If the University of Cumberland wants to get some money from the state, then they better not discriminate. If they can manage to be a completely private school, then they can let in or kick out whoever they want.

Seems like a simple distinction to me.

Baptists don't live in the real world..they live in the bible..just ask them.

Wow Al, this article made me think, and I kept fading in and out of agreeing with you, then wondering why? So I read it again.

Let me say that I like the thoughts you've put down, because they make sense, and that they're thought provoking.

Boiled down

a. I agree that the college should not be discriminated against because a student (whatever his orientation) was expelled. The institution makes no secret of being a religious institution, and for him to join it, in essence means he's knowing made a contract acknowledging a code of behaviour that's expected of him. To violate that code, is valid grounds for expulsion.

B. Religious institutions have no business being run by, officially endorsed by, or funded by the state. It'd be equal to members of a Jewish Temple being required to tithe to a Baptist church... or a congregation of a baptist church being required to tithe to the gay Metropolitan Community Church. On the basis of that argument, the State of Kentucky, no matter how proud they are of Cumberland, shouldn't be funding them.

c. I find the student's action in simply joining this school to be irresponsible, as like I said, he knew what he was getting into going in.

As for Georgio's comment, just as it would be unfair to lump all gays into the same group, because of an irresponsible few, it'd be equally bad to lump all Baptists together. If we did, we'd be guilty of the very crime we're accusing others of commiting against us!

I enjoyed the thought process Al.

Jet

Well written piece, Al. However, I disagree with your reasoning. If we agree that the college discrimated against a student (which it can arguably do as a private religious institution) and we can agree that the law states that a state can not support an institution that discriminates, then I side with the group bringing suit.

Whether or not we think this discrimination is "good* is irrelevant in this case, I'd think.

Jet I agree with you ..I just can't stand the way Baptists ..think ..thier belief that every word of the bible is true..

bah...is this school under the good olde tax exemption for religious institutions?

if so, it should get shit from the state anyway

all other things considered, the Law for that state sets the requirements, the school broke that Law...thus no $ for them

simplicity

Excelsior?

Thanks Georgio, sometimes I get it right, most times I don't.

That's why I like this website, I larn lots of stufff, y'all

Jet, you make an excellent point right here: "The institution makes no secret of being a religious institution, and for him to join it, in essence means he's knowing made a contract acknowledging a code of behaviour that's expected of him." Exactly right. Don't sign up for a Baptist college if you know you're not going to act like a good Baptist.

However, if the state is handing out money to colleges, then it would be totally wrong and seemingly unconstitutional to deny money to schools on the basis that they're religious. Being a church shouldn't get you government money- or stop you from getting it.

Gonzo, hadn't thought of this: "is this school under the good olde tax exemption for religious institutions? if so, it should get shit from the state anyway" Good point, perhaps, but aren't most colleges tax exempt, religion aside?

Mr Berlin, I can see an argument that the college is in violation of the policy, and I agree with you that "good" or "bad" discrimination is irrelevant. But I question the validity of the policy itself. I see the point of some of it, but I'm highly skeptical of social engineering like this.

big Al sez...
*Being a church shouldn't get you government money- or stop you from getting it.*

i tend to disgree here...that pesky establishment clause and all

i don't want a single tax dollar going to ANY religious institution, especially since they don't pay taxes in the first place

Excelsior?

Al,
I really appreciate this well written and thought provoking piece.

It seems reasonable to argue that if a state gives funding to an institution which engages in "bad" discrimination, it (the state) is thereby surreptitiously endorsing that discrimination. But by this line of reasoning there isn't a single religious orginization I can think of that would be eligible for any kind of state funding, as they all discriminate against or in favor of certain behaviors. So either states must stop funding all "discriminatory" bodies, or begin funding them all (or at least make them all equally eligible for funding) if these types disputes are ever to be resolved.

-Travis

Thanks Travis. This whole idea of having the government make everyone play nice with one another is a very slippery slope. I'm framing this KY thing in terms of religion, but leave that out of it for a minute. The KFA is wanting to enforce a law banning "discrimination." This would apply not just to schools, but to any and everything that involves state money, apparently. What exactly consitutes "discrimination" and who gets to decide? Putting such decisions in the hands of a government is an invitation to repression, and requires governments to start making value judgements that perhaps governments shouldn't be making.

