SBC Today » Religious Liberty

Vanderbilt University’s Discriminatory PoliciesAgainst Campus Religious Organizations:An Update

the editors of SBC Today — Fri, 11 May 2012 22:50:15 +0000

In February 2012, SBC Today published a series of articles warning about the impact of Vanderbilt University’s “all comers” policies on Christian student organizations on campus (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4). The so-called “non-discrimination policy,” which in fact discriminates against Christian groups, insists that the campus Christian organizations cannot limit their leadership positions to Christians. The university is not applying these “all comers” rules to other campus organizations such as fraternities (except for a Christian fraternity) or sororities. The Tennessee legislature has passed a bill that would pressure Vanderbilt to reverse this egregious policy, but Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has announced he will veto it (see story in the National Review). These actions have been opposed by scores of Christian groups and national leaders (many of these are cited in Part 4 noted above, along with ways you can voice your opinion).

In all, fourteen Christian organizations have refused to submit to the “all comers” policy. Eleven Christian campus organizations, including Vanderbilt Catholic, have formed a group called “Vanderbilt Solidarity” to oppose the religious discrimination being instituted by the policy (see the Washington Post story, The Foundry blog of the Network story, the Nashville National Public Radio story, and the Vanderbilt InterVarsity Christian Fellowship blog story).

The most recent happening in this story is that the Vanderbilt Baptist Campus Ministry has also declined to receive recognized student organization status, because they could not in good conscience sign the required Vanderbilt policies (see the Baptist and Reflector article and the Associated Baptist Press article).

Already, several other private and public universities have quietly enacted the Vanderbilt “all comers” policy themselves. If this policy is followed nationwide, it will severely hamper access of Christian campus ministries to college students at this key time in their lives.

For more perspective on this issue, see the following articles:

“Restore Religious Freedom at Vanderbilt” is a website that is the most comprehensive place to see a listing of all the articles, protests, and issues revolving around this issue. The website is maintained by Christians on the Vanderbilt campus.
“Anti-bias Policies Drive Some Religious Groups Off Campus,” by Bob Smietana in USA Today, citing how “all comers” policies are driving Christian student groups underground or off campus at Hastings College (University of California), University of Buffalo, University of North Carolina – Greensboro, and Vanderbilt.
“Group Takes Dispute over VU Nondiscrimination Policy to Alumni,” by Bob Smietana in The Tennessean, noting a new media campaign by the Restore Religious Freedom at Vanderbilt group to mobilize Vanderbilt alumni to help students resist the religious discrimination policies of Vanderbilt.
“Vanderbilt’s Right to Despise Christianity,” by Michael Stokes Paulsen (Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas) in the Witherspoon Institute Public Discourse blog, with a careful discussion of the legal issues involved in Vanderbilt University’s discrimination against religious groups.
“Reverend Gomes and Religious Freedom,” by Tish Harrison Warren (Campus Minister for Vanderbilt’s Intervarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship) in Inside Vandy, noting the irony of incoming freshmen students at Vanderbilt being required to read a book by Gomes, an openly gay Baptist whom the New York Times described as one of the leading religious voices against intolerance, when in fact Gomes openly rebuked Harvard University for a policy very similar to Vanderbilt’s policy which intolerantly discriminates against religious groups on campus.
“Anti-Religious Campus Policies Targeted by ADF,” by Leigh Jones in Baptist Press, citing the intention of the Alliance Defense Fund to challenge the university policies which inhibit the First Amendment rights of its students. Their expectation is to go to federal court, and ultimately to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
“Threats to Religious Freedom on Campus and Across the Nation,” a YouTube video of a panel discussion with Jim Blumstein, Robert P. George, and Michael Paulsen, moderated by Vanderbilt Christian Legal Society director and Law Professor Carol M. Swain.

The Debate Is about Conscience, not Contraceptives

Richard Land — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 06:10:03 +0000

Richard Land is President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Note to our readers: Many Christians – both Catholics and evangelicals – have expressed profound concern about the Obama administration’s decision to force employers to include abortifacients in all health care insurance plans (including those who have religious objections to being required to do so). Although the House of Representatives passed a measure to allow for moral exceptions to this requirement, the Blount amendment failed by just a few votes in the Senate this week. Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC, provides a Christian perspective and reflects on First Amendment rights to help our readers grapple with this important issue.

Let’s begin by making one thing crystal clear. The debate generated by the Obama administration’s requirement that virtually all health care insurance plans provide free contraceptives, abortifacients (abortion-causing drugs) and sterilization services is not a debate about contraception or “reproductive services.”

This debate is about coercion, not Catholics; conscience, not contraception; and freedom, not fertility.

We believe as Americans that every human being has a God-given right of freedom of faith and conscience. Due to our forefathers’ persecutions, persistence and insistence, this freedom is acknowledged and recognized in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The “free exercise of religion” goes well beyond the “freedom of worship” concept so often used today by those who fail to understand, or reject, the Constitution’s religious freedom protections. For them freedom of worship is restricted to church and home, to the space between your ears and the space between your shoulders. But free exercise of religion is far more robust and includes the rights to share one’s faith and to live out its implications in the social and economic spheres — in other words, the freedom to exercise or act and the right not to be coerced. We must not stand by and allow our God-given rights to religious freedom, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, to be atrophied, confined and restricted into mere freedom of worship.

The Obama administration’s recent actions, as Cardinal Dolan said in his Feb. 22 letter to his fellow Catholic bishops, “have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a ‘privilege’ arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing, extreme form of secularism.” Cardinal Dolan has hit the proverbial nail on the head. This controversy is about conscience, not contraception. In America our First Amendment freedom of religion does not depend on government benevolence or toleration. Typical of the secular mindset dominating the media and the higher precincts of the Obama administration is the misguided declaration of New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristoff who wrote in a recent column (Feb. 22): “The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them when we can.”

Given this secularist mindset one could argue that the HHS mandate violates not only the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, but the establishment clause as well. When the federal government asserts the right to universally mandate actions, trample religious convictions, and then grant exemptions to those it chooses, the government is behaving perilously like a secular theocracy granting ecclesiastical indulgences to a chosen few.

Our forefathers knew how tenuous, unreliable, and intolerant such government toleration could be. Roger Williams, a 17th-century Baptist minister and the founder of Providence Plantations (later Rhode Island) asserted that, “Man hath no power to make laws to bind conscience,” and went on to say that forcing a person’s conscience was “the rape of the soul.”

Thomas Jefferson, chief drafter of the Declaration of Independence and our nation’s third president, argued in 1779 during the campaign for the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Jefferson, in the last year of his presidency (1809), looking back on the accomplishments of the American Revolution, declared, “No provision of our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprise of the civil authority.”

The great 18th-century Baptist leader John Leland, friend and colleague of both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who help framed the First Amendment free exercise clause, declared “that religion is a matter between God and individuals, religious opinions of men not being the objects of civil government nor in any way under its control” (1791).

Indeed, at the time of the American Revolution, when our forefathers took on the world’s first superpower, the British Empire, the Continental Congress (1775), needing every able-bodied man to fight off a powerful invading force intent on crushing the rebellion, granted exemption from military service to the Moravian and Quaker colonists whose religious convictions included the renunciation of participating in war. Of course this tradition has been continued with the government granting conscientious objector status from a military draft for those with similar religious convictions throughout our history, even when the government was under dire threat. In modern times Pope John Paul II correctly identified religious freedom as the “first freedom” and as “the premise and guarantee of all freedoms that ensure the common good.” In his 1999 papal letter, “Respect for Human Rights” Pope John Paul II explained: “Religion expresses the deepest aspirations of the human person, shapes people’s vision of the world and affects their relationships with others; basically, it offers the answer to question of the true meaning of life, both personal and communal. Religious freedom therefore constitutes the very heart of human rights.”

People of all faiths — and no faith — should rise up and demand that the Obama administration rescind its HHS mandate that insurance-subsidized and free contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization procedures be required of all but churches. Such government coercion of conscience is intolerable.

The president’s supposed “compromise” of having insurance companies pay for these services is an accounting trick, a distinction without a difference. The cost to the insurance companies will be built into the premiums, paid by the religious organization or the individual.

This controversy is about freedom, not fertility. As Cardinal Dolan asks in his letter, “If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end?”

Indeed! Let’s all understand what is at stake here. Unless you are a priest or a minister working for a church or you work for a firm with less than 50 employees, here is the dilemma you will face. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not strike down Obamacare’s mandate that all people purchase health insurance upon penalty of a substantial fine, and if Obamacare, unimpeded, takes effect as scheduled Jan. 1, 2014, millions of Americans will be faced with a tortuous choice. If you have religious conscience objections to subsidizing contraception, or abortifacients, or sterilization in your health insurance program, you will face a stark choice. Under Obamacare, all health insurance programs will be required to offer free reproductive services (i.e. contraception, abortifacients, sterilization), which means that many Americans will face the choice of violating their deeply held religious convictions and purchasing health insurance which forces them to financially subsidize that which they find unconscionable (i.e. reproductive services) or pay a substantial fine for declining to purchase health insurance and not having health insurance for their families.

