logical Lasik to see if you can understand what's going on. What? Lasik. L-a-s-i-k. It helps people with eye prob---- oh, never mind. I know you won't do it anyway. But, please, heed this advice: don't resort to ad hominem, personal attacks just because your logic has been dethroned. It's just plain rude.



FROM: Jay
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 7:35:27 pm
OK, I’ve been watching this whole discussion for a while now. This past weekend I was blessed with the opportunity of going through this wonderful FLU bug that is going around. HA HA HA J/K But I was able to get on today, 2 March 2005, and catch up on what is being said. I had planned at first not to say anything at all, but upon reading the part of the conversation on Calvinism, I decided it was time to pipe in.

All right, for starters, the web sight that was previously used to describe what Calvinist believe was a little over board. I come from a very anti-Calvinist background (aka – Arminianism). What that web site portrayed as Calvinism, is actually known as Hyper-Calvinism. These are the people that believe that God has, if you will, put all our names in a hat, closed his eyes, pulled a handful out, and declared them Saved. The also say that because of this there is no reason for missions or any other for of outreach, because after all, God already has his people picked out, right! WRONG!!!! The link I am giving you is a link to a sight that gives a good representation of Calvinism, from its origination to the present state. This sight also gives the five basic tenets of Calvinism and what they mean. Check it out.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html

So there you go. That is in words better than I could ever write what true Calvinism is. But I will throw in some other things that I have heard and come to my own conclusion on. First, the Doctrine of Election goes hand in hand with that of Free Will. One great thinker put it this way, “Free Will and Election are like Rail Road Tracks running from Earth to Heaven, without one the other would not work.” Some of you are now asking WHAT? Ok, God knew before the foundations of the World that some would be saved and some would not. After all God is GOD, any religion will say that their god is all knowing. That is just part of being a god. He knows what we don’t and He has a reason for doing the things he does. All right, I’m already not making sense. Just read that link. It is written by a very reliable preacher.

Oh, and my position as a Calvinist does not make me lazy when it comes to getting the word out. It actually gives me more of a desire to go “into all the World and preach the gospel.”

I would also like to say something about the Faith v Works conversation. First, good works are great. Unfortunately, they will not get you to heaven. The Bible strictly says that our works do not save us. (For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2:8-9) We are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ. A songwriter put this part of it in perfect words, and since I’m not the best with words I will quote him.

Faith comes from God and every word that He breathes
He lets you take it to your heart so you can give it hands and feet
It's gotta be active if it's gonna be alive
You gotta put it into practice
Otherwise....

It's about as useless as a screen door on a submarine
Faith without works, baby, it just ain't happenin'
One is your right hand, one is your left
It's your light, your guide, your life and your breath
Faith without works is like a song you can't sing
It's about as useless as a screen door on a submarine

So, yes, there must be works. But we must not depend on those works to get us to heaven. Those works must be an outward sign of what is going on inside us. The works are us living out our Faith in Jesus Christ.

It all goes back to what JEM said, “This issue of debating the pros and cons of the University seems to get the focus off the real issue -- where do you stand in relation to eternity? That concern is of utmost importance and I hope anyone reading this pauses to ponder that fact.” This comes from a very good friend of mine and I think, well I know that he would agree with Richie’s argument with the way he said what he did. But, the most important thing is to know, if you were to die today, where would you spend eternity? Heaven? Or Hell? If you don’t know and have questions concerning your eternal destiny, e-mail me.

And just for reference, I am a 3rd generation BJ student.

Hope to hear from y



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 8:06:33 pm
Thank you for your enlightening explication on the second sense of the definition of discrimination, which would apply to fine homes and Armani suits. It, however, has nothing to do with racial discrimination. That word before discrimination, "racial," changes the meaning entirely. I invite you to read the full definition once more.

If the rule applies to people equally, but affects people differently, that is also discrimination. By saying that whites must date whites and blacks must date only blacks (if they are to date at all) makes for a great disparity of opportunity. Let me illustrate. Imagine that the population is divided equally by sex. Imagine further that BJU's population is 1% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 10% black and 85% White. Then a White person has the opportunity to date 42.5% of the class population, a black person may date 5% of the class population, an Asian may date from 2.5% of the class population, and a Hispanic .5% of the class. There would have to be at least 200 people in the BJU freshman class in order for the Hispanic to be able to date. Does this sound like equal treatment? Does this sound like everyone is treated the same? Use your head. If anything, any thinking minority would have used this as a reason not to attend. But, you need minorities to get the good Federal money. I'm not saying that BJU bent its stance for money. But I believe with those politics, it would rather not have minorities at all enrolled unless forced to in some way. It waited until 1976 to change--rather slow on the uptake, don't yo think? Or is there something more?

In defending yourself, you make my point ever clearer. If you had actually thought about the above illustration, you would not have defended discrimination. You would see how unequal and unfair it is right off the bat.

Further, I made no ad hominem personal attacks, unless calling someone who can't perform simple math a dolt is an ad hominem attack. But an ad hominem attack has to do with character, not mental ability.

As to my character,I never said that BJU was paid off or bribed. But Federal monies do come with strings attached. If you take the dough, you gotta play the game. No segregation. This issue has already been addressed at length by other pingers who have included factual bases. I won't duplicate their efforts here, only to say that there is a long history of schools having to change their policies in order to receive Federal funding or tax-free status.

If BJU felt that strongly about its religious agenda, why wouldn't it set the good example and remain righteous and stalwart in its convictions about God's one world plan? The truth is the truth isn't it? Why would BJU sell out its convictions for tax free status?

I'm fine if you support an admitted cocaine snorter for President. I just don't appreciate it when he plays the high and mighty saint, attacking the characters of others, particularly when there is no proof.

Now he's off attacking the AARP because they're against his plan to pillage social security. He's saying that they are pro-gay and unpatriotic. The nation's seniors were his biggest basis of support in the last campaign. Now that he doesn't need them anymore, he freely attacks them. Billions of dollars are being spent on a smear campaign by his agents. Why not just put that 8 billion into social security and shore it up if it really needs shoring? Because it's about power.

But this is not a political debate. We are talking about BJU again. I never said they tell you directly how to vote, or order you to vote a certain way. They simply say things like, "no Christian could support any opposing candidate who supports a woman's right to choose." Loyal followers vote accordingly, regardless of their economic or political views. The greatest genius of your party (not that I ever mentioned what mine was) was to associate itself with the pro-life movement, thereby forcing many Catholics, who were traditionally Democratic, to turncoat and vote against the party that otherwise most reflected their own faith's social values. But there was a time before either party was labeled as the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" parties, because you could go either way without affecting your party affiliation, and concentrate on the policies and issues that you really cared about.

And we all get sucked in.

But again, we've gone way off the topic because BJU can't be defended. You've employed the usual "look over your shoulder" trick and I've fallen for it.

I know there is no argument to be won here. You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe.

But I stongly recommend that one does their homework and thinks things through before adopting another's agenda. Simply repeating what one is told over and over again does not make something true.



FROM: AC
DATE: Wednesday March 2, 2005 -- 10:20:57 pm
Quoth Ben: "That it is a liberal country is a gross understatement (although the Netherlands is still worse). "

Another man's "worse" is my "better."

Hahahaha

German was my first language, I picked up English only after immigrating to the States. (... and picked it up fairly well if I may say so myself). Only trouble I have now & then is with my "w" sounds - they come out like "v"s.

Sorry for the (mostly) off-topic response.

Go Niederlande!



FROM: Ben
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 1:41:45 pm
Joseph,
No apology, huh? Didn't think so. Here's a definition for you, since you are so fond of pasting them into your pings:

ad hom•i•nem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

Hmmmm...Pretty sure that describes exactly what you did.

IMPORTANT:
BJU receives absolutely no Federal funding!!!! I refer you, Joseph, to your own statement "But I stongly recommend that one does their homework." (By the way, it should be "I strongly recommend that one does his/her homework". "One" is singular, not plural. Please learn correct grammar before attacking someone for his incorrect math.)

I'm a little confused, Joseph. You first said "BJU walks a fine line and my guess is that someone scared it into quieting down on its racist agenda, or enticed it by allowing access to money by hushing." When I destroyed that point by revealing that it was untrue, you started saying "As to my character, I never said that BJU was paid off or bribed." WHICH IS IT? Are you getting confused? Backtracking? Running for cover? Does anyone EVER admit when he is wrong? Hmmmmm….

As to your attacks against President Bush. Proof? Documented proof? We've got Clinton on record for lying under oath. Strange....

More on this later. I promise. I have to run take a test.

AC:
Awesome! Nice to hear from you again! Write more later. Aufwiedersehen!

Ttyl, Ben




FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 1:47:59 pm
IMPORTANT: BJU receives absolutely no Federal funding!!!!

To quote one of my earlier comments:

Incidentally, BJU is not totally without federal funding... "Greenville County Council has supplied public monies to BJU, despite it's for-profit status" and BJU's art museum received federal funding as of 1998 (reference).



FROM: Ben
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 2:51:27 pm
Ryan,
Haven't we been through this before??? Greenville County Council DOES NOT EQUAL the Federal government! Greenville County equals local government.
Ttyl, Ben



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 3:43:54 pm
Ben:

Why don't you ever directly quote me from my posts to prove your points, grammar not withstanding. I'm not attempting to make a point with perfect grammar. However, Richie was attempting to support a point with statistical analysis, but his poor math skills undermined that attempt. Therefore, his math skills did matter on that point.