On the other hand allowing religious bodies to do the deciding unimpeded would have just as much of an undesirable effect too.

Jet says "On the other hand allowing religious bodies to do the deciding unimpeded would have just as much of an undesirable effect too."

True, but religious bodies are not subject to the same dicriminatory legalities as our government. And citizens have the freedom of association, so those institutions will thrive or dwindle based on their merits via participation of the people. We do not have a freedom of association in regards to our government as we are all subject to the law. So even though someone may object to the discrimination of homosexuality by the Baptist Church, that same someone is not subject to their doctrine if they choose not to be. But if the government decides to ban homosexuality, all of the sudden everyone is under a legal obligation not to be gay.

Al says "What exactly consitutes "discrimination" and who gets to decide?"

A buddy brought this up to me... "It's just like pornography. What was the famous ruling? We can't define it but we'd know it if we saw it?"

My head is starting to hurt.

Travis, another excellent point: "So even though someone may object to the discrimination of homosexuality by the Baptist Church, that same someone is not subject to their doctrine if they choose not to be." That's a critical distinction.

and it's that very distinction that forms the basis of the "smell test" for who should get federal dollars

just ask Jim Crowe

Excelsior?

The thought police are back out in force I see. Using the power of the government to force everyone to agree with them.

It's the same shit over and over and over it doesn't matter healthcare, education, housing.

1) The government provides money in order to 'help' you.

2) Individuals and institutions become dependent on that government support.

3) You're dependent, they own you.

The answer is to move government support away from the institutions where it never should have been in the first place and put more money in the hands of students who can then go whereever they please and learn whatever they please. Vouchers, loan, grants, whatever you want to call it brings back competition and free choice and shuts down this censorship garbage.

The real problem here is that the government is giving money to a religious institution at all. Regardless of whether they discriminate, the principle of separation of church and state should demand that they not get money from the state. That's all there is to it.

Dave

comment #18 sez...
*The real problem here is that the government is giving money to a religious institution at all.*

Quoted for Truth

Excelsior?

"The real problem here is that the government is giving money to a religious institution at all."

True. As I stated giving money to select institutions in the first place is crap. Give it to the students and let them spend it at whatever learning institution they see fit. Or would that not satisfy your dislike of religion?

Would you prefer we cut off SS, disablity, and welfare payments to citizens who attend church for fear they might donate some of your precious government money to said churches?

Dave (comment 18), I don't think that's relevant here. They're not giving money to a church, they're giving it to schools. That this one has a religious affiliation should be irrelevant.

In this case, the money is supposed to be building a school of pharmacy. That's nothing to do with a government promoting religion, plus they shouldn't be in the business of DEmoting religion, either. If they state's giving out money to colleges, then they should be getting a teat like any other outfit, without regard to their religiosity or lack of it.

Red, your solution of giving money direct to students in the form of scholarships in their name is the perfect solutions. Why, it's just like a voucher system for those stuck in public education at the secondary level.

I'm fine with people giving money to churches, I'm just not for the government doing it. Once things like SS get in the hands of the recipient that money is theirs, not the government's.

But I do think the churches ought to pay taxes like any other business, or else make my 'donations' to WalMart tax deductible too.

Dave

Dave (comment 18), I don't think that's relevant here. They're not giving money to a church, they're giving it to schools. That this one has a religious affiliation should be irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant. Religious institutions of education have religious curriculums and they promote beliefs which may not be held by the general public. They are training grounds for missionaries and those who spread religion. By giving them money you are underwriting the promotion of that particular faith above others.

In this case, the money is supposed to be building a school of pharmacy. That's nothing to do with a government promoting religion,

Want to bet? I'll lay odds that the graduates of that school of pharmacy believe that they have a god-given right not to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill.

plus they shouldn't be in the business of DEmoting religion, either. If they state's giving out money to colleges, then they should be getting a teat like any other outfit, without regard to their religiosity or lack of it.

