Here is an article where they talk about John Piper's view on how the Gospel should impact our view on race:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-gospel-should-transform-how-christians-view-race-72120/
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Those Easter Ads
http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-atheists-great-without-god-ads-to-run-during-easter-rejected-72240/
"An atheist organization seeking to show families that they can be "great without God" or religion during Easter weekend received some setback after organizers were told the ads were inappropriate for the Texas theater targeted in the campaign."
"An atheist organization seeking to show families that they can be "great without God" or religion during Easter weekend received some setback after organizers were told the ads were inappropriate for the Texas theater targeted in the campaign."
Friday, March 23, 2012
Christian Clubs Told to 'Stop Whining,' Meet in Homes Like in Communist China
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-clubs-told-to-stop-whining-meet-in-homes-like-in-communist-china-70069/
Those who oppose the policy, he said, should "get over it" and "stop whining."
"I would suggest that people in this position – to use a phrase on a button in my dentist office that he always wears when he works, it says, 'stop whining.' I'd say stop whining here. Why not do what evangelicals do: go out into the world, out into the community [and] have your meetings, if you have to, off campus. Show your faith [and] meet with students not in a club room somewhere in the university, but in those home churches that kept Christianity alive during the darkest days of communist China."
China, though it allows Chinese Christians to worship in two state-approved churches, does not give its people the right of religious freedom. Last year, many Chinese Christians were arrested and detained for conducting religious services in unregistered home churches, according to ChinaAid, a support group for China's persecuted Christians.
Vanderbilt requires organizations on campus to comply with its all-comers policy, which requires groups to extend membership and leadership positions to all who show up at meetings. In other words, organizations cannot require that leaders share the group's beliefs, goals and values.
Lynn said he believes the "all-comers" policy is a great idea.
"If you have a Christian club, the truth is you will be able to have and you will be required to permit [students] of any religious background or no religious background to come to your club, even run for the presidency of your club," he told the NRB audience.
Many Christian clubs on Vanderbilt University's campus already feature nondiscrimination statements in its constitutions allowing people of all beliefs and faiths attend and participate in meetings and activities.
Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt political science and law professor and adviser to the campus' Christian Legal Society, was also part of the four-panelist debate Tuesday.
She said, "The Christian Legal Society and the [Christian] group I'm aware of never discriminate against anyone for membership. They've had an all-comers policy but they've had biblically grounded principles when it comes to leading the organizations."
CLS and other Vanderbilt Christian clubs require leaders be a professing Christian, able to conduct Bible studies and worship meetings.
Lynn argued that Christian groups must "get over" themselves and open up their leadership positions to all people regardless of their beliefs.
Giving the example of a logging proponent heading an environmental club, he said, "I say get over it. This is the kind of thing that people need to be able to deal with in the real world; [there is] no reason they can't deal with it the university setting."
Lynn also argued that private colleges and university such as Vanderbilt should not have to subsidize organizations with principles that they do not agree with. Colleges subsidize student groups by allowing them to freely use campus facilities for meetings and activities as well as providing programmatic funding.
"I think universities, including private universities in particular, … have an absolute right to determine what kind of environment they want on their college campus," he asserted.
The policy, however, is "creating a very chilling environment" for religious freedom, Swain contended.
She and national CLS Senior Counsel Kim Colby told The Christian Post earlier that the policy was pushing CLS and other Christian groups off campus.
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, was also a participant in the NRB debate. He insisted that Christian groups were not being forced off campus.
Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, too insisted that groups were not being forced out but suggested that groups not willing to conform to the university's policy should meet off campus.
The Tennessee university began promoting an all-comers policy after campus Christian fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi reportedly dismissed an openly gay member from his position. Immediately after the incident, the university placed four clubs, including CLS, on provisional status last spring.
Vanderbilt University defended the policy in a statement to CP, saying, "We appreciate the value of religious organizations for our students. A few of our religious organizations maintain that their beliefs prevent them from complying with Vanderbilt's nondiscrimination policy."
"We believe all members of a registered student organization should be eligible to compete for leadership positions, but it is up to each student organization to select its own leaders."
Students and groups affected by the policy may have no legal recourse because the institution is privately funded, according to Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mathew Staver.
Staver said the Tennessee school "can essentially do anything that they want to" in this current circumstance.
By Stephanie Samuel , Christian Post Reporter
February 22, 2012|4:50 pm
NASHVILLE – An Americans United for the Separation of Church and State official told Vanderbilt University Christians to "stop whining" about the institution's all-comers policy and hold their meetings in private homes like Christians in communist China.