As for a grammar error, that in now way affects the strength of my point, what should I do? Follow your defensive example and file a correction? Please change "your" to "you're" in the first line of my response to AC. I still haven't gotten this whole grammar thing down yet.

Your words, not mine.

Why don't you address my little model that illustrates an equal protection based argument about BJU's clear message, which is, "minorities, if you enroll here, you keep to yourselves."

Oh, I'm sorry, BJU no longer feels that way and changed its policy? That's why there are no minority faces featured in the photos on their home page. Just because BJU no longer overtly bans interracial dating, does this mean that the one world principle which underlay the ban just vaporized into thin air?

"The one-world principle-every effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world together in unity plays into the hand of Antichrist. This first began at the Tower of Babel, and it will culminate at Armageddon when the Lord returns to establish His rule of peace and harmony for a thousand years.

Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences as He made sexual differences. Each race and each sex should be proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other"
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/12/story_1291_1.html

I think you missed a word in the definition of ad hominem: "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. I wrote that Richie's math skills don't work; this is merely pointing out flawed logic or reason, which appears before the word "rather."

If you are going to attribute the usage of words to me, please take a direct quote from one of my posts to prove your point. I have not apologized because you have not shown me where I have said what you say I have. I never once used the word bribe except to say that I didn't say it.

As for NO federal tax money, do you mean directly or indirectly. One needs only to spend a few moments on the BJU website to track a federal funding trail. For example, one of the databases in the school's library is funded partially by federal funding. DISCUS funding is provided by the South Carolina General Assembly, with supplemental funding from the federal Library Services and Technology Act. DISCUS is administered by the South Carolina State Library.

And why shouldn't BJU receive more federal dollars? I should think BJU would be falling over itself for money. Almost all schools qualify. What gives?

As for the Republicans attacking the AARP: Read this.

As for Bush admitting to doing drugs, read this.

If you don't want to believe it, you don't have to. But you asked for sources.




FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 3:58:32 pm
As for the Republicans attacking the AARP: Read this.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 4:45:18 pm
As for attacking the AARP by labeling it antimilitary and pro-homosexual, read this.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 5:24:08 pm
which appears before the word "rather."

Read: "after" the word "rather"





FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 6:12:35 pm
Haven't we been through this before??? Greenville County Council DOES NOT EQUAL the Federal government! Greenville County equals local government.

That's only the first half of the statement -- the second is about receiving public funding for the art museum. That's a separate issue.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday March 3, 2005 -- 7:49:08 pm
Federal, or local, what matters is whether or not the "state," which can be either local or federal government, engages in or promotes activity that infringes upon protected rights. A private institution must be entirely private if it does not wish to follow the dictates of the US Supreme Court. This is why state universities, regardless of federal funding received, must afford student certain rights, such as a basic right to due process. A private institution does not need to hold a hearing before kicking someone out--a state school does. But even that idea is being challenged based on indirect monies being transferred from the federal government to private universities in the from of Guaranteed Student Loans.



FROM: for freedom
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 1:48:16 am
These Bob Jones supporters are idots. They are sick, sad, racist, homophobic pigs. We live in a country where they have the right to their sick sad beliefs. We live in a country where I have the right to my beliefs.

We should all use this FREEDOM to say what we really feal - not what we think we ought to.

And notice the ulitmate irony that I don't give my name or email........



FROM: Ben
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 9:34:51 am
Joseph,
Do you not read anything that other people post before you attack them? Are your eyes bothering you again? I've quoted extensively from some of the posts that you've written, but if you want to deny it, go ahead. It's not my reputation that's suffering.
Why don't you address my little model that illustrates an equal protection based argument about BJU's clear message, which is, "minorities, if you enroll here, you keep to yourselves."
Simply because it’s not true. Come and see for yourself. We are not an exclusive entity. We do allow visitors.

“Federal, or local, what matters is whether or not the "state," which can be either local or federal government, engages in or promotes activity that infringes upon protected rights. A private institution must be entirely private if it does not wish to follow the dictates of the US Supreme Court.” As I tell Ryan later, the art museum is not a part of the University. It is separate. It is the only part of the University that receives Local Government money (in the way of tax incentives, most likely, for bringing so much tourism to Greenville).

“Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences as He made sexual differences. Each race and each sex should be proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other" What’s your point? It’s true! There’s nothing wrong with that!

“I have not apologized because you have not shown me where I have said what you say I have. I never once used the word bribe except to say that I didn't say it.” syn•o•nym P Pronunciation Key (s n -n m )
n.
1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.
“BJU walks a fine line and my guess is that someone scared it into quieting down on its racist agenda, or enticed it by allowing access to money by hushing.” Hmmmmm….Sounds like a bunch of synonyms to me. You implied “bribery” which, of course is a synonymous statement of idea (Sorry, literary lapse there!) Anyway, you implied bribery (“enticed it to hush”), and now you’re trying to cover your tail and run away from it. Yet another tactic I love from people of your party (“Depends what the meaning of “is” is”).

Ryan,
I can’t remember if we’ve been through this part or not, but the Museum and Gallery on campus is a separate entity. It is its own company. The only reason it’s still on campus is because the building that was bought for it in downtown Greenville isn’t ready for occupation yet (they have to do some special stuff to it to protect the art, or something). The County probably does fund the art museum just because it brings hundreds (or thousands) of visitors to the Greenville area each year. It’s an investment.

“For Freedom”(what an oxymoron!):

“These Bob Jones supporters are idots. They are sick, sad, racist, homophobic pigs”.
I can tell you’re really big on this whole tolerance thing. Very impressive. You should definitely have your own radio talk show or something.

Before you make any more unjustified claims, please tell us what you gripe is. Or read through the entire forum first (like I did) before you say anything. Do you have any personal experience with the University? If so, tell us what.

Ttyl, Ben






FROM: Joseph
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 11:25:03 am
Ben:

If you consider an entity changing certain of its policies in order to receive funding, status, tax exemptions, political favors, or simply to make itself sound more palatable to the public as "bribery," then there is no entity on this earth that doesn't take a bribe. That view of bribery is consistent with the second definition of bribery. Direct money bribes to politicians are illegal, but other forms of bribery are not. In fact, granting or rejecting state or private funding is a form of legal bribery.

Of course, if we're using such a broad definition of bribery, then BJU's changing of its interracial dating ban constitutes bribery of the public. BJU was clearly hurt by the media outcry against that policy immediately following W's visit. In response, BJU attempted to bribe the public by saying "that's over now; besides, it was meaningless to us." I'm not taking the bribe for reasons that will be clarified further down.

The point about the one world principle is simply this: it is the theory that supported BJU's interracial ban. When the one world principle uses language like, "every effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world together in unity plays into the hand of Antichrist," and BJU felt that interracial dating played into the hands of the Antichrist so much as to adopt the ban--it would seem to me that would it would be very scary for a believer with such conviction to lift a ban on a practice that plays right into the hands of the Antichrist.

Why would they reverse the ban? What would separate a believer from his/her conviction? Do you really mean to tell me that BJU simply had a change of heart? On March 4, 2000, Bob Jones III said that the interracial dating ban is meaningless to us. In that article, he also said,

"The principle upon which it was based is very important, but the rule is not. So we did away with it."

"We realize that an interracial marriage is not going to bring in the world of antichrist by any means."

If an interracial marriage is not going to bring in the world of antichrist by any means, why not? What fed this realization? And what about interracial dating on campus? Bob Jones III addressed only interracial marriage in his statement.

Interestingly, just before announcing teh repeal of the ban, BJ III thought that interracial dating played into the hands of the Antichrist enough to vigorously defend the ban. In fact, in 2000, BJU rigorously and officially defended its interracial dating ban, only to inexplicably declare that same ban as "not very important?"

By the way, speaking of synonyms, to say that a policy is not very important is not the same as saying that a policy is not important at all. Speaking of apologies, to say that a racist policy is not very important is not the same as saying: "This policy was wrong, it hurts people, and we're sorry." Without that statement, I can't accept it when BJ says that policy "is meaningless to us." Where is the apology?

But maybe the truth is, he never thought that interracial dating played into the hands of the Antichrist--but he used the one world principle to weakly justify a racist agenda.

Which is it? If it's not that important, why was it important to separate the races in the first place? If the policy indeed is meaningless, why defend it so vigorously until the eleventh hour?

When the media came knocking, it seems to me that BJ III was the one who ran and ducked for cover. He turned coat on the racist policy he vigorously defended by saying "it is meaningless." It certainly wasn't meaningless to him the day before.

I only explained how the policy, whether people felt it was right or wrong (and it seemed that people thought it was wrong, even though they didn't think it was unfair or necessarily racist) is patently unfair, when you look at how the rule quite obviously affects the white and non-white races in dramatically different ways. The ban could have almost no effect on Whites, but could be very oppressive to non-Whites--regardless of how the actual student body behaved. BJU says that the races behave harmoniously. I'll take that statement skeptically, as is my right.

I showed that a policy that is not discriminatory on its face does not mean that it is not discriminatory in its effect or its intent. Since I posted the model showing how unfair no one has defended it as being fair because it is not fair.

Here is the model again:

If the rule applies to people equally, but affects people differently, that is also discrimination. By saying that whites must date whites and blacks must date only blacks (if they are to date at all) makes for a great disparity of opportunity. Let me illustrate. Imagine that the population is divided equally by sex. Imagine further that BJU's population is 1% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 10% black and 85% White. Then a White person has the opportunity to date 42.5% of the class population, a black person may date 5% of the class population, an Asian may date from 2.5% of the class population, and a Hispanic .5% of the class. There would have to be at least 200 people in the BJU freshman class in order for the Hispanic to be able to date.

