QUICK LINKS
College Student is Ridiculed Because of her Faith
Check this out! A Grays Harbor College (Aberdeen, WA) student senator who voted against the charter for a new gay-straight student alliance is being ridiculed by fellow students. Some members of the student body believe she should be censured or lose her senate seat because she believes being gay is “bad behavior.”
Amanda Plumb, a Christian and student leader, simply felt she could not vote in favor of the club for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender and straight students.
Now there is a rush to file formal complaints against her while, “anonymous” people are posting the college’s internet message board calling her a “radical Christian fundamentalist”, “pathetic,” “racist,” and someone with a “demented imagination.”
One “anonymous” poster wrote, “Can we write her out?”
Student body president Shawn Stanley has created a special panel of students to see if she violated college policies because she said she voted “no” for moral reasons.
The folks who lecture so often and so loud on tolerance are finding it much harder to practice than to preach.
The gay rights movement is not a passive, live-and-let-live movement, as they would like you to believe. They are militant in their approach and are determined to redesign society.
If you have time, I suggest you read the complete news article from Grays Harbor. Click here for article.
_____________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add this blog to your email inbox.
32 Comments:
As usual, your twisting this and missing the bigger picture. How typical of you. The problems here are 1) that Plumb's role on the senate is not to legislate on convictions - it's to go according with the rules and laws for the institution and believing homosexuality to be a sin is not grounds for denying them the right to have an official group, 2) the instead of taking a respectable position of opposition, Plumb came out and made attacking comments equating homosexuality as "bad behavior" - she launched the first shot and now you're defending her for being in the midst of a fight she could have avoided with a bit of tact and decency, and 3) you imply that the student body president and others are intolerant and militant because of seeing if what she did violates college policies when all they are really doing is following the rules and policies that she was not willing to follow.
So, if we as a society no longer have moral laws, upon what do we make judgments of legality? Who goes to jail for what? Are we then left with bribes and blackmail, and the whim of the judge?
To make my comments known to GHC, I called Choul Wou (in Student Government) @ 360-538-4078 and Jane (didn't catch her last name) in PR @ 360-538-4005. GHC #: 360-532-9020.
Where are the rights of the college student? Why is it that the homosexual community is getting such publisity? Where is the rights of those people that do not agree with homosexuality? We have a right to what we believe in but are not allowed to push it on others. What then are the gays and lesbians doing? They are pushing their values or should I say lack of values and morales on the rest of the world. I s this right? I think not. We the people need to stand up against this blanant attack of Satan to furthur confuse and degrad this society. This country needs to fall on its face and plead for mercy from the great sins we have committed. This debate over homosexual rights and pushing this into public schools is an outrage! Wake up America! Wake up! Plead the blood of Jesus Christ over this nation for our childrens sake. God himself will soon punish those that live wicked and perverse lives. Stand up America for what is right!!!!
It's not immoral to form a support group. It is immoral to try to abuse a position of power to discriminate against those who are legally trying to form a support group.
Yes, these people can form groups and follow legal rules but does this give them the right to infringe upon others? No. We have a right to express our views and to stand for what we believe. If others don't agree then that is their perogitive. Why is certain groups being allowed to express themselves while other groups are shut down for what they believe? If homosexuality views are allowed in school why then is Chrisitan views trampled? This is not fair and is defiantly not equal. This country strives on equality. Then give us eguality and stop discriminating against religious groups!!!!!
How are they infringing upon anyone by trying to form their own group? No one is stopping the Christians from forming a Christian Alliance group at G.H.C.. Their group isn't being formed with a mission to root out and kill all who aren't gay. No one is trampling a "Christian view" - what they are doing is protesting against a discrimanatory view and a frankly, a very rude and UN-Christian view based on Plumb's comments.
If a judge decides a case based not on law but on personal opinion or bias, that judge is not obeying the rule of law and should be removed from the job.
If a police officer regularly decides based on personal bias that all members of one group are criminals and targets law-abiding people who are members of that group, that police officer is not obeying the rule of law and should be removed from the job.
If someone doesn't follow the rule of law, no amount of justification for their personal beliefs/opinions/biases changes the situation. There is no place for prejudice or personal opinion when applying the law, even on a college campus.
You can't have it both ways - either the rules apply to all, or they apply to none.
good for this girl for putting her faith in God and her belief that what the bible says is the truth above what these people believe is "right and ok". she knows who and what really matters during this life on earth that we have been given and it's not pleasing the people who support homosexuality by supporting and encouraging something the bible says is wrong.
Once more, shame on Gary for just throwing out a silly idea with no logic.
Look, if gays say christians are intolerant of their views on homosexuality, then anyone who claims christians are intolerant, must be gay, right?
To imply that governing bodies don't vote on value/moral issues is naive. We legislate values all of the time, whether we recognize it or not.
Christians believe that we should not be forced to value homosexuality as a society. The government should not impose homosexuality on everyone else. That's the bottom line.
.
"Look, if gays say christians are intolerant of their views on homosexuality, then anyone who claims christians are intolerant, must be gay, right?" What the hell kind of logic is that? At least TRY to make a point that's both valid and makes sense. This wins the goofiest post of the say award...