During the 2012 National Religious Broadcasters Convention's public policy debate on Tuesday, AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn defended Vanderbilt's right as a private institution to impose a campus-wide nondiscrimination policy that could potentially drive religious student organizations off campus.Those who oppose the policy, he said, should "get over it" and "stop whining."
"I would suggest that people in this position – to use a phrase on a button in my dentist office that he always wears when he works, it says, 'stop whining.' I'd say stop whining here. Why not do what evangelicals do: go out into the world, out into the community [and] have your meetings, if you have to, off campus. Show your faith [and] meet with students not in a club room somewhere in the university, but in those home churches that kept Christianity alive during the darkest days of communist China."
China, though it allows Chinese Christians to worship in two state-approved churches, does not give its people the right of religious freedom. Last year, many Chinese Christians were arrested and detained for conducting religious services in unregistered home churches, according to ChinaAid, a support group for China's persecuted Christians.
Vanderbilt requires organizations on campus to comply with its all-comers policy, which requires groups to extend membership and leadership positions to all who show up at meetings. In other words, organizations cannot require that leaders share the group's beliefs, goals and values.
"If you have a Christian club, the truth is you will be able to have and you will be required to permit [students] of any religious background or no religious background to come to your club, even run for the presidency of your club," he told the NRB audience.
Many Christian clubs on Vanderbilt University's campus already feature nondiscrimination statements in its constitutions allowing people of all beliefs and faiths attend and participate in meetings and activities.
Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt political science and law professor and adviser to the campus' Christian Legal Society, was also part of the four-panelist debate Tuesday.
She said, "The Christian Legal Society and the [Christian] group I'm aware of never discriminate against anyone for membership. They've had an all-comers policy but they've had biblically grounded principles when it comes to leading the organizations."
CLS and other Vanderbilt Christian clubs require leaders be a professing Christian, able to conduct Bible studies and worship meetings.
Lynn argued that Christian groups must "get over" themselves and open up their leadership positions to all people regardless of their beliefs.
Giving the example of a logging proponent heading an environmental club, he said, "I say get over it. This is the kind of thing that people need to be able to deal with in the real world; [there is] no reason they can't deal with it the university setting."
Lynn also argued that private colleges and university such as Vanderbilt should not have to subsidize organizations with principles that they do not agree with. Colleges subsidize student groups by allowing them to freely use campus facilities for meetings and activities as well as providing programmatic funding.
"I think universities, including private universities in particular, … have an absolute right to determine what kind of environment they want on their college campus," he asserted.
The policy, however, is "creating a very chilling environment" for religious freedom, Swain contended.
She and national CLS Senior Counsel Kim Colby told The Christian Post earlier that the policy was pushing CLS and other Christian groups off campus.
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, was also a participant in the NRB debate. He insisted that Christian groups were not being forced off campus.
Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, too insisted that groups were not being forced out but suggested that groups not willing to conform to the university's policy should meet off campus.
The Tennessee university began promoting an all-comers policy after campus Christian fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi reportedly dismissed an openly gay member from his position. Immediately after the incident, the university placed four clubs, including CLS, on provisional status last spring.
Vanderbilt University defended the policy in a statement to CP, saying, "We appreciate the value of religious organizations for our students. A few of our religious organizations maintain that their beliefs prevent them from complying with Vanderbilt's nondiscrimination policy."
"We believe all members of a registered student organization should be eligible to compete for leadership positions, but it is up to each student organization to select its own leaders."
Students and groups affected by the policy may have no legal recourse because the institution is privately funded, according to Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mathew Staver.
Staver said the Tennessee school "can essentially do anything that they want to" in this current circumstance.
Supreme Court Rejects Christian Clubs' Appeal on School's Nondiscrimination Policy
http://www.christianpost.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-christian-fraternity-sorority-appeal-on-schools-nondiscrimination-policy-71787/
"The United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case today. Alpha Delta Chi (ADX) v Reed. But that's not really news considering that they decide not to hear about 99% of the cases brought to them," said David Cortman, ADF senior counsel.
"What is news though is that the issue in the case of whether religious groups can choose leaders who share their religious beliefs remains hotly contested on the national level."
Religious organizations across the country like InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and the two groups at SDSU are currently fighting to "remain religious," as Cortman described, with several universities targeting Christian groups for their purportedly "discriminatory" policies.
This includes requiring a leader to agree with the organization's statement of faith.
"Christian student groups from coast to coast are being told that it is supposed 'discrimination' to choose leaders who share their religious beliefs," Cortman told The Christian Post.
"Seemingly to most, whether a group is religious or not, having a leader who shares the group's beliefs is simply common sense. This is especially so when many other (nonreligious) student clubs are permitted to choose leaders who share their ideological beliefs or viewpoints."