The state shouldn't be giving money to ANY private colleges when you get right down to it. I'd even go so far as to suggest that state-run university systems are a bad idea too.

Dave

1) According to most news articles about this, Jason Johnson was not very public about being gay. Only his family and a few close friends knew. It was discovered when someone brought his myspace.com homepage that mentioned a boyfriend to the attention of school administrators.

2)The University of the Cumberlands policy against homosexuals was put in the student handbook last year, AFTER Jason Johnson had already enrolled.

That being said, if the school wants to discriminate they can, because they are a PRIVATE school... however...

3) Section 189 of Kentucky's State Constitution states: "No portion of any fund or tax now existing, or that may hereafter be raised or levied for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school."

This is not an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of whether the state legislature and governor can disregard the state's laws.

Chris, I'd argue that this quote of the KY constitution may reasonably be construed as conflicting with the higher law of the US Constitution, as it requires the state to discriminate against educators who happen to have a religious affiliation.

Monsieur Nalle writes: "I'll lay odds that the graduates of that school of pharmacy believe that they have a god-given right not to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill."

To which I respond, yeah and so what? It's definitely not the place of the state to decide on funding schools based on the presumptions of philosophical beliefs likely to be held by students. That's government discriminating again.

Of course, I'd be happy to go with you on the compromise of getting government out of the education business altogether.

If they are Bible Believin' Baptists (B3 -- which BTW I have one for sale) they should know to "render unto Ceasar, what is Ceasar's" which includes taxes, or not to expect any giveback.

Besides if all the good folk attending supporting churches (of this particular institution) tithed 10 percent as instructed by the word of God... then the point would be moot. Bills would be paid, the institution would function. That's what tithes do.

Additionally, all those pesky members of the congregations tithing that pesky 10% could claim it as charitible contributions and claim the exemption on the income tax.

Wait a minute? Doesn't that accomplish the same thing as all the wrangling separation of this and that and the other thing?

Al, if the state isn't going to keep money away from religious colleges, then it has to go the other route, which is to give exactly the same amount per student to EVERY college in the state, regardless of their size or their beliefs. The only way to do that reliably is to give the money to the students, not to the colleges.

The government should NOT be building facilities and giving them to a relgious organization under any circumstances. Are they going to build something of equal value to that pharmacy school at every college of equivalent size to Cumberland? If not then they are showing favoritism to that particular relgious organization and that's unacceptable.

Dave

Religions like the Baptist faith are huge mega-enterprises that thrive on discrimination and fostering oppression. As long as I've read Al, I've never known him to stick up for the little guy, but he sure likes to point out when the bully is discriminated against.

Al,

I'd be interested to know your opinion on a hypothetical. Say some northeastern institution decided that fundamentalist Christianity went against it's doctrine and students were not allowed to follow this or act on their religious beliefs at school.

When they kick a student out because it is discovered that he is a baptist would you be as quick to support their rights to do so and maintain state funding?

(ignoring the fact that it probably will never happen and is not be legal under the constitution anyway)

I would argue that the cases are somewhat similiar, a person's sexuality is probably more central to their being and harder to change than religion. If you're willing to allow something or someone to discriminate you must be prepared for the possibility that it might be you who is discriminated against.

Red Tard- I'd probably take pretty much the same outlook if it was anti-religious bias. It would depend somewhat on whether the specific institution was a state institution, ie IU versus a private school.

I'm neither gay nor Baptist, so I don't particularly have a dog in the fight in that way. I'm fair and balanced here, much like Fox News.

Dave, I'd be happy to go to per-pupil funding as an alternative. That'd dissolve a lot of problems.

And Steve S, really with your "little guy" schtick. Yes, I really that a little rural Baptist college in Kentucky is really the big bully responsible for most of the world's meanness, but c'mon. I mean, if I wanted to get with the bullies, I'd be, say, supporting Rob Reiner and the other meathead smoking Nazis. That's some bullies for ya.

big Al sez...
*I'd be, say, supporting Rob Reiner and the other meathead smoking Nazis. That's some bullies for ya.*

and have you checked DC lately?

far cry from yer Meathead quip Al

methinks thou dost protest too much

Excelsior?