You said:

During the years of the interracial dating ban at Bob Jones (it is important to note that the ban was dropped FIVE YEARS AGO!) no one race was treated better than any other. Whites were under the same restrictions as Blacks who were under the same as Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, and any of the many other ethnicities represented on campus.

Again, I say, so, a Hispanic who can date one or two other people is treated the same as a White who can date just under half of the entire available student body? A black who can date a handful is treated the same way as the White person who may date almost any available member of the opposite sex? My illustration shows that the interracial dating ban is clearly "separate and unequal," because it grossly disproportionately limits racial minorities compared to whites.

It's impossible to defend such a ban as fair.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 12:07:53 pm
NOte: I did not intentionally bold the second half of the post. I failed to unbold after the word "sorry" in the 9th paragraph.



FROM: Gil Fremont
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 2:11:28 pm
Yes, by my email address you see that I teach at BJU, in their Jr Hi school, for 8 years now, and I also grew up in SC during the 60's. BJ was about 6 years (or less) behind every other southern educational institution in allowing blacks to attend. Clemson University, Furman University, and many other colleges and universities did not allow blacks in until the late 60's, and neither did the large public high schools, or elementary schools. Racism was part of the South, all of the south, religious and otherwise.
To single out BJU as hateful is to ignore the southern cultural atmosphere of mild to vehement racism.
While their dating rule was wrong, and not based on any scriptural principles, give them credit for changing it as they got their eyes opened.
You need to set foot on their campus instead of taking potshots from a speculative distance. You've got a lot of misconceptions, and wrong assumptions, based on secondhand info , and on what you think you don't see on the website.
Interesting reading though. I won't be back in, but just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth as someone who grew up in Greenville, moved to NC, and then came here to teach History at age 40.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 2:50:31 pm
Thank you for your opinion Mr. Fremont. I would be happy to give credit where credit is due. I'm glad to see that a member of BJU's faculty feels as I do that the rule was wrong.

Hateful or not, my goal was to point out that the rule was discriminatory and treated people differently on the basis of the color of their skin, regardless of whether the rule facially applied to everyone.

Some of the BJU students and others who posted to this site attempted to argue that the rule was not discriminatory. They also argued that the rule was imposed only to keep order, which is necessary to regulate society. Justifying any law on the basis of the fact that it imposes order sounded to me very extreme. I compared that to the Nazis, who justified racial genocide on the basis of order. Sometimes, one needs to exaggerate to make a point.

A rule such as this one is never necessary to regulate society, though who can argue that order is not the hallmark of a productive modern society? Of course we need laws.

I admit that I got impatient in some cases. But for someone to argue that car crashes are not common just about makes my head feel like it will turn into a great big ball of goo of bewilderment. I mean, who says that?

As for needing to set foot on campus, if I'm in the area, I may. I don't know whether to assume that those who have posted here represent the average BJU student. But I have read some alarmingly racial and xenophobic commentary, particularly concerning the English language.

My purpose in all of this is to show those here another viewpoint. This is not about politics for me. It's simply about showing people that there are other points of view.

For example, on March 1, Richie, who may or may not be a BJU student, I can't remember, wrote "Even when BJ had the policy of not admitting black students, it was because it was culturally acceptable until the 1960's."

Excluding blacks from institutions of higher education before the civil rights era was legal. That does not mean it was culturally acceptable. To whom was it culturally acceptable? Cross burning members of the KKK, bigots, and run of the mill racists.

But at the time, there were a lot of individuals in the South, all of the south, for whom Tom Crow laws were absolutely not acceptable. African Americans, enlightened Whites, and anyone who gave a damn.

Racism is part of the South. It's also part of the North. I live in a mildly to vehemently anti-Hispanic New England. Racism is popular, and it is here to stay.

But no direct or indirect Tom Crow law is or was fair, regardless of whether such law is/was legal.




FROM: Joseph
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 2:53:47 pm
That's Jim Crow. Sorry.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 4:15:03 pm
Ben:

Incidentally, would the promoting of a multi-lingual United States further or inhibit the anti- "one world principle" of BJU?

I'm just guessing that an official proclamation that mandated a single language be used throughout the United States would be tantamount to man attempting to reverse God's wrathful intervention against the building of the Tower of Babel.

I'm just curious. How does promoting a universal language in the United States fit in to an anti- "one world" principle dogma?



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Friday March 4, 2005 -- 5:25:17 pm
"Tom Crow." I like that, joseph. Not sure why, but I do. :)



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Saturday March 5, 2005 -- 5:44:38 pm
Sometimes when I'm really disgusted I mix up the bigot's glossary and I unintentionally fuse "Uncle Tom" with "Jim Crow," and come up with Tom Crow--but never Uncle Jim. I think it's because the two terms and their meanings are stored in adjoining brain cells, both of which light up and start buzzing like mad in conversations like the above.





FROM: Ben
DATE: Sunday March 6, 2005 -- 9:40:31 pm
Joseph,
That was pretty funny.



FROM: jon
DATE: Wednesday March 23, 2005 -- 6:45:42 pm
Hey, ok im just a kid who goes to the junior high at bob jones, but i was wondering why people bring up things that were in the past, and have changed in the present? Haven't you ever done somthing that you regretted doing, but changed? Yes i know that little saying "once you break a trust, its hard to repair." but why can't you just give bob jones another chance, and see what the school realy is like. I mean talk to some of the students if you want their opinion. Ok well im gonna go now, ttyl.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Saturday March 26, 2005 -- 8:46:42 am
Hey, ok im just a kid who goes to the junior high at bob jones, but i was wondering why people bring up things that were in the past, and have changed in the present?

Maybe because there's a rather sudden rash of shirking responsibility in government and higher-level meetings, claiming that the past is the past and... well, forget about it.

Uh, no.

Also, if your spelling is any indication of the education level at your school, we're in a lot of trouble.



FROM: Monica
DATE: Saturday March 26, 2005 -- 1:38:42 pm
hey, to be fair, I see only one spelling mistake. The punctuation is fine. A lot of the first person pronouns (I's) are not capitalized as they should be, but that's more a teen net-lingo thing, I thought, than an indicator of the quality of education.

The tolerance of discrimination and people's justification of why they are better than other people, esp. for religious reasons--those are hopefully good, productive things to discuss. We're not getting anywhere by poking fun of grammar and spelling here. Now, logic...



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Monday March 28, 2005 -- 5:54:45 pm
Yes, we've covered this ground.

Here's what it's about: (1) Bob Jones University defunct policy towards non-whites and its active policies against gays, and (2) Bob Jones University campus life. These are different things.

I have been invited to visit Bob Jones on this Ping to come and talk to students and see how the campus really is. Apparently, it must be rather bucolic and pleasant.

But, BJU students have voiced their opinions that the admittedly defunct but very racist anti-interracial dating policy was fair because it applied to everyone equally. The truth is, it was not fair--ever, and it never applied to everyone equally. I am astonished at how fervently the defunct rule was defended in some cases. This is what really shocked me. Though the rule may be long dead, since it was abandoned almost five years ago, now, those who are defending it defend it now. Right now. Today. Present tense. This paints a pretty clear picture of what some BJU students who are on campus today feel about racist laws and rules.

It tells me that they think that at some level racist rules and laws must really be okay, but BJU discarded them for some reason--perhaps because it was under attack by the liberal left (even though much of the attack came from conservative groups--there is hope). Had the pressure placed upon BJU by those who think differently not been so great, BJU might still have the rule, and the rule would be vigorously defended. Why wouldn't it be vigorously defended? It's been gone for five years and it's still being defended.

And that's the point, Jon. The rule, indeed, lies officially in BJU's institutional past. But when BJU students defend the rule, it suggests that some BJU students feel that the rule is okay. I don't think I'd want to go to a school where people think that such a rule, though no longer on the books, is okay.

Racism aside, present BJU anti-homosexual policies suggest to me that there are many on campus who might think that a discriminatory rule is okay so long as it is not drawn on racial lines. But the harm done to individuals is similar.

But other BJU students said that the rule was never enforced, at least not in the way that the endless litany of pesky conduct rules was enforced, therefore, BJU didn't care about it and BJU students didn't respond to it. But, the question was on the application. Perhaps if a rule is never going to apply to you, it's easy to ignore. But if you disagreed with the rule, is it right to ignore it?

Perhaps the rule performed a nice screening funtion. I don't think that many non whites would want to attend BJU if going there meant that you would be very limited socially. In that regard, the rule could be ignored, since those who chose to attend BJU already agreed with it. Just because the rule is gone now doesn't mean people who agreed with the rule have all given up on the ideas that shape them and allow them to consent to such a rule.

So you see, it's much bigger than simply forgiving and forgetting. It's about understanding what is happening right now. It's been less about the rule all along and more about how such a rule could have been and could still be.

If you agree that the rule was wrong, was never fair, and was never equal, then I would give BJU a second chance--somewhat. I still think gay-bashing is wrong, too, though.



FROM: Ben
DATE: Monday March 28, 2005 -- 7:17:38 pm
Joseph!

Nice to hear from you again.

"This paints a pretty clear picture of what some BJU students who are on campus today feel about racist laws and rules. It tells me that they think that at some level racist rules and laws must really be okay"

Obviously you're referring to me. However, your references are incredibly misleading. Never, never, did I say that the policy itself was right and proper. The only thing that I said (regarding your attacks) was that the policy was not racist. I never said that I agree with or support the policy that was dropped 5 years ago. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a racist. As I have said before, I judge the people that I meet on their personal integrity and competence. White or Black, Hispanic or Indian, it doesn't matter. All that counts is what someone has made of himself. If you insist on taking someone's words out of context, I suggest you join the Liberal media. They're really good at that.