This was not logic, but law, the ADF lawyer stated.
In the case of Alpha Delta Chi v. Reed, a Christian sorority and fraternity sought to challenge a nondiscrimination policy of California State universities, which says that officially recognized campus groups cannot discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.
"No campus shall recognize any fraternity, sorority, living group, honor society, or other student organization unless its members and leadership are open to all currently enrolled students at that campus, except that a social fraternity or other university living group may impose a gender limitation as permitted by Title 5," the policy reads.
If groups refused to adopt the university's policy, they would not be eligible for things like student funding, posting signs on campus, reserving office and meeting spaces, using the school name or mascot, and promoting themselves on the university's website.
Both the Alpha Gamma Omega fraternity and Alpha Delta Chi sorority have struggled to make ends meet by refusing to adopt the policy, which they believe is unconstitutional.
ADF filed a petition in December 2011 on behalf of the two groups at SDSU, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the university's policy.
Judge Harry Pregerson of the appeals court previously said that religious organizations could continue to set their own membership rules but they could not expect the university to subsidize them.
Cortman explained to CP, however, that Pregerson's remark was an inaccurate way of viewing the case.
"There is no 'subsidy' to religious groups when every student group shares in the same system of benefits set up by the school," he said. "It is more accurately an 'equal access' principle."
"The point of allowing students to form groups around those who are like-minded is to promote the supposed marketplace of ideas and to increase scholarship and debate. Nor does it increase the coveted diversity or tolerance we so often hear about to essentially silence certain groups by requiring them to be led by those who may disagree with their views."
Universities are in many ways a microcosm of society, Cortman further noted. For him, the subsidy argument would be similar to claiming that religious organizations or churches are "free to exist" but cannot use a municipality's water and sewer system, be protected by the police or fire department, or even use public roads for transportation – even though all other organizations are allowed to do so.
Though his organization had hoped to clarify the contested issue by appealing to the Supreme Court, they were rejected on Monday, continuing the battle and the confusion.
"Although I have read several theories as to why the court chose not to hear the case (including that they had already taken several cases with highly contested issues this term), in reality, my guess is that no one (outside the court) really knows the answer," the attorney asserted.
"We had hoped that the Supreme Court would have chosen to hear this case due to the continuing national importance of the issue," Cortman concluded, disappointed but not surprised by their stance.
He understood that at some point, however, the Supreme Court would in fact have to weigh in on the issue as the battled rages on between universities and religious groups.
The Alliance Defense Fund is currently evaluating their next steps, including possibly doing discovery on the supposed "new" policy that the university adopted at the 11th hour on the steps of the Supreme Court.
"It certainly should raise the question to all interested as to why the university, at the last minute, changed its policy that it so vehemently defended as constitutional for so many years. Most often actions speak louder than words."
By Eryn Sun , Christian Post Reporter
March 20, 2012|10:33 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal by two religious groups at San Diego State University who sought to limit their membership to those who shared the same beliefs and values.
In a one-sentence order with no comment, the high court declined to hear the case, which came as no surprise to the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Alpha Delta Chi sorority and Alpha Gamma Omega fraternity."The United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case today. Alpha Delta Chi (ADX) v Reed. But that's not really news considering that they decide not to hear about 99% of the cases brought to them," said David Cortman, ADF senior counsel.
"What is news though is that the issue in the case of whether religious groups can choose leaders who share their religious beliefs remains hotly contested on the national level."
Religious organizations across the country like InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and the two groups at SDSU are currently fighting to "remain religious," as Cortman described, with several universities targeting Christian groups for their purportedly "discriminatory" policies.
This includes requiring a leader to agree with the organization's statement of faith.
Like us on Facebook
"Seemingly to most, whether a group is religious or not, having a leader who shares the group's beliefs is simply common sense. This is especially so when many other (nonreligious) student clubs are permitted to choose leaders who share their ideological beliefs or viewpoints."
This was not logic, but law, the ADF lawyer stated.
In the case of Alpha Delta Chi v. Reed, a Christian sorority and fraternity sought to challenge a nondiscrimination policy of California State universities, which says that officially recognized campus groups cannot discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.
"No campus shall recognize any fraternity, sorority, living group, honor society, or other student organization unless its members and leadership are open to all currently enrolled students at that campus, except that a social fraternity or other university living group may impose a gender limitation as permitted by Title 5," the policy reads.
If groups refused to adopt the university's policy, they would not be eligible for things like student funding, posting signs on campus, reserving office and meeting spaces, using the school name or mascot, and promoting themselves on the university's website.