And Steve S, really with your "little guy" schtick. Yes, I really that a little rural Baptist college in Kentucky is really the big bully responsible for most of the world's meanness,

no, religion is responsible for most of the world's meanness and religion is a huge mega-enterprise which is composed of smaller units like rural churches that discriminate and foster prejudice.

The Baptist faith is a huge enterprise that doesn't really need the governments money. Instead of giving taxpayer money to an institution that discriminates against some taxpayers, why not just get the Baptist faith to not build enormous crystal cathedrals and use that money to educate instead?

Gonzo, I've got no idea what you were even trying to say in comment 32.

The new South Park was ripping on Al Gore. He repeatedly ended his little speeches about saving the Earth from Manbearpig with the exclamation "Excelsior!" Naturally, I thought of you.

SteveS, you're apparently pretty seriously bigoted against Christians. That's your right, but it's not right. The Baptist church is not a Catholic organization with central bodies and control. I doubt a small college in KY has any crystal cathedrals.

Though the president of the Baptist church here in Laurel I believe does open Sunday morning worship services with a prayer something like "Dear Lord, please give us the strength today to discriminate and foster prejudice as much as possible."

That was a good analogy that Redtard came up with. My thinking is that if the baptist student at the anti-religous college were organizing prayer meetings, whatever, in an overt way, then yes, he should be booted. Same with the gay guy at the religous school. But if the gay, or the baptist is just discreetly carrying out his sexuality, or religon, then he shouldn't be booted.

This true to life story though, is just gay activist's making trouble for everybody else. As they are forever want to do. There's no reason that a gay guy should want to go to this college. His high-school guidance counseler was negligent.

Steve S apparantly must not realize that God wants enormous crystal cathedrals built in his honor and glory.

but dave, (comment #22), Walmart is my religion now, maybe wallyworld should be tax exempt!?

I can't figure out why more people havn't materialized religion (for tax reasons)...I mean I guess alot of people have with the church and all....but the church thing is getting old and has always been obvious. What if I start a Powerbook club, a place to gather and worship images of Steve Jobs and perhaps share tech advice all the while calling it "religion." How is that not viable, and more importantly, tax exempt?

Is there some statute in the US legislation that defines religion?

#39, Yes Nuggett, it's name is Jerry Falwell. Would you believe that even John McCain is now bowing to him, and is planning to give the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University, in order to garner favor for his Presidential bid in 2008!

Al #35 SteveS, like myself, are more reactionary than bigoted. We're reacting to the hate, the venom, and the prejudice aimed visciously at us, and we've just built up an automatic defensive stance, which isn't always justified.

Respectfully
Jet

Jet, as I've said before Falwell is on the slightly less insane side of the spectrum, so McCain is throwing him a bone so he can keep the real crazies off his back.

Dave

I would believe that. McCain ain't no slouch, and politicians are much better at forming alliances than your average "Survivor" cast member.

#41 said what I was implying...i think.

I don't know Nugget, you can never be sure with Dave

But that's only my opinion

"I can't figure out why more people havn't materialized religion (for tax reasons)..." --Nugget #38

I can't figure out why the Government allows abortion... it's killing of future tax payers!

Dave...

Come on, do you really think that McCain is sane? Not to get off the subject but McCain is an emotional rollercoster. Hero and all that aside, I have lots of buddies who are Vietnam Vets and to be perfectly honest with you, the guys who really went through the hell of it all, are all a bit crazy.

Watching McCain during his last attempt at a presidential bid... really shook me up. He went from mild mannered sensible guy to launching/lashing/baring fangs pissed. I'm not at all comfortable with someone possessing that broadrange of emotional swing being so close to the button. Hillary is included in that group.

VR

He had ample reason to be baring fangs pissed. If it'd been me, I'd have sent someone to kneecap Karl Rove & would have buried W in his own shit so deep he'd never be able to mangle another word. What IS appalling is the extent to which McCain is now pandering to BushCo & the same crew that savaged, slandered, & libelled him, in order to (he thinks) get the GOP nomination they're dangling at him. Instead of freezing W like he deserved, he ended up stumping for the bastard in the last election. I could have puked. So much for McCain's vaunted sense of honor.