Another thought: what, in your own words, is the definition of "gay bashing?" Is it "speaking ill of a group of people based on their shared characteristics?" No, of course not. That's free speech. Is it mud-slinging against a particular group? Can't be. That's politics. How do YOU define it? I'm very interested.

"Racism aside, present BJU anti-homosexual policies suggest to me that there are many on campus who might think that a discriminatory rule is okay so long as it is not drawn on racial lines. But the harm done to individuals is similar."

I beg to differ! The harm done to the individual is negligible. With racism, there IS harm because a person (Michael Jackson aside) cannot very well change his skin color. He is born that way. It is natural.
With homosexuality, however, the exact opposite is true. First of all, a man is NOT born gay, no matter how many millions of dollars are spent to prove otherwise. With decades of the most technically advanced research under their belts, scientists still cannot locate a "Gay gene". That's because there isn't one. It doesn't exist. Secondly, homosexuality is not natural. Any third grade kid could tell you that. What is the purpose of marriage? To have kids, of course! Can homosexual couples have kids? Not without extensive surgery. I can write a whole lot more about this if you want. I wrote an entire paper on it a while back. Just get me started!

Monica,
Haven't heard from you for a while! Nice to have you back!

Jon,
You go to the Jr. High? Maybe I'll see you around sometime!

Anyway...I have to go study :( By the way, Joseph, the invitation to come to campus is still very much open! ttyl! Ben



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Tuesday March 29, 2005 -- 12:06:50 pm
Ben,

Hi again:

Your words, March 2, 2005:During the years of the interracial dating ban at Bob Jones (it is important to note that the ban was dropped FIVE YEARS AGO!) no one race was treated better than any other. Whites were under the same restrictions as Blacks who were under the same as Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, and any of the many other ethnicities represented on campus. No favoritism= no discrimination. Sorry Joseph. Your "arguments"are merely astigmatism.

The above statement is patently false. Non-whites were treated very differently from blacks. Does it mean that the school was racist? I don't know. Does it mean that those who defend the rule as treating everyone equally when it clearly does not are not racist but stupid? Maybe.

But "racist" is defined as "discrimination based on race."
"Discrimination" is defined as "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice."

The interracial dating ban treated people differently, or discriminated, based on the category of race.

Therefore, the interracial dating ban was racist.

Seems pretty logical to me that the ban was racist.

As for persons not being born homosexual, but joining the ranks of homosexuals by choice, I suppose you might be right. If it's true, as you say, that science has not discovered a so-called "gay gene," I would tend to think that it is only a matter of time. Why?

I only have my own personal experience to draw from here. I am now, always was, and I assume always will be, a dyed-in-the-wool, resolute, card-carrying heterosexual.

Ever since I was a very young boy, perhaps two or three years old, there was nothing of greater interest to me than the female form. I remember pausing at the women's underwear and bra ads as a child that were in the Sears Wish Book, while I was on my way to the toys in the back. I was very interested, but lingering on those pages made me uncomfortable--I knew I'd be teased if one of my older siblings caught me. On the other hand, I was absolutely indifferent to images of men.

I still don't like the freedoms with which men walk about in locker rooms, but that's how it is. Ladies, however, feel free to undress and walk about any ol' time. I'll watch all day long and never get tired. It could probably go on that way for years.

Did I choose to be heterosexual? Not as far as I know. I've just always been very attracted to the opposite sex.

Viewing a nude man is difficult enough, but I'll tolerate it for art's sake. If a nude man is depicted in art, my eyes inadvertantly avoid certain areas absolutely. I can't help it. I'm sort of repulsed by man parts.

But, if you believe that someone simply can decide that running with the boys can substitute for female companionship, and deep in your heart, you believe that that is really possible--when in Rome, as they say . . . well, perhaps you simply are not as heterosexual as I am. I suppose I might be bothered by latent homosexuality particularly if I were ensconced within an atmosphere of intolerance. If I were really bothered by the fact that I might be gay, I might even research the issue and write a paper, so deep would be my longing for answers.

But, I'm not gay, so it doesn't bother me. Just as a white person, who never intended to ever date a minority might not be bothered by an interracial dating ban. I might fail to see how certain issues affect others because they are transparent to me.

It wasn't until I went to college that I realized that there really were real gay people. I always thought calling someone gay was an insult because the very idea of a man satisfying another man in various ways was just absolutely ludicrous to me. I could never imagine myself in such a situation unless I was at gunpoint, and even then, I might ask for the bullet instead.

But I'm not a homophobe. I just figure that the must be about their hemosexuality the way I am about my heterosexuality--it's just who I am and I never asked for it. I have very predictable biological responses given certain stimula--just as viewing a nude woman. A gay man has similar biological responses when viewing a gay man. That's all there is to it.

Maybe you should talk to a counselor if you're uncomfortable with your sexuality. There's no point in telling me that someone can choose to be gay, because I refuse to believe it.

The very idea is insults my intelligence.

If you really believe that will is involved, by answer is that someone who chooses between men and women is bisexual.

But since I am so comfortable with my masculinity and my heterosexuality, there is no reason for me to pick on homosexuals. If fact, with all honesty, I don't really care what gay people do because it doesn't affect me. In fact, when more men hook up with each other, there are more women without a partner out there, who may be looking for a straight guy like me. Homosexual males might actually increase heterosexual opportunities
for heterosexual men. Why would I ever pick on a man who makes more women available to me?

I just don't get it. But treating them like second-class citizens is wrong. Telling them that what they are doing is wrong is wrong. Telling them that who they are is wrong. Telling them that God says in the bible that they should be put to death is wrong.

By the way Ben, any ideas on whether making English the official language of the USA goes against the anti one world principle of BJU? I'd really like to hear/read that analysis. I'd like to see how you get around the whole Tower of Babel and anything that unites the world plays into the hands of the AntiChrist mumbo-jumbo.





FROM: Ben
DATE: Tuesday March 29, 2005 -- 5:30:40 pm
Joseph,

I don’t have much time, so I am only going to deal with the .05% of you post that was relevant.

“Maybe you should talk to a counselor if you're uncomfortable with your sexuality.”

Where did THAT come from? Who is the ubiquitous “you”? Nice try at diverting attention from yourself, but, unfortunately, it won’t work.

“Telling them that what they are doing is wrong is wrong.”
Profound, Joseph. I thought your flaunted logic was above such obviously wrong generalities. If we followed YOUR logic, then we wouldn’t have policeman. After all, why does HE have the right to tell me that what I’m doing is wrong?
· *You*:“Um, maybe because he is just following the law that we agreed to in the ‘Social Contract theory’?”
· ~Me~: “Exactly, Joseph. He is following the law of the land. The law of the land also states that homosexuality is not officially recognized. Hmmm…. Parallels anybody?”

I can tolerate homosexuals, but I do not accept them. The differences in those ideas are astronomical.

“Telling them that God says in the bible that they should be put to death is wrong.”
Obviously you are not very familiar with the Bible. If you were, you would realize that the provisions for capital punishment in the event of sodomy were related in the Old Testament. This time period is referred to as the “Age of Law.” When Christ came and died on the cross, however, we entered the “Age of Grace” (as clearly described by Paul in the New Testament). The penalty for sins is not the same. Now, we are to submit to the government for guidance as to the punishment of sins. At the time that this law was written, the Israelites were governed by a Theocracy. Obviously, we are not under the same system.

“But treating them like second-class citizens is wrong.”

Give me a break! Treating someone like second-class citizens is what people did to slaves. They denied them the basic rights of life. No basic rights, to my knowledge, are being denied to homosexuals. They are free to breathe, eat, sleep, work, travel, earn money, be lazy, and marry—yes marry!—within the law. They are just as free as you or me. Take that dribble and publish a book. It might sell, but only in San Francisco.

“By the way Ben, any ideas on whether making English the official language of the USA goes against the anti one world principle of BJU?”

Good Grief, Joseph! Has your self-acclaimed logic left the country? What don’t you understand about the differences between a “one world government” and nationalism? France has an official language, correct? Yes! (and here it is important to note that, contrary to popular opinion, France’s official language is NOT Arabic) the national language is, you guessed it, French! And Germany? German! And Russia? Russian! And China? Chinese! And Japan? Japanese! And England? English!
I hardly think, Joseph, that a national language of our own would in any way aid the forming of a one-world governing system. It might, however, help us develop a sense of Patriotism that seems to be suspiciously lacking these days, especially among the uneducated.

At the Tower of Babel, God established different languages so that the people who spoke a common language would get together (“Yeah, yeah, yeah!”) and form their own nations. That’s the end of that.

Anyway, have fun with that, but, please, think a little more before you post. ttyl! Ben

P.S. “Why would I ever pick on a man who makes more women available to me?” Very funny! I’ll have to remember that one for a debate round! It’ll liven things up!



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Tuesday March 29, 2005 -- 6:10:36 pm
Methinks I've struck a nerve.

Well, I went with the putting to death quote because you still have never given me the words of Jesus Christ where He himself in the New Testament said that homosexuality was a sin. So all I'm left with is the OT.

As far as language goes, we weren't talking about France. We were talking about the interracial dating ban that was justified by BJU against the anti one world principle. I just want to know how it fits. I never said it didn't fit. I just want to know how. The anti-one world principle started with the Tower of Babel in which God divided humanity by creating new languages. It would seem to me that multi-lingualism would be furthering God's Law, wouldn't it? If not, why not? Multi-lingualism is God's direct doing, according to the Bible, so why not promote God's Work and be accepting of foreign languages?