I'd be curious what the purpose of a vote is, if you're not allowed to vote either Yes or No... Maybe it should be called a "Dictatorial Concensus" instead of a vote, if there's only one option. ;-)
I have a unique sense of connection to this case, perhaps, because I am a community college student and a member of the Student Senate at my school. Although I have not received the level of opposition this other student is apparently facing, I do know what it is like to get a little flack for your expressed opinions on gay rights. I also know what it is to vote against a majority for one reason or another.
I would make a few points in response to this issue.
Firstly, I think censoring a voting official on their votes could be a bad policy. Of course, any elected official can be not re-elected. That is a legitimate function of democracy in regulating government. But for a higher official, such as the ASB President, or for the rest of the Senate, to step in and kick someone out because of their views - is incoherent with that person's right to cast a vote. What kind of voting system is it in which those who don't vote with the majority can loose their position for it? Again, I'm not talking about loosing their position in the next election - if the people don't agree with their representative and choose to elect a different representative in the future, in accordance with the standard and established processes - that's their role as members of a democratic society.
Second, I'm not sure I agree with this particular student's position on this issue. I don't know all the rules from Gray's Harbor, but at my school students are recognized as having a right of association. The Senate's role is largely to see that they comply with policy. Furthermore, depending whether student groups are seen as expressing the views of the student government or of there own members; to block a student club because of there political views could be something along the lines of a free speech issue for the prospective club members. Or was the issue that the club members were gay - rather than their views (which may have involved things like gay rights)? Should law-abiding, policy-abiding homosexual students, who have paid their fees (to support student activities), be deprived of the same opportunity to use the support offered to student groups?
I like the idea of all students - both in and out of student government office - having a respected right to free speech.
When the charter for a gay-straight alliance group came up to vote at my college, I believe I voted for it. When a left-leaning political group wanted Senate co-sponsorship of a conference (actually a number of clubs - as well as non-student groups - were involved with this conference), I voted no.
Do you have an address or e mail address for this wonderful gutsy young lady? Would like to send her an attagirl?
It is apparant from some of the anonymouses that Saten knows the location of this blog.
They, like Satan, cannot comprehend that they are are the biggest losers of all eternity.
Fortunately for these sad souls they can get right with the Winner up to their last breaths. I commend this young lady for her part in bringing herself untold blessings where it counts for her courageous vote.
yep, I thought I saw Satan buying a copy of "Internet for Dummies". I guess we now know why.
I would bet he has dial up, though.
I have to say thank you to this young woman. As a thirty something college student, I can see the immense pressure all Bible believing Christian Students are under. If we speak up about our religious beliefs we are outcast, which is fine and if we don't speak up we fail to represent Christ. I think I would rather be an outcast than misrepresent or not represent Christ. Please continue to pray for all of the Christians insecular colleges, we are always under attack.
Updates to the first April 4 article:
April 6:
http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2006/04/06/local_news/02news.prt
April 13:
http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2006/04/13/local_news/01news.prt
April 18:
http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2006/04/18/local_news/04news.prt
if you are going to a secular school then that implies that people's religious views will be kept personal (otherwise it wouldn't be secular).
So why wouldn't it be wrong to be pushing a religious agenda at a secular school?
It would be wrong to be pushing a secular agenda at a christian school, wouldn't it?
she was wrong... yes u can state ur opinion but only so far what she said was wrong and rude... she deserves what she gets... i am a huge christian but we have no right to tell people how to live.. and she should have just said no and left it at that!!!
More spin from Randall. Of course all the anonymous postings are just discussionary noise - every group has its loudmouths that twist the facts (tip of the hat) but every person has a right to be one too - stating that you think someone is wrong in their opinion, even if done in a less than diplomatic way, is NOT intolerance.
As to the real issue, all I see is the college has let them have a commission to see if any rules were violated - I would guess that they will find that none has.
If she can say being gay is 'bad behavior' then others are perfectly free to state their opinions on her behaviors. You judge others then you open the door for other to judge you - gosh who was it that pointed out this very same thing?
So bad behavior is rationalized to be accepted behavior . Lying is acceptable when done for the right reasons , sex out of mariage is just a choice with no consequences , stealing from a corporation is justified , and hatred of Christians ,or any group is acceptable because "some" Christians say bad things or some other people in a group have done something wrong to another group of people .
Defintion of a bigot . read previous post
"So bad behavior is rationalized to be accepted behavior"
What bad behavior? Oh you mean the girl's personal OPINION that being gay is somehow a 'bad behavior'? What is 'accepted behavior' in America is allowing our fellow citizens the greatest latitude possible to lead their own lives as they see fit, acknowledging their God given right to choose for themselves.
"Lying is acceptable when done for the right reasons"
Well Jesus in a parable told the slave to lie to his master so I would guess that is a a CHristian given. Personally I think lying muddies the waters of social discourse and dirties the liar and the person they lie to, but then that's just me.
"sex out of marriage is just a choice with no consequences"
All actions have consequences - is this a strawman?