Meanwhile, Dave # 21 & 22 - I agree totally. No religious institution has any business being government subsidized, either by grants or by tax exempt status. A subject on which I totally agree with you: maybe there should be a commemorative plaque? ;)

Maybe we should frame this a bit differently to see the problems involved. Let's take a hypothetical.

Yeshiva University is a Jewish school in New York. This does not mean that you have to be Jewish to attend, but you have to be aware of certain restrictions - like a kosher cafeteria. And the federal government does give out money to the school in the form of scholarships for students.

So let's say that some student decides to bring a ham sandwich into the cafeteria - and eats it there, making it very clear and public that he has brught pork into the cafeteria. In effect, he has desecrated the cafetereia, or at least a part of it, because it needs to kashered (made pure) once more and no Jew who does keep kosher can eat there until it is.

He has damaged the place for the very people who built the school - and for doing so, the school demands that he pay for the kashering. The student refuses to do so and the school expels him.

The kid sues the school for discrimination.

This is not all that different from what happened at the Baptist school.

Should a student who attends a religious institution, aware of what its restrictions are, be allowed to defraud the school through violating them, and should the school not be allowed to retaliate?

That is the bottom line of my hypothetical, and the bottom line of what happened at this university.

Y'all have fun with this. I'll be gone for the Sabbath.

Shabbat Shalom,
Reuven

I don't think any analogy is accurate in my opinion.

The analogy of eating a ham sandwich is in no way related to a human beings propensity to relate to other human beings (orientation). Refraining from eating a sandwich is far different than refraining from reaching out to another human being for companionship, something that is fundamental to every human's very core.

If I understand right, any college with students who get federally funded financial aid is considered to be government-supported and has to abide by affirmative-action laws, etc.

I love the idea of the government not directly funding higher education. Let the universities fund themselves through private donations and tuition. I am sure universities and colleges can get creative if government funding dried up.

Sure tuition would be through the roof, but let the government give out millions in tuitions credits to students and their parents instead. This would be a great way to create competition among the colleges and universities.

I do not however agree with doing this for K-12 education. I know racism and discrimination are slowly going away, but given the chance, I see parents bring it back up again.

Given total freedom to send your kid wherever you want will recreate white schools, and black schools. And what about the parents that don't care? They'll send their kids to the closest school no matter how good or bad it is.

I think we should switch to a K-9 public education system. Hit the kids hard with the basics, and then send them too more specialized schools as soon as they can pass the GED.

Get kids in Community colleges and 4-year colleges at earlier ages. Or get them out working the bad jobs that nobody wants after 9th grade if they hate school so much.

Ruvy, I think you just made the argument for not giving government money to religious institutions even stronger.

The example you give of violating kosher laws is so ridiculous, that it proves that religion and secular government are inherently incompatible.

Dave

Dave #52 Absofuckinlootly!

Ruvy, I think you just made the argument against religion. A ham sandwich should not have that kind of power.

Yes, there's no using common sense in the ham sandwich worst case scenario. Common sense dictates the aberrations of someone intent on outraging the situation are invalid, therefore there is no actual desecration. I should think actual desecration would stem from some more serious incident, such as someone assaulting or injuring another. That kind of deliberate violence would desecrate, but some snotty kid insisting on a ham sandwich...? This could be taken to extremes, such as what if a student comes in during Pesach with bread in his pocket and some falls out? Does THAT constitute desecration? It can get kind of silly.

In the good old days in Canada when we on had three religions, Protestant, Catholic, and others and before whe had our equivelant of a bill of rights and a constitution, we had something called the British North America Act which set forth all our rules and regulation from how many trees we could cut down to what monies were given over to funding what education.

As this wonderful piece of legislation was written in 1794, before Canada was formed and the British were still worried about French Canada becoming a State in the Union, it was decided that certain protections had to be offered to the French Canadaians of Canada outside of Quebec to ensure the continuation of their culture. The result was that anywhere there were x number of Catholics or they made up a certain percentage of the population, they were guranteed their own school board up to grade ten and complete government funding.