As far as the counseling comment, I just figured that someone who thinks that a heterosexual can become a homosexual willy nilly by choice must have some personal reason why such a phenomenon can be so.

I, personally, have no desire to ever be with a man, even if all the women died off. If, for whatever reason, I was told that I could not be with a woman ever again until the day I died, but I could either, A) have sex with a man or B) have a subscription to Playboy magazine and an endless roll of papertowels, I'd take the magazine and the towels and learn to live without the physical contact of another human.

Millions of married men make this life change all the time without "turning" gay.

The point is, it is singularly beyond my comprehension that a truly heterosexual man could find himself in a homosexual relationship unless he wanted to be there, and was partly gay.

I'm a very liberal person, and I understand there are men who test the waters in the name of expressing their liberal ideas. More power to them. I've never had a desire to be that liberal, and I think the reason has to do with something very biological within me--I'm interminably straight.

It may be unfair to suggest that someone who can believe that a heterosexual man can choose to be gay might be gay himself. But I really just can't imagine someone having sex with a member of the same sex unless there is something there deep within them that desires the same sex in some way. And I just don't have that something.

Talk about women, and I'm all for it. Fat, skinny, big boobs, little boobs, ugly, pretty, big butt, little butt, black, white, asian, whatever, I'm curious. My appetite for women is endless.

In short, I'm a "normal" heterosexual male.

But it doesn't mean I act on these impulses--and you might be surprised to find out that I have never ever been promiscuous, lest you assume that I am some sort of orgiastic liberal.

I've loved one woman, and only one. I never needed to prove my heterosexuality be sleeping around. I've always known it was there.

I have to think that most other people are the same way. You are born with your sexuality--it is not made later on.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just lucky. It's never been an issue for me.

What does this have to do with anything?

It makes as much sense to me to ostracize someone for being homosexual as it would to ostracize me for being heterosexual. That's it.

As for thinking a little, your words: The law of the land also states that homosexuality is not officially recognized.. Didn't you also say that homosexuals are allowed to marry? It seems that homosexuality is the law of the land in some States.

And the policeman comment--what does that mean? A policeman is hired to uphold the law, to be an authority of the law.

Judging others' sexuality has nothing to do with the law (we're not talking about sex offenders).

If I had my way, we would have policemen to prosecute hate crimes, among other things. Of course we need police in order to keep crime under control. Last I checked, homosexuality was not a crime in most States. That leaves the cops to go protect against real crime. It's a system that works well.




FROM: jon
DATE: Wednesday March 30, 2005 -- 10:11:31 pm
Hey Joseph i see u brought up a big rabbit trail about women and homos. I thought we were talking about Bob Jones and their racism, or are we changing the subject now? Ok well talk to you later.
P.S. Did you like my spelling this time?



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday March 31, 2005 -- 10:07:55 am
Actually, Ben brought it up by saying that God didn't create homosexuals, they choose to be that way. He said that science has failed to discover a gay gene despite spending billions on research.

Well, science has not discovered a human soul, either. Does that mean it is not there?

Anyway, I wrote about women only to offer a counter point to Ben's pseudo-science based assertion. I say pseudo only because failing to find something only means that it hasn't been found yet. It does not mean necessarily that the sought item does not exist.

I was born a heterosexual and will be one until the day I die. There is no man or woman alive who could talk me into doing something that is completely against my nature like engaging in homosexual activity. The very idea that someone can flip flop back and forth between homosexuality and heterosexuality simply means that they are bisexual--or gay and living in denial.

There are plenty of married gay men who get married to a woman, have kids, and then can't live the lie anymore. When they leave the home, usually in shame, for the arms of another man, an entire family unit is often destroyed. Why force gay men to live in a heterosexual world when the end result is often disabled families? I've seen it first hand. It's awful. By forcing gays to live a heterosexual married life, you've created a family doomed to failure.

My point in discussing women was to show that without scientific evidence, one can draw from one's own experiences to form a conclusion. I couldn't change my heterosexuality if I wanted to. There's just no way I could ever be remotely attracted to a man. Gay men feel about men the way I feel about women. Many of them are disgusted by women's bodies for no "reason" at all. It's just the way they are. I can only conclude that they were born into their sexuality just as I was born into mine. Is a gene to blame? I don't know.

Believe it or not, there are gay men who hope that it is a gene--then they won't be blamed anymore. Some have even said to me that if it were a gene, and it could be corrected in the womb, they think it should be corrected, because living the life of a gay man is often pretty horrible because of how an intolerant society treats them. Not all gays and lesbians feel this way, that what they have is a plague--others consider it a gift. Even the ones with the best attitude towards their sexuality still recognize that in most cases, there has been a rather high price to pay among their family members. There is almost always a wake of tragedy.

Many of them get kicked out of their own homes and never speak to their parents again. If you had to decide between expressing your true nature and losing your family, don't you think you might be tempted to stay in the closet? At some point, when you can't take the pressure anymore, you come out of the closet. If you already have a wife and kids at this point, people think you "turned" gay, when you haven't. You've always been gay, but you lived a lie.

Not accepting gay people continues this cycle of abuse. But go ahead and refuse to accept them if you want to. But pretending gays don't exist doesn't make them go away. By not accepting them, you live a lie just as much as a gay man in the closet does. Why live a life of lies? The truth is, there are millions of gay people out there, they don't suffer a malady, they can not be "cured" (they don't need to be).

Only the ignorant, stupid, or simply mean people would ostracize them. To cloak a bullying nature with the authority of religion, as Bob Jones and many other religious leaders including the Pope do, is the lowest plane a bully can descend to.

By the way, the intial title of the Ping included "homophobe" so the topic is presented for discussion. Therefore, I have not changed the subject but remain squarely on topic.



FROM: jon
DATE: Wednesday April 6, 2005 -- 9:27:41 pm
The definition of homophobe is : a person characterized by homophobia, so I went and looked up homophobia and that definition is : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. So just to be sure that i understood wat irrational was so I looked it up and it is (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason . Ok so my reason for doing that is because your title is Bob Jones: Bigot, Homophobe, University PRESIDENT(refering to Dr. Bob, soon changing to his son steven, who has had no public stand for not alowing blacks to Bob Jones, so next year you might want to change your title or something). Since your refering to Dr. Bob in the title that means he is a homophobe according to your title, if he were a homophobe he would not state his beliefs about that publicly, and since he does preach that homosexuality is wrong, he there for is not a homophobe. So shall we go onto a bigot or shall I stop there for now? Well actualy no i really want to touch base on that so I will. Ok a bigot is : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Ok Joseph, you are a bigot, because you are still believing that Dr. Bob is a bigot, and that Bob Jones is a bad place, even after a couple of years of arguments, you are still standing for what you believe. So I think that everybody could be considered a bigot in some way. So why are you attacking just Bob Jones for that? Ok well I must be going now.



FROM: jon
DATE: Wednesday April 6, 2005 -- 9:30:25 pm
I thought you might attack my grammar again so im just telling you that im tired and didn't have time to go check it.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday April 7, 2005 -- 8:23:52 am
if he were a homophobe he would not state his beliefs about that publicly

Oh my God. We are all dumber now for reading that comment. I don't know even what to say to that kind of stupidity . . .

Congratulations, Jon, I'm speechless. You've done it.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday April 7, 2005 -- 8:53:23 am
Okay. I've recovered.

Jon,

I know you are a kid, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible.

Being afraid that some group that you publicly denounce, slander and insult will seek retribution against you is a RATIONAL fear.

Example:

Imagine that I hate redheaded people. The color of their hair is the same color as hellfire. Clearly they are Satan's spawn, must be morally disgusting and reprehensible (sorry, Paul, bear with me--it's only an illustration).

Now, Jon, imagine that you are a redhead. As far as you've known, you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and you've never done a mean thing to anyone in your whole life. Further, you've never met me and I've never met you.

If we suddenly meet, and I am outraged by the presence of a Satan spawn redhead near my family, and if I call you the dirtiest name I can think of in public, to your face (just for fun, let's further imagine that I am only five feet tall and 98 pounds, while you are a strapping bohunk of seven feet tall and say a hugely muscular 315 pounds--enough to dispatch my puny ass to my maker with even a half-hearted punch)

The fact that I still decide to publicly humiliate you, though it may be bad for my personal health to do so doesn't mean that I don't fear you--it means that I don't fear what happens next--you, in a rage, use a single fist and completely knock my head off with one meaty swipe.

Being afraid of retribution is a perfectly rational fear.

The irrational fear is the one that drives me to publicly humiliate you for having red hair; the idea that redheaded people are Satan's spawn.

Feel free to ask questions.



FROM: jon
DATE: Thursday April 7, 2005 -- 7:56:53 pm
Ok im not like trying to change the subject or anything, but i have a quick question, can you find some articles on, like up to date articles that make Bob Jones look racist? Because all I could find was scholarship stuff.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Friday April 8, 2005 -- 4:34:37 pm
I don't imagine we'll find much about racist policies at BJU available for public inspection. I would assume that the rational fear of negative public image took care of that.

But my point wasn't to say that BJU is presently racist. For the five hundredth time, Jon, in case you weren't reading, I wanted to show that the interracial dating ban, for those nonbelievers, was discriminatory and racist; and I did. The reason I did so was because some BJU proponent made the following blanket statement:

BJU grads do have higher ethics than the average person because of the sound Biblical training

It seemed to me that there are those who just can't believe that someone who thumps a Bible can be wrong. Well, it's true, Bible thumpers are often wrong, especially when they claim that they are entitled to be given credit for having superior ethics because of sound Biblical training. You have to earn your ethical standing. No one can just waive a bible and lay claim to it.