A government imposed fine for following your religious convictions? In America? Say it isn’t so! Our Founding Fathers would be aghast.

This article was originally posted here on March 1, 2012 by Baptist Press and has been reposted by permission of the author and Baptist Press.

Religious Discrimination at Vanderbilt, Part 4:Why Is the Vanderbilt AdministrationIgnoring Nationwide Appeals toReconsider Its Religious Discrimination Policy?

Steve Lemke — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:10:08 +0000

Dr. Steve Lemke is Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, and McFarland Chair of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and the Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry.

This is the fourth of a four-part series on the religious liberty crisis at Vanderbilt University. The previous articles are –

“Part 1: Why Is Vanderbilt University Persecuting Its Christian Students”

“Part 2: Why Is Vanderbilt Violating the Constitutional Rights of Its Students?”

“Part 3: Is the Vanderbilt University Administration Disseminating Misinformation about ItsPolicies to Repress Christian Organizations on Campus?”

Breaking News — Vanderbilt University is now targeting the Baptist Collegiate Ministry on the Vanderbilt campus. The Vanderbilt BCM has been told if they even require that their leaders have “faith,” then it is discriminatory. See the story in Baptist Press. We plead with all Baptists and Christians to stand up against the Vanderbilt administration’s discrimination against Christians.

In the first article of this series, we recounted how Vanderbilt University is denying its students their First Amendment Rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of association by forcing Christian campus organizations off-campus unless they remove from their constitutions all Christian beliefs or requirements for group leaders to hold Christian beliefs. Vanderbilt also denied requirements that leaders of Christian groups be expected to lead in Bible studies, prayer, or worship experiences. Christian groups had to make themselves completely vulnerable to hostile takeovers by anti-Christian groups to retain their registered student group status on the Vanderbilt campus. The second article detailed why these new policies at Vanderbilt violate the First Amendment rights of their students, and the third article enumerated five areas that the Vanderbilt administration has misrepresented these new rules to the public.

The protests of the student groups against this new policy were detailed in each of these articles. What has been the response of Christian leaders around the country? With one voice, Christians from a wide array of denominations and perspectives have protested the new policy at Vanderbilt and called for removing it:

Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, wrote a scathing letter to Vanderbilt Chancellor Zeppos and other university administrators September 21, 2011, documenting in very specific detail the institution’s interaction with the Christian Legal Society and calling for changes in the new institutional policies.
Twenty-three members of Congress wrote the Vanderbilt chancellor a letter of protest October 26, 2011, about the university’s abridgement of its students’ religious liberties, including the following (as reported in Catholic news outlet EWTN):

“Religious student groups form around specific beliefs. Selecting leaders that best represent a student organization’s mission is not discrimination; it is common sense. Religious groups must be allowed to select leaders that share the group’s core religious beliefs in order to maintain their religious identities and carry out their primary functions.”

Nationally known columnist George Will wrote an article in the Washington Post November 2, 2011, entitled “Conformity for Diversity’s Sake,” protesting the Vanderbilt decision, noting:

“Unfortunately, in the name of tolerance, what is tolerable is being defined ever more narrowly. . . . Vanderbilt’s policy, formulated in the name of enlarging rights, is another skirmish in the progressives’ struggle to deny more and more social entities the right to deviate from government promoted homogeneity of belief. Such compulsory conformity is, of course, enforced in the name of diversity.”

Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Leigh Anderson, President of the American Association of Evangelicals, and Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., General Counsel to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, wrote a letter of protest November 8, 2011, to the Vanderbilt Board of Trust asking that the new policy be reconsidered.
David French, General Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, wrote a lengthy letter November 9, 2011, to the Vanderbilt Board of Trust patiently recounting the legal issues involved in the university’s decision and recounting a number of voices protesting the decision.
Six nationally known distinguished law professors (from the University of Virginia, University of Missouri, Notre Dame, Stanford, and University of St. Thomas law schools) wrote a letter to the Vanderbilt chancellor and Board of Trust, patiently explaining that the new Vanderbilt policy was not required by law but did violate student constitutional rights.
Ben Chamness, resident Bishop in Nashville for the United Methodist Church, wrote an open letter of protest in The Tennessean February 2, 2012, to Chancellor Zeppos against the policy.
Fox News ran an interview with Vanderbilt alumnus Christian Lanier protesting the university’s new policies.
Nancy Hedrick, Executive Vice President of Communications for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, lamented the decision with this statement (as reported in World magazine):

“For over 40 years, we have worked with Vanderbilt’s coaches and student-athletes to foster positive character development and guidance for school and life. We are particularly grieved that Vanderbilt coaches and student-athletes who have benefited from their participation with FCA, will no longer have that full opportunity.”

InterVarsity Fellowship has had a national week of prayer for Vanderbilt, and has been lobbying Vanderbilt alumni and supporters to encourage Vanderbilt leaders to change the new discriminatory rule.
Jason Holt, national Executive Director of Beta Upsilon Chi, also protested the new rules in an opinion article in Fox News entitled “Why Is Vanderbilt Turning Hostile to Religion on Its Campus?”:

“If students are to flourish in a learning environment that values diversity, community and debate, college administrators must return to the nationwide practice of allowing an exemption in their religious nondiscrimination policy for religious organizations – organizations whose very reason for existence is to promote a particular religion. Policies like Vanderbilt’s irrationally discriminate against such groups, and fail to fulfill universities’ duty to protect students’ rights to associate and operate under their constitutionally-protected beliefs.”

Roman Catholics have joined in the protest with evangelicals. According to articles in Catholic Free Press, World News in CatholicCulture.org, and the Catholic Diocese of Nashville website, Father John Sims Baker, the Catholic chaplain at Vanderbilt, wrote in a letter to the school’s chancellor that the policy “will restrict freedom and diversity in student life by jeopardizing authentic religious expression.” Bishop David R. Choby of the Nashville Catholic Diocese also wrote Vanderbilt Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos asking that the university “not apply Vanderbilt’s laudatory nondiscrimination policy in this unfortunate manner.” The Vandy Catholic organization wrote a letter of protest to Vanderbilt Chancellor Zeppos October 26, 2011. A letter of protest from the Christian Legal Society sent a letter to Mark Dalton, the chair of the Vanderbilt’s board of trust, was signed by Anthony R. Picarello, General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Vanderbilt Catholic fellowship had a nine-day rosary novena leading up to the Vanderbilt board’s meeting November 10-12. A Vanderbilt University news story reported that one Catholic student said in the Vanderbilt town hall meeting on this issue, “I cannot separate my decision-making from my faith. I fall under an authority that is greater than Vanderbilt, and that is the Roman Catholic Church.”

What will you do about this issue? Don’t do nothing! If you want to take a stand for religious liberty against the one-sided administrators of Vanderbilt University, and support the Vanderbilt students seeking to defend their religious liberties, here are some things you can do:

Pray daily that God will intervene in the Vanderbilt situation. Please share this prayer request with your church and other believers. The more people who know about this crisis and are praying about it, the better.
Utilize this “Pray for Vanderbilt Religious Freedom” picture on your Facebook page or other publications to help create greater awareness of the problem nationwide. I do, and I hope you will, also. (Just right click and copy and paste it).

Sign and fax this online petition from the Restore Religious Freedom at Vanderbilt student group (see http://vanderbiltreligiousfreedom.com).
Email this suggested protest note from the American Family Association.
Call, email, or write the following university officials who have played key roles in defending the new policy:

Mr. Mark F. Dalton, Chairman, Vanderbilt University Board of Trust
Vanderbilt University
305 Kirkland Hall
2201 West End Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37240

Nicholas S. Zeppos, Chancellor, Vanderbilt University
(615) 322-1813
nicholas.s.zeppos@Vanderbilt.Edu
Office Address:
Vanderbilt University
211 Kirkland Hall
2201 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37240

Richard McCarty, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
(615) 322-4757
richard.mccarty@vanderbilt.edu
Office address:
Vanderbilt University
205 Kirkland Hall
2201 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37240

David Williams II, Vice Chancellor for University Affairs, General Counsel and Secretary of the University
(615) 322-8331
david.williams@vanderbilt.edu
Office address:
Vanderbilt University
305 Kirkland Hall
2201 West End Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37240

Technorati Tag: Vanderbilt University, religious discrimination

Religious Discrimination at Vanderbilt, Part 3:Is the Vanderbilt University Administration DisseminatingMisinformation about Its Policies to RepressChristian Organizations on Campus?