Inside Quebec there would be two school boards, Catholic and Protestant, which pretty much meant French and English. Somwhere down the line after Canada became a country provinces were handed the reins to deal with education. But the would still have to be governed by the rules of the good old British North America act and guarantee the rights of Catholics to have a Catholic education up to grade ten ( I believe grand 10 was selected as the cut off date initially because most people were 16 after that year and that's when public school became optional, therefore if you chose to go to school it was going to cost you to be something other than the mainstream)

At some point when a govenerment of Ontario in the late seventies was facing a difficult election they decided to expand funding for Catholic schools until the completion of high school like all other public insitutions.

Now of course that's become a real mess, because in the interim Candadians have discovered the "others" would like to be funded too. Why, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus, argue should we not get the same rights as the Christian denominations.

In Quebec they either have to go to private schools or go to schools in what is known as the Protestant Board of Education. If they are immigrants who were not native English speakers, they are forced to go to the French Catholic school system so they learn French as a second language not English (That's our language war not a religious war.)

The only religious schools receiving funding from the governments in Canada right now are the Catholic Boards of Education. If you want to open a Babist or other specific Christian denomination grade or secondary school you won't get funding. Neither will you if you are any number of "other" religions.

Why, because no government has the nerve to cut off something that has been assumed to be a right for over 200 years, and also doesn't want to be seen as doling out more money to special interest groups.

The Catholic Schools are free to teach their students anything they want, even if it contrevenes our human right's codes of not preaching against anyone because of their race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. But private religious schools, which don't receive any funding don't seem to enjoy the same imunity.

Why am I telling you this in great lenght and tedium. To show what a convoluted mess government makes when it enters into the field of religious schooling. The answere is very simple I think. If you want to have your child educated according the word of your specific God's law, than you shouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it.

Governments provide free grade school and secondary education for the general public with no specific denomination in mind. You want something else than get your church to pay for it, not the public purse.

That should be the policy from junior kidnigarten to PHD. Politicians make decisions based on how many votes it's either going to win them or cost them in the next election. Do you really want to trust anything important like educational policy to that decision making policy.

That way if anyone is stupid enough to go to a Baptist collage knowing full well that they aren't what you would call enamoured of the gay lifestyle, they can't punnisht the institution by threatening their funding, while at the same time, it will lessen the influence religious groups have over governments because they will not longer be able to blackmail them about the education issue.

Okay I'm done, sorry for that Al, but it was great post and it flipped a switch and turned on the tap.

cheers

Richard

Thank you Richard. That was most informative. Just goes to show what kind of grief you get into when the government starts even recognizing religions.

Just tends to confirm my skepticism of government being in the education business at all.

This separation of church and state thing is being way overblown.

If everyone was being taxed and 100% was going to Catholic schools then yes, the government would be establishing religion.

If 50% of taxes come from Catholics and 50% of kids are in Catholic schools and 50% of the funding goes there then I don't see a problem that's government catering to the will of the people.

Vouchers would eliminate the problem and function exactly as my 50% analogy.

The problem is that liberal control freaks aren't happy allowing people freedom. They want to tax the shit out of everyone, including religious types, and force them to pay for liberal indoctrination at public schools.

If liberals believe they have a right not to have to pay for religious education, then I should have a right to refuse to pay for their liberal socialist indoctrination.

the government has no place in education or religion, but let's be realistic, that's how it is is and how it's going to be. Religion, as it stands is a kinda "you're either for us or against us" type of life choice. If the govt. is not with religion, it's against it.

Redtard: I think you would have been more accurate if you had said "secular" indoctrination. I find it hard to believe that hardcore socialism is being taught in your average American high school (unless you are at Berklee High).

"Secular" is a code word nowadays for anti-anything christian or conservative seeming. Secular used to connotate the absence of religious implementation, but because of all of the recent religion hatred, it simply means "not a part of THEM."

Blah. Blah. Blah. Why would any self-respecting homosexual want to live in Kentucky anyway? Let the Baptists have their beliefs. They won't be around much longer. Christ is coming back sooner than we think -- and I'll bet 50 to 1 He is pissed off!