When people fail to question authorities, and blindly trust those who put themselves in the position of spiritual authority, they set themselves up for being taken advantage of.

Look at all the altar boys in Boston who were molested. Many of them committed suicide because their parents, family and parishes simply would not believe that the parish priest, a man of sound Biblical training, could be sexually molesting them.

BJU's sound Biblical training and superior ethics apparently doesn't train students to see how a rule such as the interracial dating ban is discriminatory, racist, and morally and ethically reprehensible whether or not it is presently a part of BJU's recorded belief system.

My original question was, "If BJU is so ethically superior, how could it have supported such a ban for so long, and how can it possibly be that its present students can't even see that such a ban is discriminatory and racist, not to mention unethical?"

You have to earn your ethical rating.

No one can just waive a Bible and lay claim to it.

It just doesn't work that way.



FROM: Ben Adams
DATE: Monday April 11, 2005 -- 5:13:40 pm
Joseph,

I agree, for the most part, with your last post (surprising, isn't it?). I agree that people should think for themselves and not automatically accept whatever someone else says. The University strongly advocates this worldview as well. That is why Bob Jones University is not primarily a "Bible" school, but rather a "liberal arts" school (Yikes! "Liberal" is even in our description!). Were it only a Bible school, then it wouldn't espouse such "evil" majors as Art, Speech, Drama, foreign languages, or any other of the 120 some odd emphases that they do.

The principle of discernment is taught by the apostle Paul in the Bible. He said that we should listen to what a person says, then go home and think about it. If it agrees with the Bible, then accept it. But if it is in direct opposition to what the Bible says, then dismiss it. That is something we all should do. If we did, we would all be better off.

Thanks! ttyl! Ben



FROM: jon
DATE: Tuesday April 12, 2005 -- 7:09:58 pm
I think im not going to be back for a while. I don't think that i can keep up with this and school and all.



FROM: A Reader
DATE: Sunday June 12, 2005 -- 4:05:49 am
Great opinions - long live the American Empire. It keeps the world on its metaphorical toes.



FROM: GC
DATE: Tuesday August 16, 2005 -- 7:55:08 pm
At the Tower of Babel God confused the tongues and set forth clear boundaries that people of different language groups should not marry to avoid an one world government, and the creation of new language groups continued until about 1,000 years ago, when Icelandic language separated from Norwegian, Malayalam separated from Tamil in India and Lithuanian became a distinct language. At the same time other forces were at work violating God's laws of separation of languages, ie., Saxons (Germans) married Jutes (Danes) and then the French to form the English, with a new language. Later on the Dutch married Germans and the Hugonauts (French) to become Afrikaaners with a language called Afrikaans. In the 1700s European settlers in the New World violated God's laws and intermarried to become white Americans (whiteness and blackness are heresies and is not culture or a language group)..

What I have said so far is the strict constructionist view of the Bible..literally interpreted. However, the old Testament laws were overturned by Jesus Christ who was the biggest one worlder and hoped to unite human beings under the one world Christian banner.

Just like the British Israelism, Bob Jones University is a cult, which at least until 2000 was interested in creating more diversity through separation. If we interpret the Bible in strict Old Testament terms, most Americans should not exist as they are product of mixing of different language groups into a heresy called whites, based on skin color. But, New Testament says that we are all Humans who have sinned and come short of the glory of God.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Tuesday August 16, 2005 -- 8:33:40 pm
Well, at least computer programmers are right on God's track. They form new languages every day.

Not only that, but I knew that cooperation between Apple and IBM could only produce Satan's spawn.



FROM: GC
DATE: Wednesday August 17, 2005 -- 8:40:47 am
"The anti-one world principle started with the Tower of Babel in which God divided humanity by creating new languages. It would seem to me that multi-lingualism would be furthering God's Law, wouldn't it? If not, why not? Multi-lingualism is God's direct doing, according to the Bible, so why not promote God's Work and be accepting of foreign languages? "

---Joseph

Even Ben agrees with the statement that God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel. But, to answer your question, to folks like Ben and many American whites, particularly the southern whites, multilingualism is not acceptable. Why? Based on strict Biblical interpretation, the ancestors of these white Americans including perhaps Ben's violated God's law set out at the Tower of Babel. They are products of the mixture of various European languages which were separate or in some ways related. ie., some English came from German, others from French, etc. Racist whites like to quote the Tower of Babel story. But, if we strictly interpret the Tower of Babel story, what the American judisprudence defines as strict constructionist arguments, the existence of most white Americans is a mistake, a product of sin. However, as you clearly state, the New Testament basically reversed a considerable proportion of the Old Testament teachings and this was anathema to the olden day strict constructionists, who ended up crucifying Jesus Christ!



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Wednesday August 17, 2005 -- 11:21:45 am
GC:

"They are products of the mixture of various European languages which were separate or in some ways related."

Does "they" in the above sentence refer to the "confused" languages that derivative of the Tower of Babel story? The Tower of Babel fable, if true, could explain diversity among ancient Middle Eastern languages, but would not explain the diversity of proto-European, Pre-Colombian, or Asian languages.

"[T]he existence of most white Americans is a mistake, a product of sin."

I've never heard this take on the Tower of Babel story before, though I admit that I'm not very well versed in the goings on of the Old Testament. Since I was raised Catholic, dialogue with the OT beyond Genesis and perhaps the more well-known psalms, was not a living part of my upbringing.

Why is the existence of White Americans, in particular, a product of sin? To Catholics, everyone is born of "original sin," the stain of which is washed away through the sacrament of baptism.

What exactly is a "White" American? Is that a distinction based on appearance, ancestry, genes or something else?




FROM:
DATE: Thursday August 18, 2005 -- 8:10:01 am
"Does "they" in the above sentence refer to the "confused" languages that derivative of the Tower of Babel story? The Tower of Babel fable, if true, could explain diversity among ancient Middle Eastern languages, but would not explain the diversity of proto-European, Pre-Colombian, or Asian languages."

The Tower of Babel did not occur in a single day as some fanatics claim. Remember the key statement in New Testament that for God one day is 1,000 years and 1,000 years in one year. It most likely happened over a period of a thousand years. Humans emerged somewhere between Iraq and Ethiopia and moved elsewhere. Even if we accept racist arguments about Noah's sons being of three different races, Tower of Babel happened much later and even if three races existed they were separated by languages and God set clear boundaries. By intermarrying the ancestors of the American whites committed a sin if we interpret this literally..languages were forgotten..and they adopted a common language, English and called themselves white. In fact, creation of white America was already leading to the One World Government that Bob Jonese now worries about. Bob Jones's policies had nothing to do with the one world government, but with money..it was developed and marketed in the 1920s to some of the most virulent racists and color conscious folks in the US, particularly the south, who were more interested in preserving their skin color (idolatory and paganism) than in spreading the word of Jesus Christ. BJU evoloved over time. Until 1970s they only admitted whites and some Asians. Blacks were not permitted to attend the University. This changed but opposition to IR remained until the 2000 fiasco. We need to understand that BJU was appealing to the 40% of whites who supported the IR ban in SC and 52% of the whites who supported the IR ban in AL!

"Why is the existence of White Americans, in particular, a product of sin? To Catholics, everyone is born of "original sin," the stain of which is washed away through the sacrament of baptism."

That is the NT version. But going by the Old Testament mixing of different language groups was a sin, and as white Americans are a mixture of language groups such as German and French and even Russian and Lebanese, they are a product of sin based on this interpretation.

"What exactly is a "White" American? Is that a distinction based on appearance, ancestry, genes or something else?"

Some people will argue by appearance. But, please ask a BJU student, faculty or graduates...they seem to experts on race!





FROM: GC
DATE: Thursday August 18, 2005 -- 8:10:28 am
Joseph, the last response was from me!



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Thursday August 18, 2005 -- 9:21:29 am
Hear that?

That's the sound of a boggled mind.

SC=South Carolina?

AL=Alabama?

It seems to me that you are saying that the theory is even more Aryan than just white. If German (Old English) + French = Modern English, and conquering French intermarrying with the conquered British = intermarrying, while French and British ostensibly belong to the same race, then the One World government started way before America did, say around 1066.

Of course, well before the Normans conquered the Saxons, the Saxons conquered the indiginous tribes.

I had always assumed that because the players in the above scenarios were white, there was no concept of intermarrying. But I've always thought that intermarriage applied to the races and that the One World effects of language were dealt with separately.

But if language is the reason White Americans are born of sin, what of all the Spanish speaking South, Central, and North Americans? Spanish is bigger than English, if not by how many people speak it but by the area of land mass where Spanish is spoken--even more so if you count Portuguese as a Spanish dialect, as many language scholars argue it is.

But wouldn't it all have started with the Romans who spread Latin all over the world? Does Bob Jones really want to go back to pre-Roman times and have people speaking thousands of languages within a small land area?

This causes lots of problems, as before the age of literacy (if that really has happened, but before a time where average people generally knew how to read) if you travelled two miles in England, you couldn't even order yourself a couple of eggs at a tavern because you wouldn't have known the word.

If all this is true, then the use of the term "University" in Bob Jones University, is an oxymoron, and Bob Jones should remove it from the name of his school, since "University" as a term connotes "one world" thinking. The universal nature of Universities is why up until the 1800s, all teaching at most universities anywhere in the world was conducted in Latin--just so that one language could be used and scholars could travel freely from one university to the next and not be hampered by ignorance of the local vernacular. In that way, the university system broke all language constraints, which only got in the way of more efficient teaching.