Both the Alpha Gamma Omega fraternity and Alpha Delta Chi sorority have struggled to make ends meet by refusing to adopt the policy, which they believe is unconstitutional.
ADF filed a petition in December 2011 on behalf of the two groups at SDSU, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the university's policy.
Judge Harry Pregerson of the appeals court previously said that religious organizations could continue to set their own membership rules but they could not expect the university to subsidize them.
Cortman explained to CP, however, that Pregerson's remark was an inaccurate way of viewing the case.
"There is no 'subsidy' to religious groups when every student group shares in the same system of benefits set up by the school," he said. "It is more accurately an 'equal access' principle."
"The point of allowing students to form groups around those who are like-minded is to promote the supposed marketplace of ideas and to increase scholarship and debate. Nor does it increase the coveted diversity or tolerance we so often hear about to essentially silence certain groups by requiring them to be led by those who may disagree with their views."
Universities are in many ways a microcosm of society, Cortman further noted. For him, the subsidy argument would be similar to claiming that religious organizations or churches are "free to exist" but cannot use a municipality's water and sewer system, be protected by the police or fire department, or even use public roads for transportation – even though all other organizations are allowed to do so.
Though his organization had hoped to clarify the contested issue by appealing to the Supreme Court, they were rejected on Monday, continuing the battle and the confusion.
"Although I have read several theories as to why the court chose not to hear the case (including that they had already taken several cases with highly contested issues this term), in reality, my guess is that no one (outside the court) really knows the answer," the attorney asserted.
"We had hoped that the Supreme Court would have chosen to hear this case due to the continuing national importance of the issue," Cortman concluded, disappointed but not surprised by their stance.
He understood that at some point, however, the Supreme Court would in fact have to weigh in on the issue as the battled rages on between universities and religious groups.
The Alliance Defense Fund is currently evaluating their next steps, including possibly doing discovery on the supposed "new" policy that the university adopted at the 11th hour on the steps of the Supreme Court.
"It certainly should raise the question to all interested as to why the university, at the last minute, changed its policy that it so vehemently defended as constitutional for so many years. Most often actions speak louder than words."
Contraceptive Regulation
Here is one response regarding the issue of religious institutions having to cover the cost of contraceptives for employees or students.
CCCU Sends March 9th Letter to White House Regarding Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation
March 13, 2012
WASHINGTON – In a Friday, March 9 letter to the White House, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities expressed its continued concern about the contraceptive mandate contained in the August 3, 2011, amendment to the Department of Health and Human Services regulations entitled Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventative Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (File Code CMS-9992-IFC2).
This mandate requires all employers, including religious institutions, to cover contraceptive services in their health care plans, including covering the contraceptives Plan-B and ella, which are widely considered to be abortion causing drugs. Though the final regulations published on February 15, 2012, exempt churches from this mandate, the regulations do not offer exemption for other types of religious organizations, including CCCU institutions.
In response to wide concern about the narrow exemption, President Obama indicated in a February 10 public statement that his administration had developed an “accommodation” for religious groups. He described an “accommodation” that would not exempt these groups from the mandate in the way that churches are exempt but would allow these other religious groups to avoid including in their health care plan services they find objectionable. Instead, each group’s insurance company would be required to offer coverage for those objectionable services to the institution’s employees directly at no cost to the employee or employer. In its letter last week, the CCCU expressed praise for the President’s desire to protect religious liberty, but concern about the narrowness of the religious exemption in the finalized regulations, including the fact that the regulations create two tiers of religious institutions.
“We believe the role of separating religious groups into two tiers, groups that are religious enough to be exempt and groups that are deemed less religious and must therefore only be ‘accommodated’ is not an appropriate role for the federal government because it puts the federal government in the position of determining the sincerity of the religious commitment of various groups. We believe this is a precedent that could have long-term harmful effects on faith-based organizations, that are neither churches nor run by churches, yet are just as deeply committed to the principles of their faith as are centers of worship,” wrote CCCU President Paul Corts in the CCCU’s letter.
Instead, the letter suggested that broader language, such as the exemption contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, be used. “We believe that a better exemption would equally recognize all religious organizations that hold themselves out to the public as religious and that engage in religious, charitable, or educational activities for sincere religious purposes – such as the one found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that recognizes any church, school, college, university, or other educational institution as eligible for the religious exemption if the institution is operated, owned, supported, and controlled by a religious corporation, or if the curriculum is intended to disperse the ideas of a particular religion (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e) (2)),” Corts wrote.