Steve Lemke — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:00:46 +0000

This is the third in a four-part series on the religious liberty crisis at Vanderbilt University. The previous articles are –

“Part 1: Why Is Vanderbilt University Persecuting Its Christian Students”

“Part 2: Why Is Vanderbilt Violating the Constitutional Rights of Its Students?”

In the first article of this series, we recounted how Vanderbilt University is denying its students their First Amendment Rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of association by forcing Christian campus organizations off-campus unless they remove from their constitutions all Christian beliefs out or requirements for group leaders to hold Christian beliefs. Vanderbilt also denied requirements that leaders of Christian groups be expected to lead in Bible studies, prayer, or worship experiences. Christian groups had to make themselves completely vulnerable to hostile takeovers by anti-Christian groups to retain their registered student group status on the Vanderbilt campus. The second article detailed how these policies violate several First Amendment rights of these students.

In addition to the student protests, Christian groups of many denominations, as well as nondenominational groups, have called for this oppressive policy to be reversed. Some of the most outstanding law school professors and First Amendment rights specialists in the country have written pleading with the Vanderbilt administration to reconsider the policy with at least a modest compromise to allow the Christian groups to continue ministering on campus.

How has the Vanderbilt University administration responded to the furor created by their decision to oppress Christian student groups on its campus? Unfortunately, the Vanderbilt administration has responded with a misinformation campaign to confuse and muddle the issues. Vanderbilt officials have been purveying a series of disingenuous misrepresentations of the truth in defending the policy. In the town hall meeting with students, some Vanderbilt administrators even stooped to compare these Christian groups on campus to racist segregationists (see stories in Fox News and The Tennessean). This is uncalled for irresponsible language by administrators who should know better. But that is just the beginning of the misinformation campaign. There are at least five major misrepresentations being promulgated by the Vanderbilt administration, which are described in the paragraphs which follow.

The first misrepresentation by the Vanderbilt administration is its claim that its institutional policy is an “all comers” policy – that is, its “nondiscrimination” policy involves every employment opportunity, student organization, athletic program, scholarship, loan program, and any student activity on campus. In fact, in an unsigned institutional public statement entitled “Statement on Non-discrimination Policy and Student Groups,” dated September 27, 2011, the actual Vanderbilt “nondiscrimination policy” to which it is linked in this statement is not a policy relating to student activities, but is an employment policy posted in the Human Resources part of its website. Student organizations and their officers are not employees of the university, so this policy obviously does not apply to student organizations.

However, perhaps the statement was intended to be linked to the revised Vanderbilt Student Handbook, which makes the bold statement that “Vanderbilt University does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, military service, or genetic information in its administration of educational policies, programs, or activities; admissions policies; scholarship and loan programs; athletic or other University-administered programs; or employment. In addition, the University does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expressionconsistent with the University’s nondiscrimination policy.”

In addition to this grandiose statement in the Student Handbook (which is not true, as will be pointed out later), other school officials keep insisting that the school has a completely open “all comers” policy in all its student organizations. This is patently false. David Williams, Vanderbilt General Counsel and Vice Chancellor for University Affairs, has admitted publically that Vanderbilt has no written “all comers” policy (quoted in a recent article in The Tennessean). Still, Vanderbilt officials point to the court case CLS vs. Martinez, which advocated an open membership “all comers” policy. This action shows how desperately the Vanderbilt administration is grasping at straws trying to find anything to justify its action in the face of almost universal public outcry. Unfortunately, the Vanderbilt administration does not seem to realize that the legal case on which the “all comers” language was taken, CLS vs. Martinez, requires open membership in ALL campus organizations, not just religiously oriented organizations. Yet Vanderbilt administrators keep reiterating this claim that they have an “all comers” policy. In an email in January 2012 to all Vanderbilt faculty and students, (as reported in World magazine and copied completely in The Connecticut Political Reporter), Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos insisted that all student organizations must be open to “everyone.” Likewise, as reported in Fox News, Beth Fortune, Vanderbilt’s vice chancellor of public affairs, insisted, “Our nondiscrimination policy applies equally to all registered student organizations.”

Are Zeppos and Fortune telling the truth? Is the Student Handbook policy universally applied to all student organizations, educational policies, programs, activities, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, athletic programs, other university-administered programs, or employment” Are all these open to “everyone” and “all comers” regardless of “race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, military service, or genetic information”? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The absurdity of the Vanderbilt administration’s claims is self-evident. It is a lie to insist that this policy is enforced universally throughout the Vanderbilt campus. If this policy were actually utilized in Vanderbilt’s employment practices, each job would be open to anyone, and students could take the place of professors and vice-chancellors for a considerable cost savings. If the “nondiscrimination” policy were practiced uniformly, the Vanderbilt football team would not discriminate against female players on the basis of their gender by not allowing them on the team. If the “nondiscrimination” policy were practiced uniformly, sororities and fraternities on the campus would not be allowed to discriminate because of gender. If the “nondiscrimination” policy were practiced uniformly and universally, the Vanderbilt athletic teams would have disabled players, blind players, and players over 40 years old, so they would not discriminate on the basis of athletic ability or age discrimination. If the “nondiscrimination” policy were enforced uniformly, Vanderbilt would have a student racial mix that is more in proportion with the American population, but since they don’t, Vanderbilt evidently discriminates on the basis of race.

If the non-discrimination policy were uniformly enforced, it would allow an anti-environmentalist to be elected as an officer of an environmental club, an anti-gay person as an officer of a pro-homosexual organization, a Christian as president of the Buddhist club, and a Muslim as president of the Jewish student’s association. If the “nondiscrimination” policy were universally enforced on the Vanderbilt campus, the Vanderbilt scholarship and loan programs would not discriminate against less intelligent students, against students who did not score as high as others on their ACT or SAT tests, or against students whose families have middle and upper incomes. But the truth is that Vanderbilt is an exclusive university that denies admission to thousands of applicants every year, so clearly they discriminate against these potential students, and its athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, scholarships, loans, and employment opportunities are all based on criteria that discriminate against others. No, Chancellor Zeppos, Vanderbilt is clearly NOT open to all! And, most clearly, Vanderbilt is now discriminating against its students only on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Rev. Mark Forrester, who ministers in the Vanderbilt Wesley/Canterbury Fellowship, accused the Vanderbilt administration of a double standard between its treatment of religious groups and other student groups. In particular, he noted that campus Greek organizations were permitted to discriminate on the basis of gender and other qualifications, whereas the Vanderbilt administration was not according such laxity in dealing with campus Christian organizations. Likewise, Kim Colby, Senior Counsel at the national office of the Christian Legal Society, pointed out that “You cannot have an all-comers policy and have fraternities and sororities.” Provost Richard McCarty attempted to excuse the double standard with this amazingly nonsensical statement: “That is a reasonable-approach tradition that is over 200 years old in this country” (see these quotes in a recent Tennessean article). WAKE UP, PROVOST McCARTY!! CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN MEETING FREELY ON AMERICAN CAMPUSES FOR 200 YEARS!!! So, to summarize, what has been demonstrated is the following: (a) Vanderbilt has no written “all comers” policy; (b) Vanderbilt does not practice an “all comers” policy consistently, equally, and uniformly across its student body, most obviously regarding its Greek organizations; and (c) religious groups on the Vanderbilt campus are being singled out prejudicially for enforcement of the unwritten “all comers” policy – they are the only groups being discriminated against with this so-called “nondiscrimination” policy.

The second misrepresentation by the Vanderbilt administration is its insistence that these new policies do not disallow Christian students from assembling together – that they would just lose the privilege of enjoying official university approval. For example, Beth Fortune, vice-chancellor for student affairs, told Fox News that unregistered student groups will not be banned from campus: “They are allowed to exist and freely assemble, but they would not be a registered student organization.” This is simply not true. Without registered organization status on campus, published reports in sources such as The Tennessean and World magazine state that without official recognition these groups would labor under considerable disadvantages: (a) they could not be included or listed in Vanderbilt publications; (b) they could not gain permission to meet in Vanderbilt buildings, use campus facilities, or operate on campus without denying their faith commitments; (c) they could not receive student fee funding for their group that each of them paid to the school for student activity fees; (d) they could not include the word “Vanderbilt” in their publications, and (e) they cannot be introduced to new students in new student orientation. These enormous handicaps would obviously make any Christian group less viable. Vanderbilt Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and InterVarsity’s Graduate Christian Fellowship are preparing to move off campus to continue their Christian activities, convinced that they will not be able to continue functioning as viable Christian groups on campus.