FROM: GC
DATE: Friday August 19, 2005 -- 1:14:34 pm
" had always assumed that because the players in the above scenarios were white, there was no concept of intermarrying. But I've always thought that intermarriage applied to the races and that the One World effects of language were dealt with separately."

There was no concept of race until the whites invented it in the 1700s

"But if language is the reason White Americans are born of sin, what of all the Spanish speaking South, Central, and North Americans? Spanish is bigger than English, if not by how many people speak it but by the area of land mass where Spanish is spoken--even more so if you count Portuguese as a Spanish dialect, as many language scholars argue it is. "

Indeed.

"But wouldn't it all have started with the Romans who spread Latin all over the world? Does Bob Jones really want to go back to pre-Roman times and have people speaking thousands of languages within a small land area? "

He doesn't. He was direct descendants of folks who invented the concept of race. Actually if you read the legend of the Irish Tiara, the Welsh and the Irish are descended from Nebuchadnezzer of the Bible, ie., mixed race...something
Bob Jones does not want you to know.

"This causes lots of problems, as before the age of literacy (if that really has happened, but before a time where average people generally knew how to read) if you travelled two miles in England, you couldn't even order yourself a couple of eggs at a tavern because you wouldn't have known the word. "

If you believe in the literal interpretation of the Tower of Babel, that is how the world should be, not the bogus we are white, they are black and others are Asian philosophy that Bob Jones propagates.

"In that way, the university system broke all language constraints, which only got in the way of more efficient teaching."

Agreed










FROM: Joseph
DATE: Friday August 19, 2005 -- 4:35:26 pm
"There was no concept of race until the whites invented it in the 1700s"

That one I find tough to swallow. Even if whites did invent the concept of race, the first ship full of African slaves came to port in the Americas well before the 18th century.

Second, humankind's awareness of general differences in the appearance of different groups of people predates the 18th century. Wasn't the ancient Egyptians' enslavery of the Jews enabled, in part, by of racial differences? It certainly amounted to a form of racism. Can one have racism without the concept of race?

Even within arguably the same race, weren't the ancient Jews divided among twelve differing tribes? And weren't those tribes engaged in a perennial state of war with other groups of people who were racially different from them. The Old Testament is bloody full of war between the tribes of Israel, Philistines, and others.

Shakespeare wrote "Othello" in the Elizabethan age, which featured a protagonist described as a black Moore, or an Ethyope.

It may be that Western scientists rather probematically began an attempt to categorize static races around the 18th century which reflected a high degree of ethnocentrism and which seemed more to present, to the modern mind, more of a bullyish exercise in simple stereotyping. But I don't think that's tantamount to "inventing" race.

Any child of any race can tell that there are innate differences at least in general appearance between different groups of people. Is that invention or merely observation?

What static categorization does, however, is ignore that fact that races are constantly in a state of flux. People intermarry. What a static system classifies as "negroid" others will break down further into "high yellow," "cafe au lait," "cinnamon," "brown," "ebony," and perhaps more. I was introduced to this subclassification system not by whites (for lack of a better term), but by non-whites.

But to charge whites with "inventing" the concept of race, to me, implies a certain blameworthiness that I find unjustified. Such a statement suggests that before the scientific codification of categorical differences by allegedly white scientists, humankind was blissfully unaware that there were differences in the way groups of people looked and behaved.

No one "invented" the concept of race. Certainly, there were those who attempt to make more of variations in appearance and behavior, perhaps culture, than they should and for evil purposes. But all of mankind is guilty of dehumanizing another group on some basis going back well beyond whites and the 1700s.

Division by religion, politics, race, origin, ethnicity, sex, social status, wealth, etc., in order to justify reducing, discriminating against and abusing a class of persons is something that, unfortunately, is as much a part of living in the world today as it was in ancient times.

One need only to read the headlines today to see the effects of such racism with roots that far predate any White scientist in his lab in the 1700s.




FROM: GC
DATE: Friday August 19, 2005 -- 7:59:24 pm
I will give a detailed response later tonight. However, what you are talking about is ethnicity, not race. Within a race, there are several ethnic groups.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Saturday August 20, 2005 -- 1:15:28 pm
ethnic

ethnicity

race

I don't believe I was talking exclusively of ethnicity, though all of the above terms do overlap somewhat. It's difficult to talk about race and have one's meaning exactly understood. The usage note included within the definition of race illustrates why the difficulty exists.

However, in an effort to keep ethinicity and race separate, I offer the following illustration. Ethnically, many German Jews considered themselves only Germans, especially if they did not identify themselves religiously as Jews. Those who did not attend synagogue, or who perhaps may have even practiced Christianity and had no references to the Jewish religion in their homes or in their lives were taken aback when the Nazis identified them as Jews and dehumanized them by subjecting them to the "final solution."

Ethnically, these Jews were Germans. Many had roots in Germany going back generations. To the Nazis, they were Jews, and identified as such partly by cultural means--raiding synagogues to secure lists of names. Some were identified strictly by physical "Jewish" charateristics, among which the Nazis detailed hairiness, size and structure of nose, browline and other features, all of which are racial cues.

But to illustrate the difficulty in calling something racial or ethnic--one of the classic "racial" categories is/was mongoloid, which referred to Asians or less politically correctly as "Orientals." This single race category ignores the huge variation in general appearance among groups of Asians. Many can tell just be looking whether one is Japanese, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. Whether these differences are ethnic, or national in nature or racial is a mystery to me.

The ability to differentiate between a Chinese person and a Japanese person was so important, it was thought, in WWII that posters were distributed which showed a "typical" Japanese face next to a "typical" Chinese face. The poster compared and contrasted the differences in an effort to get US citizens to stop harassing peaceful Chinese-Americans, who were often mistreated by non-Asians who mistook them for Japanese-Americans (who, by the way, the US locked up in concentration camps along the west coast). Apparently, the US government forgot that ethnically, these Japanese-Americans were Americans and only remembered that racially, they looked like "Japs."

Meanwhile Italian-Americans and German-Americans were free to do whatever they pleased because racially, I assume, they generally did not look Japanese.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Saturday August 20, 2005 -- 1:26:24 pm
ethnic

ethnicity

race

I don't believe I was talking exclusively of ethnicity, though all of the above terms do overlap somewhat. It's difficult to talk about race and have one's meaning exactly understood. The usage note included within the definition of race illustrates why the difficulty exists.

However, in an effort to keep ethnicity and race separate, I offer the following illustration. Ethnically, many German Jews considered themselves only Germans, especially if they did not identify themselves religiously as Jews. Those who did not attend synagogue, or who perhaps may have even practiced Christianity and had no references to the Jewish religion in their homes or in their lives were taken aback when the Nazis identified them as Jews and dehumanized them by subjecting them to the "final solution."

Ethnically, these Jews were Germans. Many had roots in Germany going back generations. To the Nazis, they were Jews, and identified as such partly by cultural means--raiding synagogues to secure lists of names. Some were identified strictly by physical "Jewish" characteristics, among which the Nazis detailed hairiness, size and structure of nose, brow line and other features, all of which are racial cues.

But to illustrate the difficulty in calling something racial or ethnic--one of the classic "racial" categories is/was mongoloid, which referred to Asians or less politically correctly to "Orientals." This single race category ignores the huge variation in general appearance among different Asian groups. Many can tell, with a fair degree of accuracy, just by looking whether one is Japanese, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. Whether these differences are ethnic, or national in nature or racial is a mystery to me because what separates these groups are national boundaries, not a race chart.

The ability to differentiate between a Chinese person and a Japanese person was so important stateside during WWII that posters were distributed which showed a "typical" Japanese face next to a "typical" Chinese face. The poster compared and contrasted the differences in appearance in an effort to get US citizens to stop harassing peaceful Chinese-Americans, who were often mistreated by non-Asians who mistook them for Japanese-Americans (who, by the way, the US locked up in concentration camps along the west coast). Apparently, the US government forgot that ethnically, these Japanese-Americans were Americans and only remembered that racially, they looked like "Japs." Of course, the “nicer”reason of the poster was for the protection of Chinese. The cynical reason would be that the poster was distributed to train “good citizens” to identify Americans of Japanese descent with greater accuracy and so avoid wasting valuable police time by reporting an innocent Chinese-American as “Jap” out after curfew.

Meanwhile Italian-Americans and German-Americans were free to do whatever they pleased because racially, I assume, they generally did not look Japanese.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Saturday August 20, 2005 -- 1:28:16 pm
CG:

Whoops. Ignore my first post of today. My computer timed out while posting it, and it didn't appear on a refresh. So I edited the post a bit and reposted, now to find the old one posted as well. But the second post expresses some of my thoughts better, so please read that one.



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Saturday August 20, 2005 -- 4:51:45 pm
Sorry if it seems like I'm hogging this Ping topic, but here is a great article written by Richard H. Anderson, the Department of Sociology and the University of Colorado at Denver that I just found. It paints in a broad and learned brush the issues we have been discussing.

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/sociology/introsoc/topics/UnitNotes/week07.html



FROM: Joseph
DATE: Saturday August 20, 2005 -- 5:07:09 pm
I also found links to the Chinese or Japanese poster. Apparently, the posters were also published in an article entitled "How to tell Japs from the Chinese," in LIFE magazine in December of 1941.

The 19th century western race chart, recognizing no difference between the two, throws Chinese and Japanese into the same pot under the classification "Mongoloid."