The CCCU’s letter indicated, however, that if the White House would not expand the scope of the exemption, other steps could be taken to improve the accommodation and better bring it in line with President Obama’s stated goal of protecting religious liberty. Stating that the accommodation framework must apply the President’s workaround to both self-insured institutions and to student plans, the letter also requested that the regulations explicitly state that establishing two tiers of religious organizations, exempted versus accommodated, did not indicate any difference in the sincerity of the religious commitment of groups in both tiers.
Finally, the letter also asked for a very robust firewall between the religious institution and their insurance providers’ provision of the objectionable services to the religious institutions’ employees. Corts stated that, “Merely requiring insurance companies to offer this coverage does not provide this level of assurance to our institutions. Rather, only an arms-length transaction, such as from a third-party entity established to provide coverage of all of the FDA required contraceptives that insurance companies can buy into, could provide our institutions the assurance that their premiums were not indirectly paying for the services they so oppose.”
Previously, the CCCU signed an inter-faith letter dated August 26, 2011, to Joshua DuBois, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; submitted comments on September 30, 2011, to the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and the Internal Revenue Service; and wrote a December 23, 2011, letter to President Obama opposing the limited religious protection contained in the mandate.
This mandate requires all employers, including religious institutions, to cover contraceptive services in their health care plans, including covering the contraceptives Plan-B and ella, which are widely considered to be abortion causing drugs. Though the final regulations published on February 15, 2012, exempt churches from this mandate, the regulations do not offer exemption for other types of religious organizations, including CCCU institutions.
In response to wide concern about the narrow exemption, President Obama indicated in a February 10 public statement that his administration had developed an “accommodation” for religious groups. He described an “accommodation” that would not exempt these groups from the mandate in the way that churches are exempt but would allow these other religious groups to avoid including in their health care plan services they find objectionable. Instead, each group’s insurance company would be required to offer coverage for those objectionable services to the institution’s employees directly at no cost to the employee or employer. In its letter last week, the CCCU expressed praise for the President’s desire to protect religious liberty, but concern about the narrowness of the religious exemption in the finalized regulations, including the fact that the regulations create two tiers of religious institutions.
“We believe the role of separating religious groups into two tiers, groups that are religious enough to be exempt and groups that are deemed less religious and must therefore only be ‘accommodated’ is not an appropriate role for the federal government because it puts the federal government in the position of determining the sincerity of the religious commitment of various groups. We believe this is a precedent that could have long-term harmful effects on faith-based organizations, that are neither churches nor run by churches, yet are just as deeply committed to the principles of their faith as are centers of worship,” wrote CCCU President Paul Corts in the CCCU’s letter.
Instead, the letter suggested that broader language, such as the exemption contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, be used. “We believe that a better exemption would equally recognize all religious organizations that hold themselves out to the public as religious and that engage in religious, charitable, or educational activities for sincere religious purposes – such as the one found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that recognizes any church, school, college, university, or other educational institution as eligible for the religious exemption if the institution is operated, owned, supported, and controlled by a religious corporation, or if the curriculum is intended to disperse the ideas of a particular religion (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e) (2)),” Corts wrote.
The CCCU’s letter indicated, however, that if the White House would not expand the scope of the exemption, other steps could be taken to improve the accommodation and better bring it in line with President Obama’s stated goal of protecting religious liberty. Stating that the accommodation framework must apply the President’s workaround to both self-insured institutions and to student plans, the letter also requested that the regulations explicitly state that establishing two tiers of religious organizations, exempted versus accommodated, did not indicate any difference in the sincerity of the religious commitment of groups in both tiers.
Finally, the letter also asked for a very robust firewall between the religious institution and their insurance providers’ provision of the objectionable services to the religious institutions’ employees. Corts stated that, “Merely requiring insurance companies to offer this coverage does not provide this level of assurance to our institutions. Rather, only an arms-length transaction, such as from a third-party entity established to provide coverage of all of the FDA required contraceptives that insurance companies can buy into, could provide our institutions the assurance that their premiums were not indirectly paying for the services they so oppose.”
Previously, the CCCU signed an inter-faith letter dated August 26, 2011, to Joshua DuBois, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; submitted comments on September 30, 2011, to the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and the Internal Revenue Service; and wrote a December 23, 2011, letter to President Obama opposing the limited religious protection contained in the mandate.
###
About the CCCU: The Council for Christian Colleges & Universities is a higher education association of 185 intentionally Christ-centered institutions around the world. The 116 member campuses in North America are all fully-accredited, comprehensive colleges and universities with curricula rooted in the arts and sciences. In addition, 69 affiliate campuses from 25 countries are part of the CCCU. The Council’s mission is to advance the cause of Christ-centered higher education and to help its institutions transform lives by faithfully relating scholarship and service to biblical truth. Visit www.cccu.org.Saturday, March 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)