Like Christian students in communist China, Christian students at Vanderbilt could still meet in darkened dormitory rooms or secret off-campus locations to avoid being arrested by campus police. If you think that statement is too extreme, consider this: the Fox News story reported that in the town hall meeting a Chinese student who attends an underground church in his home country appealed to the university administrators at the meeting for answers on what would happen if he were a part of a campus Christian group that met secretly in violation of the policy. Provost Richard McCarty did not provide a straight answer, but instead made a sarcastic joke out of the student’s earnest question: “We won’t send you to Duke,” he said. It is hard to understand such hardness of heart and insensitivity to a student who comes out of such persecution in his own country. There can be no doubt that Christian groups who attempt to keep meeting on campus without the administration’s permission will effectively be driven off campus (see the next misrepresentation for more evidence of this claim).

The third misrepresentation by at least some Vanderbilt officials in multiple settings (including Provost Richard McCarty at the town hall meeting) is their claim that religious groups could elect whomever they wanted as leaders as long as anyone could be a part of the club and the group’s constitution did not require any particular beliefs to be elected. The administrators suggested that the religious groups were being uncooperative for not acceding to this demand for changes in their constitutions. However, as reported by Brant Bonetti in his article “Why I’m Wearing White” in Inside Vandy, in a meeting with the Interfaith Council on January 31, 2012, Vanderbilt Dean of Students Mark Bandas admitted that religious organizations could come under investigation if there was suspicion that members used religious criteria in voting for their leaders. Bonetti plays out the practical implications of this decision:

Let’s say that you’re a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and that you’re running for president of the organization. You win the election, but the student that you beat feels that he lost because members of the organization cast their votes based on his religious beliefs. According to Bandas, Vanderbilt would have grounds to investigate your organization for discrimination if the other student lodged a formal complaint. That hardly seems like business as usual to me.

So, according to the Dean of Students, if a student ran for office and felt that he or she were not elected because of their beliefs, they could still file charges against the club and Vanderbilt would close it down. Carol Swain, Vanderbilt law professor and sponsor of the Christian Legal Society group, pointed out the impracticality of such a rule to Fox News:

This encourages students to engage in deception and infiltration and it takes away their rights to be with like-minded people. It’s very easy for people to conceal their beliefs and if the wrong person is elected and starts disrupting the organization, there’s nothing that can be done other than to dissolve the organization and start over the following year.

In other words, atheists or homosexuals could intentionally deceive the group that they were devout evangelical Christians, or, with the “open membership” policy, bring in fifty militant friends into the meeting, and be voted into office in a hostile takeover, and then publicly endorse beliefs exactly opposed to the group’s beliefs, or simply so disrupt the group that it is eventually destroyed. A dedicated hardcore anti-Christian group of students could systematically destroy the fabric and purpose of every Christian group on campus one at a time. This is simply unworkable.

Furthermore, Vanderbilt will not permit religious organizations to expect their leaders to lead in normal Christian activities such as Bible studies, prayer, or worship, or even a requirement that officers hold Christian beliefs. In an email from Gretchen Person, Interim Director of the “Office of Religious Life” at Vanderbilt, (a title that now seems rather hollow), to the chapter president of the Christian Legal Society (also cited in the Christian Post), the Vanderbilt official stated that the group cannot “preclude someone from a leadership position based on religious belief. Only performance-based criteria may be used.” The email also said that the group cannot expect its officers to lead Bible studies, prayer or worship at chapter meetings– “This would seem to indicate that officers are expected to hold certain beliefs. Again, Vanderbilt policies do not allow this expectation/ qualification for officers,” the email said.

Joshua Charles, former President of the Beta Upsilon Chi chapter at the University of Kansas, also pointed out to The Blaze this how unworkable these new regulations are for Christian organizations:

It seems difficult to imagine a scenario in which any religious group could, without any infringement whatsoever, worship and practice freely if they cannot even make decisions on their own membership or leadership. Groups are formed in order to advance causes, ideals, or something of the sort. But if the integrity of that group cannot be maintained, then neither can the causes or ideals for which it was founded in the first place.

Or, as one student put it very simply but compellingly in the town hall meeting, “You can’t lead me in my faith if you don’t share my faith” (cited in a Vanderbilt University news story).

Not only are these regulations unworkable, but they are also unconstitutional. The case for the Christian student organizations is further buttressed by a January 11, 2012 Supreme Court decision (Hosanna-Tabor vs. EEOC) that by a 9-0 ruling asserted the fundamental importance of governmental noninterference with the leadership standards of religious entities. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority (unanimous) opinion, pointed out that “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission” (cited in the Connecticut Political Reporter). Likewise, Justice Alito wrote in this ruling regarding religious association (as reported in Fox News) that “a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very ‘embodiment of its message.’” That is precisely the right that Vanderbilt is denying to its students.

The fourth misrepresentation by the Vanderbilt administration is that its policy of discriminating against religious groups is not new at all, but a longstanding policy that the university is just now catching up on enforcing in all areas. In fact, as Brant Bonetti pointed out in a column in Inside Vandy, and detailed in an article in Vanderbilt Hustler, the university deleted a prior policy on December 8, 2010, from its Student Handbook that had exempted religious organizations from some aspects of the “nondiscrimination” policy, specifically “the University does not limit freedom of religious association, does not require adherence to this principle by government agencies or external organizations that associate with, but are not controlled by, the University, and does not extend benefits beyond those provided under other policies of the University.” The title of the article in the Hustler says it all: “Change to Vanderbilt Policy Alters Protection for Religious Groups.” More specifically, the Vanderbilt student group that produced the website VanderbiltReligiousFreedom.com has posted side by side both the before-December 8^th version of the Student Handbook and the after-December 8^th version of the Student Handbook. The changes are manifestly obvious. Vanderbilt officials are simply not telling the truth when they insist that nothing has changed.

A fifth subterfuge promulgated by Vanderbilt’s administration is the suggestion that they must enforce this new version of the non-discrimination policy to protect Vanderbilt’s federal funding. Is this true? No. As Brant Bonetti reports in Inside Vandy,

This claim holds absolutely no weight. In a letter sent to the chancellor and the board of trust in December, six prominent law school professors, including the director of Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center, expressed their “collective opinion that no court decision, administrative regulation or federal or state statute requires Vanderbilt to prohibit religious student groups from requiring their leaders to share the groups’ religious beliefs.

Indeed, in this letter dated December 2, 2011, these six nationally known and distinguished law professors from some of the top law schools in the country patiently explain in detail to the Vanderbilt Chancellor and the Chairman of its Board of Trust the legalities of the situation, particularly that Vanderbilt’s new rules are not required by any law, and that it brings into question other constitutional protections. Indeed, even if this threat were real, since no other university in the nation has this policy, the federal government would have to defund all the schools in the country if it defunded Vanderbilt. So it simply isn’t true that Vanderbilt stands to lose any federal funding. Again we see a cynicism of the Vanderbilt administration in trying to throw any self-justification it can against the wall in hopes that something will stick. It won’t.

This is a sad day in America when citizens can be denied their First Amendment rights with impunity. If the Vanderbilt decision distresses you and you want to stand with and support the Vanderbilt students standing up to defend their religious liberties, here are some things you can do:

Pray daily that God will intervene in the Vanderbilt situation. Please share this prayer request with your church and other believers. The more people who know about this crisis and are praying about it, the better.
Utilize this “Pray for Vanderbilt Religious Freedom” picture on your Facebook page or other publications to help create greater awareness of the problem nationwide. I do, and I hope you will, also. (Just right click and copy and paste it).

Sign and fax this online petition from the Restore Religious Freedom at Vanderbilt student group (see http://vanderbiltreligiousfreedom.com).
Email this suggested protest note from the American Family Association.
Call, email, or write the following university officials who have played key roles in defending the new policy:

Mr. Mark F. Dalton, Chairman, Vanderbilt University Board of Trust
Vanderbilt University
305 Kirkland Hall
2201 West End Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37240

Technorati Tag: Vanderbilt University, religious discrimination

Religious Discrimination at Vanderbilt, Part 2:Why Is Vanderbilt Violating theConstitutional Rights of Its Students?

Steve Lemke — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:39:26 +0000

This is the second in a four-part series on the crisis of religious freedom at Vanderbilt University. Part 1 was entitled, “Why Is Vanderbilt University Persecuting Its Christian Students?“ the series continues tomorrow with Part 3: “Is the Vanderbilt University Administration Disseminating Misinformation about ItsPolicies to Repress Christian Organizations on Campus?”