But, when Japan invaded Manchuria, Japanese regarded Chinese as subhuman and vice-versa, and perhaps some still do. This is/was just one example of racist behavior having nothing to do with 19th century western scientific classifications. How does one who takes a position of blame against whites for "inventing" race in the 19th century fit these historical facts into that position?




FROM: GC
DATE: Saturday August 20, 2005 -- 5:14:15 pm
"Many can tell just be looking whether one is Japanese, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. Whether these differences are ethnic, or national in nature or racial is a mystery to me."

Asians can. But, most whites including Bob Jones cannot. Hence, for them Koreans, Japanese and Vietnamese, they are all the same..not sensitivity here. But, they would try to set up Japanese with a Korean because they are of the same race, forgetting the fact, that culturally they are very different and historically they have been enemies. Sometimes these whites especially the BJU variety try to set up a single male or female without a significant other, lest these Asians fall for whites.



FROM: GC
DATE: Saturday August 20, 2005 -- 11:57:17 pm
"For example in the 1994 a book was published by Murray and Herrnstein (The Bell Curve) in which they attempt to show that the differences between African Americans and White Europeans is based in the genetic makeup of the two groups. These differences then are seen to be immutable and no amount of welfare or preference will overcome the genetic bases of the differences. Leaving aside the truth or falsity of the claims, the net result of such efforts will be the further separation and differential treatment of the groups. Such 'research' can be used to justify denial of access to higher education, to more skilled jobs simply on the basis of race. "

Murray and Herrenstein are quacks who would have been jailed had they claimed to be doctors. Murray is a political scientist and Herrenstein is a sociologist and neither had any courses in genetics let alone a degree. Edison Liu, Director of the Genomics Institute in Singapore specifically said that race is not a genetic concept and that only sociologists and other genetic quacks claim that it is..and the leading quacks are Linda Gottfriedson of the University of Delaware and Phillip Rushton of the University of Western Ontario. Other geneticists told me that the only thing that may be true is that marriages between Europeans and Asians produced brighter kids due to the distance between the groups, ie., the opposite of inbreeding, but this has not yet been proved. May be Bob Jones was worried that if whites and others, perhaps Asians mixed and produced mixed breed children, there may be too many geniuses and these geniuses may question the existence of God!



FROM: Kyle davis
DATE: Saturday May 6, 2006 -- 10:48:18 am
Hello everyone. I was a student at Bob Jones University from 2001-2002. I left because I could absolutely not stand it any longer than one year. After that, I went to a "secular university" and earned my degree. I am a Christian, and I do not want to say anything slanderous about BJU. I do not believe that a lot of the faculty and staff at Bob Jones show the love that Christ showed others. One of their biggest soap boxes was "separation from the world." To them, that means not hanging out with "sinners" (even though we are all sinners). And no matter what anyone says, they are very very condemning of homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but that does not mean that I would talk about how "evil" they are. To me, that just promotes hate. Didn't Christ come to save all sinners? The answer is yes, he did. And if you really believe the Bible, God looks at all sin the same. It is all wrong in his eyes. I do not understand why some people take ONE sin, and act like these people should not be loved. In my mind, none of us deserve love from God, because we all sin every day, and we are ALL in need of a Savior. I was going to rant and rave and tell everyone how unbelieveably insane the rules are, but I don't think that is my place. Remeber Jesus died for all sinners. How in the world are we going to win homosexuals to God if some people are afraid to even talk to them? Remeber that Jesus was very involved in talking and befriending sinners, and he was criticized greatly by the religious leaders of his day.



Jacob October 8, 2006, 2:45 am

The only thing I’ve discerned from reading this ping for the last two and a half hours is that we have some real idiots and some real winners.

Joseph…I don’t know what to say, really. I always liked that old saying that “it takes one to know one”. You have a lot of nasty things goin’ for you if that’s true. I would advise you to learn how to debate…you’re far too eager to personally attack others. You have some good points…points that need answers. Also…you kinda have this little tendency to rattle on for a loooong time about nothing. In short, you’re talking without saying anything. Close your mouth…and let some people try to give you a good answer. You talk too much.

Ben and Richie…you both have made excellent points defending Christianity. I applaud you. It’s only too bad that you haven’t replied lately. The only vice in your statements is your attacks on political parties (Ben specifically). Or party (singular). The parties are irrelevant. The people however, are. You did a superb job defending even the most ridiculous points some people made. Oh yeah, Ben…don’t lose your temper. It’s unbecoming. I am almost ashamed at myself for reading this entire ping…but, nevertheless, a healthy argument is always good as long as you keep it that way.

Ryan…a good topic to debate on. One problem…where are you to debate it? Unless, perhaps, you’ve been proven wrong and now support the “religious right and their hypocrital views” This thing has gotten off subject so much I almost turned the link off. Everyone…please…for the sake of my sanity…STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Whew…ok…here is my personal take on the two issues this ping pertains to ORIGINALLY…I think that each thing has been answered…but let’s review, class. First, Bob Jones University has every right to ban gay alumni if they so choose. They receive no federal funding, are a private school, and therefore may dictate such a ban. State funding is another thing…but federal…no. Secondly, it has been quite eloquently stated by the youngest person to comment that we are discussing a university’s HISTORY, not its present state of mind. Interracial dating is allowed. BJU is accredited. Racism is not encouraged or tolerated. All of these issues have been resolved by the university itself!! Perhaps that they have all been dealt with, maybe some of the posters against this institution should have a second look, or even a visit. Granted, some people just don’t like BJU…even Christians that go there (as our 10 and 12 year residers showed us). But you have to decide for yourself…after you know the people which make up BJU today. BJU is only what the people who attend it make it.

*Note to Joseph*- I pretty much stopped reading your comments when you and GC started arguing. But, since you weren’t even discussing the main topics…I don’t think I missed much. I read what you had…or tried…to say about the actual discussion, so I know what I’m talking about, never fear. Don’t expect to draw me into this though…I’m a bystander only. For the present, at least.

Ben Adams October 28, 2006, 2:41 am

Wow. It has been so long since I’ve thought about this ping. Oh the memories!

Just a quick personal update: I’ve transferred out of Bob Jones and now attend Furman University. Same major (political science). I’m competing on the Mock Trial team (against my former teammates at Bob Jones, no less). My creed is still the same as are my views (for the most part) on the University and it’s policies.

Now a relevant update: Dr. Bob Jones III is no longer the Pres. of BJU. His son, Stephen, took over. I’m sure everyone knows this by now, but in my cursory re-reading of this *very* long ping, I didn’t see it written anywhere. So anyway, it’s relevant because it’s part of the topic title.

Jacob- I’m terribly sorry that it appears I lost my temper. To be honest, I don’t remember ever being upset, but as I read some of my posts again, the tone is certainly strident. I agree that it is unbecoming and, I shall endeavor to do my best to reign in my sarcasm in the future.

Well, I’ll be checking this topic more often now as it seems to have been rediscovered recently.

Best,

-Ben

ANDY June 14, 2008, 12:59 am

I ATTENDED THAT UNIVERISYT AND HEARD THEIRS HATRATED MESSAGE AGAINST CATOLICS AND MORMONS,

THEY CAN BRAIN WASH YOUR CHILD IF YOU ARE NOT FROM THAT SUBCULT-TURE, MANY BUSNESS OWNERS AND PEOPLE IN COMMUNITY DON’T LIKE BJU, THEY TEACH SUCH PIOLOSOPHY THAT YOU MAY KILL YOUR SELF AND STILL GO TO HEAVEN, THIS WHAT THAT CULT TEACHES IN CLOSED DOORS.

AFTER THAT UNIVERSITY IT WOULD BE NICE TO GO INTO PORNOGRAPGY BE A SUPER STAR,

Joseph February 24, 2010, 5:41 pm

Whatever, Jacob.

Whatever.

I’d respect your opinion much more if you actually had weighed in thoughtfully instead of being the head cheerleader in the peanut gallery.

“First, Bob Jones University has every right to ban gay alumni if they so choose. They receive no federal funding, are a private school, and therefore may dictate such a ban.”

What about the hypocrisy of it?

“State funding is another thing…but federal…no”

Why is State funding another thing? It’s still taxpayer money. It’s still PUBLIC money.

“Secondly, it has been quite eloquently stated by the youngest person to comment that we are discussing a university’s HISTORY, not its present state of mind.”

Because people here were still defending the policy with BJU’s present philosophies. To me, it’s like Tiger Woods apologizing for his sexual addiction. He doesn’t really believe he’s a sex addict, he just wants to retain public favor and keep his endorsements. BJU wants to attract federal money and appear to be a “real” academic institution. What goes on behind closed doors is another thing, though. Did BJU actually repudiate the policy and say it was wrong or did it just go underground?

“All of these issues have been resolved by the university itself!! Perhaps that they have all been dealt with, maybe some of the posters against this institution should have a second look, or even a visit. Granted, some people just don’t like BJU…even Christians that go there (as our 10 and 12 year residers showed us). But you have to decide for yourself…after you know the people which make up BJU today. BJU is only what the people who attend it make it.”

Are you really that naive?

Really?

What is this then?

The Daily Ping is the web's finest compendium of toilet information and Oreo™® research. Too much? Okay, okay, it's a daily opinion column written by two friends. Did we mention we've been doing this for over ten years? Tell me more!

Most Popular Pings

Last Week's Most Popular Pings

Let's be nice.

© 2000-2011 The Daily Ping, all rights reserved. Tilted sidebar note idea 'adapted' from Panic. Powered by the mighty WordPress.