← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 12861 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2004-03-24
2004-03-24 20:03 | User Profile
For those that hold out hope in the younger generations being more conservative and principled than their forebears:
[url=pr.baylor.edu/story.php?id=004981]Statement From President Robert B. Sloan Jr. Regarding Baylor Lariat Editorial On Gay Marriage[/url]
March 1, 2004
Baylor University President Robert B. Sloan Jr. released the following statement today, regarding a Feb. 27 editorial in The Lariat, Baylor's student newspaper, on gay marriage:
Baylor University's student newspaper, the Baylor Lariat, last Friday published an editorial supporting the City of San Francisco's lawsuit against the State of California to declare unconstitutional sections of the California Family Code defining marriage as a union of a man and woman. By a 5-2 vote, the student editorial board opined that, taking into account equal protection under the law, gay couples should be granted the same equal rights to legal marriage as heterosexual couples.
It is important for Baylor constituents to know that this position held by five students does not reflect the views of the administration, faculty, staff, Board of Regents or Student Publications Board, which oversees the Lariat. Nor do I believe this stance on gay marriage is shared by the vast majority of Baylor's 14,000 students and 100,000 alumni.
We have already heard from a number of students, alumni and parents who are, as am I, justifiably outraged over this editorial. Espousing in a Baylor publication a view that is so out of touch with traditional Christian teachings is not only unwelcome, it comes dangerously close to violating University policy, as published in the Student Handbook, prohibiting the advocacy of any understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching. The Student Publications Board will be addressing this matter with the Lariat staff as soon as possible.
In the meantime, I would like to assure Baylor constituents that, while we respect the right of students to hold and express divergent viewpoints, we do not support the use of publications such as the Lariat, which is published by the University, to advocate positions that undermine foundational Christian principles upon which this institution was founded and currently operates.
The University should clean house at the student editorial board and/or shut the Lariat down entirely. Admittedly, I was shocked by this.
2004-03-25 22:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The University should clean house at the student editorial board and/or shut the Lariat down entirely. Admittedly, I was shocked by this.[/QUOTE]
Well at least the response to the editorial was reasonable. All except for the part about being "shocked". After 12 to 16 years of indoctrination into the blessings of multiculturalism, alternate lifestyles, socialism, and diversity, how would you expect todays youth to behave or believe?
2004-03-25 23:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jeffersonian]After 12 to 16 years of indoctrination into the blessings of multiculturalism, alternate lifestyles, socialism, and diversity, how would you expect todays youth to behave or believe?[/QUOTE]
Today's run of the mill youth is one thing, but I would certainly expect more from a non-athletic scholarship student at Baylor University, much less one that writes editorials for 'The Lariat'. From what I've been able to gauge, I think this episode has sent out some wake-up calls within the evangelical community, so maybe some good will have come of it.
2004-03-25 23:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Today's run of the mill youth is one thing, but I would certainly expect more from a non-athletic scholarship student at Baylor University, much less one that writes editorials for 'The Lariat'. From what I've been able to gauge, I think this episode has sent out some wake-up calls within the evangelical community, so maybe some good will have come of it.[/QUOTE] I don't know. Texas Baptists have really gone pretty strongly to the moderate camp in the split between the conservatice SBC and the moderate cooperative fellowship. Texas voted to defund the conservative seminaries and the Texas SBC generally seems to have gone with the moderates about 2 to 1, unlike here in Oklahoma where its still pretty conservative.
Baylor of course always seemed to be pretty left-wing, and of course it pulled off that coup-de-grace a few years ago where it left the Texas SBC and became independent.
If Texas Baptists had any gumption they woud have brought Baylor to its knees for this long ago - instead they just seemed to be going with the flow. Must be the impish spirit of Dubbya running amuck in the lone star state.
2004-03-26 23:59 | User Profile
This is where the administration, itself gone south with Bush, comes up against the other ("liberal") side of the neocon equation. Israeli defenders abroad vrs. multicult (Jewish) defenders among young adults. So they work it out. 0 + 0 = 0 The boat was missed further back.
And further back than the SBC/Baylor breakup, though I was not close then, nor now escept in response to Sloan's take-over.
The standing oppositin is between the "fundies" and the learned -- those who accept higher Bible criticism taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville since the l950 -- took a course in it in the OT dept, myself, circa '55. The Pentateuch is a patching together of different fragment documents, not all of one person's authorship. The geat neoorthodox scholars of Protestanism are the Germans Karl Barth, R. Bultmann (concervative-leberal end of the spectrum; the great Swiss theologian Emil Brunner. Later, Paul and Richard Neibuhr, Paul Tillich. Such was/is the mix of philosophy and theology that ought to have fed back into, and worked out in dialectic with fear and trembling, in turn-of-mid-century Christian instititiions.
Instead, we were given the Vietnam war, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baynes Johnson. This took the "social gospel" spirituality derivative of "Hebraicized-Puritanism" of carpetscumbaggers over into "civil rights as civil religion", by appeal to distorted Americanism (distorted by the "communist-capitalist" economic theory lines drawn in religious terms -- as if God favored Adam Smith). Communism was surely the best system for emerging China; as in Vietnam; and it was compatible with Buddhism until the South's Deim began agitating the North's Catholics, and Kennedy, to give them a democratic homeland in South Vietnam. America never won, nor could it have ever won, because it was never America's war. America scrambled in panic retreat into helicopters as North Vietnamese regulars moved in. It turns out there were Jews behind the scenes then, as now, manipulating things favorably for Israel. And their point of view, which had never distinguished state from religion in its own case, even while expecting it to be scrupously distinguished by everyone else, especially America, where it was incorporated into a constitutional form of government, sidles up alongside, cozying up and currying favor, with, the civil rights as civil religion Forest Gumps of Southern Baptist church pews. Whose kids wind up across the table from President Richard Sloan (studied in Switzerland, bona fides say, but don't know where). These were people basically ruined by Reaganism. It was the second wave of civil-religious sinfulness after Nixon's mockery of manhood, read Kissinger and Safire, led the first collapse.
I haven't had time to fine-tune what Land and Sloan should say, to each other, their constituents, and America about use of the "G-" word in public. The point would be, however, that this cannot be done under open interpretation that it was ever used in reference to anything Jews call YHWH, or even anything anyone might use in anyother language that English, the KJV thereof being that under which oaths were first signed here.
That would win elections, if there were any candidate a True Christ Christian could endorse ("There ain't but one side of the Coss per person, you are on one or the other.")