The first article in this series detailed how Vanderbilt University is denying religious liberty to its students by forcing Christian campus organizations off-campus unless they take all Christian beliefs out of their constitutions, as well as removing requirements that leaders of Christian groups hold Christian beliefs. Vanderbilt also denied any expectations that leaders of Christian groups be expected to lead in Bible studies, prayer, or worship experiences. Christian groups had to make themselves completely vulnerable to hostile takeovers by anti-Christian groups to retain their registered student group status on the Vanderbilt campus. Hundreds of Christian students on campus protested the change in policy, but to no avail.

Apparently terrified by a threatened lawsuit from an openly practicing homosexual student who was asked to resign from a Christian fraternity, Vanderbilt University has swung so far in the opposite direction that its current policies appear to be violating at least three First Amendment rights of its students. Its concern for tolerance for sexual preference has made them intolerant toward religious convictions. It appears to be beyond debate that at Vanderbilt University, sexual orientation issues trump religious liberty issues. Charles Haynes, Senior Scholar at the First Amendment Center described the anti-religious posture of the Vanderbilt administration with these telling words: “In my view, such a policy promotes discrimination in the name of nondiscrimination” (in a recent Tennessean article). Likewise, Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, expressed a similar concern in his scathing letter to Vanderbilt administrators:

The message here is clear: Vanderbilt believes that its institutional ideological beliefs should take precedence over students’ own beliefs or consciences, particularly when it comes to its students’ attitudes towards sexual activity. Vanderbilt, as a private university, has the right to demand . . . the modification of student groups’ religious and ideological beliefs to fit those of Vanderbilt administrators. But by doing so, Vanderbilt is effectively creating modified versions of every religion on campus and establishing them as the variant of that religion officially favored by the university. An institution that chooses to take this path can hardly claim to allow its students freedom of religion or association, or to tell students that they “are entitled to exercise the rights of citizens.”

What Constitutional rights of Vanderbilt students are being abrogated by these new Vanderbilt policies? First of all, the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to the “free exercise” of religion. The student Christian Legal Society on the Vanderbilt campus was forced by the Vanderbilt administration to remove Bible verses and the words “Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior” from the group’s constitution (see the article in Opposing Views). Even after CLS compromised on their faith statement at these points, the Vanderbilt administration was still not satisfied. With their anti-religious zeal, the Vanderbilt administration also denied that leaders of the group could even be asked to lead Bible studies or worship. The Christian Legal Society could not in good conscience compromise any further. The Vanderbilt rule violates this constitutional protection by disallowing the Christian students the right to gather with their fellow believers for Bible study and prayer. Obviously, gathering together as fellow believers is different from having unbelievers and atheists present who would be a disruption by challenging and dismissing the beliefs of the Christians.

Charles Haynes, Senior Scholar at the First Amendment Center, who also directs the Religious Freedom Education Project, affirms the Christian Legal Society’s position – that in light of the competing principles at play — barring discrimination versus supporting the freedoms of religion and association — that a fair compromise would require religious groups to open their meetings to everyone while permitting restrictions on who can serve in leadership positions. “They want to maintain their Christian identity by having leaders who make a faith commitment. It would be absurd to say a Jewish group can be led by a Christian” (cited in a Tennessean story). However, the Vanderbilt administration refuses to allow even this minor concession.

David French, Senior Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, characterized the anti-religious stance of the Vanderbilt administration without mincing words: “You are talking about a zealous commitment to stop faith-based decision making. Of course religious groups make their decisions based on religious beliefs. What else would they make their decisions on?”

In the famous School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 83 S.Ct. 1560, the case in 1963 that made Madelyn Murray O’Hare famous because her son was one of the petitioners, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of students in public schools reading ten verses from the Bible each day. However, the majority opinion of the Court made it crystal clear what they were not advocating:

It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a “religion of secularism” is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a “religion of secularism: in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”
(Abington, supra at 1573.)

Clearly, the Vanderbilt decision does precisely what the Supreme Court here denies – it creates a religion of secularism which privileges “those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”

The case for the Christian student organizations is further buttressed by a January 11, 2012 Supreme Court decision (Hosanna-Tabor vs. EEOC) that by a 9-0 ruling asserted the fundamental importance of governmental noninterference with the leadership standards of religious entities. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority (unanimous) opinion, pointed out that “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission” (cited in the Connecticut Political Reporter). Supreme Court Justice Alito wrote in this ruling regarding religious association (as reported in Fox News) that “a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very embodiment of its message.” That is precisely the right that Vanderbilt is denying to its students.

This, of course, is not the first challenge to religious liberty through American history. Patrick Henry, best known for his line “give me liberty or give me death,” rode 60 miles to defend three Baptist preachers—John Waller, Lewis Craig, and James Childs, in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, charged with “preaching the gospel of the Son of God” (before approval of the Bill of Rights). Henry said to the court, “May it please your worships, permit me once more: For what are these men about to be tried? This paper says, ‘For preaching the gospel of the Son of God’! Great God! For preaching the Savior to Adam’s fallen race!” (The charges were dismissed). May it be that sane minds will prevail at Vanderbilt, that First Amendment rights are honored, and that Vanderbilt students can share together their belief in “the gospel of the son of God” without harassment or religious discrimination.

Second, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. The Vanderbilt rule functionally disallows these students’ right to speak or write their beliefs freely. They cannot even write their most basic beliefs (such as, “Jesus is Lord”) in their group’s constitution. While the Vanderbilt administration went through the ruse of having a town hall meeting, the message was entirely one way. They denied the requests of the Christian students to have the Christian Legal Society counsel speak for them, and they cut off the comments of the Vanderbilt football quarterback, who is a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The Vanderbilt administration turned their deaf ear to the complaints and protest of hundreds of white-shirt wearing students, and indeed pleas from Christians and attorneys from all over the country (this will be detailed in a forthcoming article). By the Vanderbilt administration forcing a situation in which anti-Christians must be allowed to come into Christian groups, cannot be disallowed from office, and can functionally destroy one Christian group at a time, it effectively takes away the rights of the students to speak freely. Likewise, by denying their students the right to speak freely of their personal religious beliefs with fellow believers on campus, by denying the right to have leaders who lead in worship, and by denying Christian students the ability to hold meaningful times of Bible study and prayer without the threat of small non-Christian groups from disrupting or taking over Christian meetings, Vanderbilt has functionally denied their Christian students the freedom of speech. Clearly, many students would feel too intimidated to speak freely in this hostile situation.

Third, the First Amendment grants Americans the right to freedom of assembly (sometimes called freedom of association). This right allows people to meet and congregate as they choose. As Joshua Charles, a member of the Christian fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi at another institution, told The Blaze, “Freedom of association — the ability to mingle with those you wish to mingle with, to connect with those you wish to connect with, and to join in common cause with them, is a fundamental liberty.” The Vanderbilt administration is now clearly and egregiously violating this constitutional right.

If such a claim seems stretched, consider this: a Fox News story reported that in the town hall meeting a Chinese student who had attended an illegal underground church in his home country appealed to the university administrators at the meeting for answers on what would happen if he were a part of a campus Christian group that met secretly in violation of the policy. Provost Richard McCarty did not provide a straight answer, but instead made a sarcastic joke out of the student’s earnest question: “We won’t send you to Duke [University],” he said. First of all, this was a callous answer to a student whose family and who himself had been victims of religious persecution. But note that McCarty provided no assurance that the students could indeed meet for prayer and Bible study on the Vanderbilt campus, even in secret. Christian students will feel that they have to be secretive in speaking of their faith, meeting behind closed doors. This should not happen in our country.

This is a sad day in America when citizens can be denied their First Amendment rights with impunity. I believe it is not unlikely that someone will take Vanderbilt to court over these constitutional issues. However, let me be clear: I am not a legal expert, and whether or not Vanderbilt’s actions are technically legal or illegal is a secondary issue to me. Does Vanderbilt’s status as a private university which accepts millions of dollars of public monies protect them from charges of violating First Amendment rights? Maybe so, maybe not. A case could be made either way. Interestingly, Vanderbilt has argued that without its nondiscrimination policy they would lose millions of dollars of federal funding (see the third article in this series). So they seem to acknowledge that constitutional rights apply to how the university treats its students and employees. Anyway, the legal decision might depend on which courtroom, which judge, and what day it is tried. Were someone to take Vanderbilt to court over these new policies, I don’t know what legal basis might be claimed for the lawsuit. The suit might be based on some of the other cases mentioned in these articles, such as CLS vs. Martinez orHosanna-Tabor vs. EEOC, or it might be based in another section of the Constitution altogether. But again, my main concern is not whether Vanderbilt’s actions are legal or not; my main concern is that the new policies are wrong. These onerous new policies take away from Vanderbilt’s Christian student groups the First Amendment rights that citizens of the United States typically enjoy, and that students at Vanderbilt have enjoyed for the last 85 years.

Even if there were to be a lawsuit, it takes a long time to go through trials and appeals. The Christian community cannot wait for help for the courts. If the Vanderbilt decision distresses you and you want to stand with and support the Vanderbilt students standing up to defend their religious liberties, here are some things you can do:

Pray daily that God will intervene in the Vanderbilt situation. Please share this prayer request with your church and other believers. The more people who know about this crisis and are praying about it, the better.
Utilize this “Pray for Vanderbilt Religious Freedom” picture on your Facebook page or other publications to help create greater awareness of the problem nationwide. I do, and I hope you will, also. (Just right click and copy and paste it).

Sign and fax this online petition from the Restore Religious Freedom at Vanderbilt student group (see http://vanderbiltreligiousfreedom.com).
Email this suggested protest note from the American Family Association.
Call, email, or write the following university officials who have played key roles in defending the new policy:

Mr. Mark F. Dalton, Chairman, Vanderbilt University Board of Trust
Vanderbilt University
305 Kirkland Hall
2201 West End Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37240

Technorati Tag: Vanderbilt University, religious discrimination

Religious Discrimination at Vanderbilt, Part 1:Why Is Vanderbilt UniversityPersecuting Its Christian Students?

Steve Lemke — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:10:59 +0000

This is the first of a four-part series on the crisis of religious freedom at Vanderbilt University. Tomorrow is the next article in the series: “Part 2: Why Is Vanderbilt Violating the Constitutional Rights of Its Students?”

Some years ago on a mission trip in St. Petersburg, Russia, the student group I was leading went into some of the public schools and hospitals in the area to visit with the Russian students and share their personal testimony of what Christ had done in their lives. As a person who grew up during the Cold War days, it was a stunning moment when it struck me that I did not have the freedom to do in public schools in my own country what we were freely doing in the public schools in this communist country. It was strange that we were experiencing greater religious liberty in this communist country than in our own country whose Constitution guarantees freedom of religion!

Let us go now to Vanderbilt University, which, as Matthew Franck points out in First Things, was founded by a Methodist bishop, and its first chancellor preached sermons in chapel to the early Vanderbilt students. However, the current Vanderbilt Administration has imposed a new regulation on its Christian student organizations which denies them the right to require affirmation of any Christian beliefs as a prerequisite for admission to their fellowship. Vanderbilt is evidently the first university in the nation to create and push such a repressive regulation. As a U. S. Constitutional Free Press headline described it so poignantly, this is “Vanderbilt University’s War on Religious Freedom.” Jason Hoyt, national Executive Director of the Beta Upsilon Chi Christian fraternity, described the situation this way in an opinion column in Fox News:

Once upon a time, American universities encouraged students to create community around common interests and protected the right of student organizations to operate in a manner consistent with their beliefs. But a rising tide of resistance to religious organizations on college campuses, allegedly aimed at reducing intolerance, ironically advances it, fostering an unwelcoming and hostile learning environment for many students and threatening the very existence of religious student organizations.

Under the guise of a “nondiscrimination” policy, this new policy at Vanderbilt discriminates against no one but Christian groups. As Leighton Watts, a member of the Christian Beta Upsilon Chi fraternity told the Tennesseean, “The Vanderbilt discrimination policy is directed against the Christian community.” Likewise, Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt law school professor who advises the Christian Legal Society, told the FRC Blog: “There are people on campus who are very threatened by the idea of religious freedom and they would like to create an environment where no one hurts anyone else’s feelings – unless it’s Christians.” (See the interview of Swain and a news account of the entire crisis at the CBN News story). If one doubts this claim about discriminating against Christian groups, consider this: in contrast to its policy about Christian organizations, Vanderbilt recently decided to formally recognize Wiccan (witchcraft) holidays (see Baptist Press report).

Let me be clear: Baptists support a broad nondiscrimination policy. We oppose discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or creed. The first American colony to allow other Christian denominations, as well as Jews, Muslims, and atheists, was the Baptist colony of Rhode Island. Roger Williams, the Baptist who had been driven out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the established Congregational church, stood for religious freedom, as have other Baptists through the years. John Leland played the key role in ensuring that the rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly were included in the First Amendment. So we voice no opposition to a university allowing an atheist club, a Buddhist club, a homosexual organization, a Greek fraternity, or a Wiccan sorority. Students should have the right to organize themselves around areas of common interest. Unfortunately, what Vanderbilt has done is turn a nondiscrimination policy on its head. The new policies enable Vanderbilt to practice religious discrimination in the name of nondiscrimination. It has enforced its nondiscrimination rules unevenly – allowing discrimination exceptions in Greek organizations, but no longer in religious organizations. The new policies unfairly single out Christian campus organizations, and as such are discriminatory.

The background of the policy was that in Fall 2010 on the Vanderbilt campus, a member of the national Christian fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi (BUX) “came out of the closet,” openly announced his homosexuality and his active engagement in a homosexual relationship. In light of this new information, the fraternity encouraged him to resign from its membership. The student then threatened Vanderbilt with a lawsuit (see Baptist Press story for a summary of the details).

We like to describe America as “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” but clearly that is not true on the Vanderbilt University campus. The Vanderbilt administration, shaking in its boots and obviously not “the home of the brave,” responded to the threatened lawsuit by cowering and caving in to pressure from the homosexual lobby, and imposed these new repressive regulations on Christian groups. More specifically, the Vanderbilt administration removed this protection of religious groups from its Student Handbook (prior to December 8, 2010): “In affirming its commitment to this principle [of non-discrimination], the University does not limit freedom of religious association and does not require adherence to this principle by government agencies or external organizations that associate with but are not controlled by the University.” The Vanderbilt administration zealously pored over the constitutions of all 380 student groups on campus (with special attention to Christian groups), pressuring the students to amend their group’s constitution to fit the university’s new “politically correct” rules, and threatening them with losing their registered student organization status and being kicked off the campus if they didn’t. Obviously, Vanderbilt no longer allows freedom of religious association. Farewell to “the land of the free”!

Though depicting this policy as a “nondiscrimination” policy, in fact, the Vanderbilt administration has discriminated by singling out only four Christian student groups for the stringent application of this rule – Beta Upsilon Chi, Graduate Christian Fellowship, Christian Legal Society, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. These four organizations, which resisted the threats and bullying of the Vanderbilt administration, have been placed on “provisional” status and will be kicked off campus if they do not change their constitutions in a way satisfactory to Vanderbilt “thought police” by April 16, 2012. However, in addition to these four groups, according to a column in Inside Vandy, although some Christian groups had adjusted their constitutions after bullying and threats of expulsion from the campus by Vanderbilt officials, they joined in protesting this violation of First Amendment rights – including Vandy Catholic, the Baptist Collegiate Ministry, Navigators, CRU (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ), the Asian-American Christian Fellowship, Bridges International, the Lutheran Student Fellowship, and the Medical Christian Fellowship. This video expresses the protest of Christian students in an appeal that any evangelical Christian will find compelling.

Five Christian organizations (Campus Crusade for Christ, the Navigators, Graduate Christian Fellowship, Bridges International, and Graduate Christian Fellowship) appealed to the Vanderbilt Board of Trust on November 8, 2011, with a respectful letter appealing for reconsideration of the offensive policies, including examples of how other universities (Ohio State University and the University of Florida) had policies that allowed for the religious freedom of its campus Christian organizations, but the agenda-driven Vanderbilt Board and administration evidently gave it no meaningful consideration. In fact, Provost Richard McCarty (quoted in a Fox News story and a Tennessean story) stated publicly that Vanderbilt “would not back down” from their policy. Furthermore, the Vanderbilt administrators in the town hall meeting gratuitously compared the Christian students’ concerns to those of racist segregationists. Ironically, those who espouse “tolerance” are all too often intolerant toward others, particularly Christians. These are not reasonable minds who can find a reasonable compromise, but agenda-driven minds who refuse to consider any views but their own. So much for tolerance and inclusiveness! As David Cartman, a Senior Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, said in response to the Vanderbilt situation and other discrimination against Christians at college campuses, “Rather than being wide open to all viewpoints, including some you may disagree with, [administrators] want you to agree with liberal orthodoxy just to maintain equal status on campus” (see Christian Post article).

Vanderbilt officials held a town hall meeting on January 31, 2012, in a venue chosen by the administration that accommodated comparatively few students, turning away hundreds of students, the overwhelming majority of whom were opposed to the new rule. According to published reports in the Tennessean and the City Paper, hundreds of the students who were turned away stood outside, wearing symbolic white shirts and singing “Don’t Stop Believing” as a protest, while some watched the meeting by streaming video in another classroom. A few students supporting the rules were draped in rainbow-colored flags, often a symbol for multicultural and homosexual causes. The Christian student groups had asked that a representative from the Christian Legal Society represent their views at the meeting, but the Vanderbilt administration denied this modest request. According to reports in the Nashville Scene and Fox News, former Vanderbilt student body president Joseph Williams spoke against the rule, and Vanderbilt football team quarterback Jordan Rodgers, a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, sparred with Vanderbilt officials in the meeting. Rodgers ultimately led a group of fellow students in a walkout from the meeting when he was not allowed to respond to statements by administrators. Students from the other Christian groups such as the Navigators, the Christian Legal Society, and the Medical Christian Fellowship were allowed to speak briefly against the new policy at the town hall meeting. For a more complete response from Christian students on the Vanderbilt campus, including news clips and highlights from the Vanderbilt town hall meeting over the new policies, see the website created by the Restore Religious Freedom at Vanderbilt student group — www.vanderbiltreligiousfreedom.com.

Pray daily that God will intervene in the Vanderbilt situation. Share this prayer request with your church and other believers. The more people who know about this tragedy and are praying about it, the better.
Utilize this “Pray for Vanderbilt Religious Freedom” picture on your Facebook page or other publications to help create greater awareness of the problem nationwide.
Sign and fax this online petition from the Restore Religious Freedom at Vanderbilt student group (see http://vanderbiltreligiousfreedom.com).
Email this suggested protest note from the American Family Association.
Call, email, or write the following university officials who have played key roles in defending the new policy:

Mr. Mark F. Dalton, Chairman, Vanderbilt University Board of Trust
Vanderbilt University
305 Kirkland Hall
2201 West End Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37240

Technorati Tag: Vanderbilt University, religious discrimination

Twelve False Assumptions People Make About Baptists (Part Two)

sbctoday — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:30:39 +0000

Dr. Dan Nelson, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Camarillo, CA

7. . . . that we are controlled by a Hierarchy

First, the Bible does not teach that we should have a hierarchy of religious officials over the church. Pastors lead the congregation as a spiritual leader while the deacons assist him. We have already asserted the independence and authority of the local church. We are a part of several groups: our denominational offices in our local association, state conventions, and then the national convention.⁴ These groups could not control us if they wanted. The local church calls the pastor, sets the types of ministry we will have, and the amount of money they will send to the denomination for their missions.

Baptists do not believe in human heads over churches. We were not started like the Methodists by Wesley, or Lutherans by Luther, or Reformed by Calvin. Instead, we can say there was not a time in the Post-Apostolic age when Baptists began.⁵ We believe our teachings are in line with what churches in Acts taught and what Christ commissioned them to do. Christ is our head. It is his church according to Matt. 16:18.

8. . . . that we are forced to believe in certain positions as a denomination

A denomination is a group of churches that voluntarily choose to work together and have similar beliefs. Our church is not bound to amendments passed at the Southern Baptist Convention. We are not given positions that we must take in order to be Southern Baptists.⁶ The debate over Calvinism is an example of this. There is enough latitude in our denomination to arrive at different interpretations on matters that do not impact salvation or the person and the work of Christ.

We do not subscribe to creeds or traditions as equal to Scripture. We have a common statement of faith that is a consensus of what fellow churches believe. When a church departs from these affirmations and ceases to identify with these teachings, the SBC acknowledges it.

Paul did not have the final authority to decide for the church in Corinth in the matter of the immoral man still serving in 1 Cor. 5:1-5. Instead, he urged them to act as a body to correct the error. They were responsible for their own church.

9. . . . that we are more committed to being Baptists than to Christ

Baptists never chose the name “Baptist.” Instead, enemies of immersion of the believer called us that in derision.⁷ I’m not as much concerned about the historicity of the name going back to the time of Christ as I am with the practice. When a person is immersed as a believer they identify with Christ pictorially according to Gal. 3:27. We are following Christ in this way. Most believers who are baptized by immersion say they were baptized like Baptists.

Baptists have rescued believer’s baptism by immersion from the ash heap. They correctly assert that it is the only mode for demonstrating our faith in Christ and being a part of the church. You can say all you want “I don’t want to be called Baptist,” but there are certain Baptist distinctives, just like there are Calvinism, Arminianism, and Catholicism distinctives. We introduce people to Jesus; but if they read the Bible honestly, they clearly will see the Baptist positions.

Many have taken the Baptist name off the church, saying it is a turn off to the non-churched coming in the front door. Others just say we don’t want to be Baptist. I can’t understand how people who once were Baptist but now don’t want to be. Anyway, I choose to identify this church with timeless principles that have made the difference in people’s lives through the centuries: Baptist principles.

10. . . . that we promote Antinomianism through our belief in Eternal Security

A minority of churches is called free-will Baptists, and they believe you can lose your salvation. Most Baptists believe once you are truly saved, you are always truly saved.⁸ The problem comes with those who falsely profess belief in Christ.

The term “antinomianism” refers to saying that you are a Christian, yet you live any way you want without any regard for Christ.⁹ If you have true faith in Christ, it truly will change you and help you to depart from the sin in your life that is destructive (Titus 2:11-12). The governance of the Holy Spirit becomes a restrainer against wrong instead of a dove that flies away if we dishonor the name of Christ.

I believe that a true Christian will wear the name honorably and demonstrate their faith by their lifestyle. Your acceptance of Christ now obligates you to live under His authority in your life.

11. . . . that we promote a doctrinal statement over the Bible

We have covered this a little under hierarchies, but this is a common argument that comes up when defending our new doctrinal statement in 2000, which only clarified our 1963 confessional statement, bringing it up to date.¹⁰ Some moderates again said we were worshipping the Bible over Christ. The Bible is clear. The Bible supplies everything we need for spiritual edification, nourishment, and equipment in the world (2 Tim. 3:15-4:2). The Baptist Faith and Message is only an expression of faith that reflects the major teachings of the Bible, unlike the Apostles’ Creed that teaches belief in the “Holy Catholic Church.”¹¹ There is no contest between the Bible and The Baptist Faith and Message.

12. . . . that we are unloving and uncompassionate

This is a recent accusation against Southern Baptists because of our belief in traditional values. So it goes: We are hate mongers because we believe certain lifestyles are wrong. The most compassionate thing someone can do is tell the truth when you’re deathly sick.

We are to be a light to those in darkness. But many in darkness don’t want the light (John 3:19-21). We are to hold the light as a standard (Phil. 2:15). We are sinners saved by grace and people should find the love of Christ here, even though they may disagree with us.

Much of our Baptist Legacy today is disappearing like a ship on the horizon. Many are content to let it drift out of sight. Just because you can’t see it, however, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Instead of lagging behind today, I think we ought to catch up with it and bring it back safely to harbor. Will you join me in this quest because I think it is needed today more than ever?

Dr. Dan Nelson, Pastor, First Baptist Church in Camarillo, California. This post is a summary of a message he preached at the church on June 27, 2010.

Endnotes

⁴All entities of the Southern Baptist Convention that assist local churches in missions and fellowship development.

⁵Common claims by adherents in the group attributing these individuals to the father of their movements.

⁶Common practice in the documents and understanding of Southern Baptist Convention makeup and practice

⁷A common belief among many Baptist churches; especially those who trace the origin of Baptist belief and practice to apostolic times.

⁸Free-will Baptists are strongly in the minority among the vast majority of Baptist churches. Benjamin Randall one of the final convert’s under George Whitefield’s ministry was their founder in America.

⁹Antinomianism is a term used to describe adherence in words to doctrinal stances but license to live unrestrained, usually morally, by one’s doctrine. Rigid five-point Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism have been accused of this practice at times. Baptists also have been accused of this practice because of their belief in eternal security.

¹⁰The most recent Baptist Faith and Message was revised to address issues that the old confessional of 1963 did not address. It was affirmed by the Convention in 2000 but not without controversy from moderates and those critical of the conservative resurgence within the convention.

¹¹The Apostles Creed is one of the most ancient creeds of the Early Church. It was developed and handed down many have believed by the apostles and their successors.

Twelve False Assumptions People Make About Baptists (Part One)

sbctoday — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:04:54 +0000

Dr. Dan Nelson, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Camarillo, CA

The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch by people who saw their lives. They assumed they were like Jesus by how they lived. All of us have been confronted by people who think they know what Baptists believe and practice. If these practices have not been associated with Baptists, however, they are wrong assumptions.

Today people have formed wrong assumptions based on misinformation and wrong conclusions. What are these wrong assumptions?

1. . . . that the Church is a Denomination (Acts 14:23)¹.

Baptists believe every church is an independent autonomous body of baptized believers. We have no such thing as the Baptist church. We are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention for purposes of missions and fellowship. Other groups refer to themselves as a universal entity. Yet, the Bible makes the distinction in Acts 14:23 where Paul was assisting in the ordination of leaders in every church.

This is important because what any cooperating Baptist does is not top down but from the local church on up. We are not controlled by other higher bodies. We think the local church has the authority to decide in matters of faith and practice. Therefore, we think every believer ought to be in a local church. Paul explains that we need to do more than just profess our faith in Christ, more than just participate in a universal fellowship of believers known as the kingdom of God; we need to take an active role in our communities because the church is local.

2. . . . that believer’s baptism by immersion is just another form of baptism.

Infant or adult sprinkling is never taught in the Bible. Instead, the word transliterated baptism (baptizo) always means immerse or dunking in water.² That is how Jesus was baptized, and that is how the early church baptized. (Matt. 3:15-17, Rom. 6:4). They did not sprinkle.

We do not accept any other mode of baptism as a valid form of New Testament baptism. It may have been meaningful to you; but we ask you to be immersed as a believer in order to show that you follow Christ, that you believe in the gospel, that you have died to life without Christ, that you are raised to walk in Him, and how we will be resurrected. No other method pictures this.

3. . . . that we have mass chaos at all our church business meetings.

Every member has a say in our church and it must be pretty good example because James Madison used it as a model of representative government when he wrote the constitution.

We have no chief who decides for the people. Every member has a vote. Jesus told His disciples to bring matters to the church when they had a controversy (Matt. 18:15-17). The assumption is that we will operate under the Lordship of Christ and have mutual love and respect for believers. We will accept the will of the majority (as each person seeks the leadership of the Holy Spirit) and go on with Christ’s work instead of holding grudges. That is not always the case but it beats shutting people out of the process. We would rather risk controversy than take away from the voice of the people.

4. . . . that we are part of the Reformed Movement (Matthew 28:19-12).

This is a big controversy today because of many who want five-point Calvinism to be the rule of the day in all churches. We have churches that call themselves Reformed Baptists.

The Reformation started under Martin Luther, who broke from Catholicism. John Calvin delineated Reformed theology in his book Institutes of the Christian Religion and his other writings. His teachings on salvation have been summarized in the five basic points of the “TULIP.”³

Baptists did not believe that the Reformed movement of Luther and Calvin went far enough. Baptists went beyond the “Magisterial Reformation” of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin and became known as the “Radical Reformation.” Although the early Baptists agreed with many of the doctrinal beliefs of the Reformed Theology, they disagreed at other points and, in fact, many Baptists were persecuted for these beliefs by leaders of the Magisterial Reformation. The Reformers still sprinkled infants. They retained a Catholic church structure, and they oppressed those who did not agree with them. Baptists did not. So Baptists are not part of the mainline Reformation. Baptists called for adherence to Scripture, and did not cling to tradition like some of the Reformers. Baptists allowed for separation from the corrupt church. We called for religious liberty, not favoritism of one group. We called for individual conscience in matters of faith and practice, not sponsorship by the family. We called for the authority of the local church, not a universal group that can give false assurance and has no accountability to a local body.

Jesus said He would be with churches that lead people to Him. Therefore, we must baptize like He was and do what He says. Baptists are not Reformed in the fullest sense.

5. . . . that we are against political involvement of Christians

This has been hammered into the ground by moderates in the SBC who tout separation of church and state. So this point is basically for their benefit. The problem is separation of church and state means something far different today because of our heavily unchurched population. In the days of the Constitution, it meant the government could not set up a state church that forced residents to join. Today, it means that Christians have no voice at all in government or elections. That is a false assumption, for we are to be salt and light. We can stand against moral wrong—and are obligated to—without risking the government takeover of religion.

Paul told Timothy to encourage people to pray that their government officials and rulers would do right (1 Tim. 2: 1-2). That does not sound like a retreat from government, but an advance upon it. If Christians don’t stand against immorality and corruption, who will? It is perfectly okay for us to oppose wrong government.

6. . . . that the Lord’s Supper and Baptism are Sacraments

A sacrament is a means of dispensing forgiving grace. Catholicism teaches that racking up enough of these points can earn you heaven when you die, but there is no assurance of salvation.

The Lord’s Supper and Baptism, rather, are ordinances that Christ has commanded us to observe in obedience to Him. The Lord’s Supper helps us remember Christ’s sacrifice for our sins on our behalf. They are not necessary to be saved but necessary to be an obedient Christian. The requirement for observance of each ordinance is our faith and trust in Christ as Savior, just as Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37-38.

Paul assumed believers would have more reverence for the Lord’s Table than what was going on in Corinth in 1 Cor. 11:25. To trust in both these ordinances for salvation is to place faith in the wrong source. We only need to place our faith in Christ’s atoning work.

Dr. Dan Nelson, Pastor, First Baptist Church in Camarillo, California. This post is a summary of a message he preached at the church on June 27, 2010.

Endnotes

¹All Scriptural citations and quotations are taken from the King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.

²Steve Lemke, Baptism Celebrates New Life in Christ, Vision: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Volume 66.1, Spring/Summer 2010.

³Sources responsible for the introduction of Reformed Theology in Christian thought and practice.

(to be continued …)

Podcast Episode 16

Wes Kenney — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:59:05 +0000

The Thanksgiving week edition of the SBC Today podcast includes discussions about the Manhattan Declaration, the Georgia Baptist Convention’s removal of a member church, and our Thanksgiving travel plans. We enjoyed the discussion, and hope you will, as well.

Listen to the podcast using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the logo here, or the button in the sidebar. Leave your comments here with suggestions on how we can improve, guest suggestions, or to discuss the issues we raised. On iTunes, take a moment to write a quick review for us, or just click some stars to give us a rating.

Below are links to the items we discussed during the podcast:

Manhattan Declaration

Georgia Baptist Convention action

The Irony of Dearborn, Michigan

SBC Today — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:45:47 +0000

We are grateful to Dr. Ergun Caner for providing to us his perspective on the recent firing of a Christian wrestling coach by a Muslim high school principal in Dearborn, Michigan. Ergun Mehmet Caner is the President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, and professor of Apologetics and Theology at Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia. A former Sunni Muslim, Caner writes and speaks in the area of Global Apologetics. He can be reached at erguncaner.com and twitter.com/erguncaner.

There is irony in every line of this article from Christian Post.

In every Islamic Republic, operated by Sharia law, not only do sports mix with Islam, they are guided by it. Regularly Islamic Olympians are told to represent Allah well by their efforts. Prayer time is performed together as a team, to build the team character.

Yet in Dearborn, Michigan, a Christian coach (Gerald Marszalek) is fired by his Muslim principal (Imad Fadlallah). Why? because of his friendship with a volunteer coach who led a Muslim student to Christ at a summer camp. When the principal heard of this, he punched the student and told him that he disgraced his family!

Often Christians are amazed when Muslims protest Christian activities at public schools. Why are they upset? Do we not allow them to practice Islam in the schools? Why would they protest a Christian activity?

The answer is simple– Islam has never allowed RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

In over thirty countries around the world, Sharia Law, based on the Qur’an and the Hadith, allows for complete Islamic practice in every venture of life, especially in the school systems. What about Christians in Islamic countries?

They are only allowed RELIGIOUS TOLERATION.

In Islam, this is called the Pact of Umar, named after one of the first Caliphs, after the death of Muhammed in 632 AD. In it, Umar outlined the rules for Christians living in Muslim countries. Some of them include:

Christians must allow their daughters to date and marry Muslim men, but Muslim women may never date or marry Christian men. You cannot stop the marriage of your Christian daughter to a Muslim, and the required conversion which follows.
Christians cannot build new churches, or even repair the outside of older ones.
Christians may not publicly proclaim their faith or witness.

The dilemma of Muslims living in America is clear- they do not understand true religious freedom. They cannot comprehend how any Christian is allowed to witness to a Muslim friend without being arrested, fired or worse.

The city of Dearborn, Michigan is a perfect example of the consequences of giving Muslims unfettered power to self-rule, even in the context of American Constitutional Law.

A simple examination of history clarifies:

When Muslims are in the minority in a country, they scream “religious freedom” and demand their rights. They will use this to garner power and political influence, playing the “race card” to get their way. They will protest and march in the streets, especially when the cameras are on them.
When Muslims are allowed to operate by Sharia Law in a democratic country, they will recognize Sharia over the democratic laws of that country, every single time.
When Muslims are in the majority, Sharia is imposed and Christians are immediately repressed.

The irony of Dearborn? According to the article, approximately one-third of the city’s population is Muslim. This may be the first event we have seen, but it is not the last. 1300 years of history tells us this is inevitable.

Religious FREEDOM teaches that a Muslim can build a Mosque wherever the city codes allow…

Religious FREEDOM also teaches that I can stand in front of that Mosque with a sign that says “Jesus Saves.”

Either my kinsmen learn this distinction, or they need to leave.