"stealing from a corporation is justified"
It is? Where did that come from? Shoot I even think its wrong to cheat on your federal income tax.
"hatred of Christians ,or any group is acceptable because "some" Christians say bad things or some other people in a group have done something wrong to another group of people"
Of course its not - the most common problem here is that somehow *A* Christian thinks that they are *THE* Christian and that someone not liking them personally is a condemnation of Christianity. For every Christian who's into being judgmental and discriminatory, there's probably one, maybe two, that is overwhelming in their acceptance of others and focused on the good in other people, not cataloging the bad.
Definition of a bigot:
a bigot is characterized by prejudice (pre judgement) and intolerance (not tolerant) and tolerance is:
"the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."
For many Christians tolerance is one of the hallmarks of their religion, for some its not.
In the subject at hand we get into the old conundrum of 'Is being intolerant of intolerance' intolerant? But regardless we come full circle:
She judged others as practitioners of 'bad behavior' and sought to deny them something because of it, and she got treated the same in return. Was either side 'right', I don't know but its definitely 'quid pro quo' at any rate.
"Well Jesus in a parable told the slave to lie to his master so I would guess that is a a CHristian given. Personally I think lying muddies the waters of social discourse and dirties the liar and the person they lie to, but then that's just me."
Could you please tell me where you find this? Thanks.
Luke 16:1-13 He also said to his disciples, "There was a certain rich man who had a manager. An accusation was made to him that this man was wasting his possessions. He called him, and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give an accounting of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ "The manager said within himself, ‘What will I do, seeing that my lord is taking away the management position from me? I don’t have strength to dig. I am ashamed to beg. I know what I will do, so that when I am removed from management, they may receive me into their houses.’ Calling each one of his lord’s debtors to him, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe to my lord?’ He said, ‘A hundred batos of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Then said he to another, ‘How much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred cors of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ "His lord commended the dishonest manager because he had done wisely,
He steals from the rich man to buy his way into the debtor's houses. He was even commended because this lie was considered a wise action.
Sorry, but you're confusing "his lord" with Jesus. In this story, the "master" of the manager (i.e. "his lord") commended him; Jesus did not.
In this story, Jesus used the actions of a dishonest man to illustrate the benefits of generosity, in that while the man was dishonest, and in a bit of a jam (losing his job and not wanting to work the kind of jobs that would then be available to him), his generosity would earn him a place in the hearts of those he was generous to.
Jesus did not commend the man for being dishonest, He used this illustration as a way to show His disciples and the pharasees that generosity with worldly posessions would be rewarded, if only in a temporal sense for worldly people (even those who are dishonest), but so much more in an eternal/spiritual sense for the children of the light. The lesson of the story is not to be dishonest, but rather to be generous.
In your quote above, you've both misunderstood who was speaking about who, as well as left out important context from the rest of the chapter (picking up with verse eight, for context):
8 "The rich man had to admire the dishonest rascal for being so shrewd. And it is true that the citizens of this world are more shrewd than the godly are. 9 I tell you, use your worldly resources to benefit others and make friends. In this way, your generosity stores up a reward for you in heaven. 10 "Unless you are faithful in small matters, you won't be faithful in large ones. If you cheat even a little, you won't be honest with greater responsibilities. 11 And if you are untrustworthy about worldly wealth, who will trust you with the true riches of heaven? 12 And if you are not faithful with other people's money, why should you be trusted with money of your own? 13 "No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." 14 The Pharisees, who dearly loved their money, naturally scoffed at all this.
I hope that helps make it a little more clear. :-)
-Chris
Of course it is clear - the man stole that which was not his and was commended for it after the fact. Jesus still used a story about lying and stealing it illustrated it as a positive thing. Situational ethics its seems.
And neither here nor there - we have seen in this blog how those that pre-port to be Christians spin, present half truths and out and out lies. I think its wrong to do that sort of thing, don't you?
Yes, I do see that sort of thing as wrong, as that's exactly what I might be accusing you of: presenting a half-truth or a flat out lie (I'm just not sure yet. Help convince me one way of the other).
I don't know your motivation for being here in these particular blogs as often as you are, but I'd like to think that maybe you were just unclear on the meaning of that passage, but I'm not so sure after the way tried to gloss over the fact that you made an entirely false statement with a simple "neither here nor there."
I've recognized your posts in the past as having some good/valid points, and being reasonably well thought out, and even if I didn't agree with many them, at least I could somewhat respect your position.
In this case, it seems to me that you made a statement that was just flat out untrue:
"... Jesus in a parable told the slave to lie to his master ..."
1. Jesus did not tell anyone to lie.
2. It's not apparent that anyone lied at all in this story, though the servant seemed to be a dishonest person who mismanaged his master's resources.
3. Jesus did not commend him for his actions, the servant's master did, and only because of his cunningness. Consider that someone pulls of an elaborate bank robbery (leaving no clues behind) and steals your money that's in there (forgetting about the fact it might be insured by the FDIC for up to $100k). You could be mad about the fact it was taken, upset that the bank didn't protect your money better, in full agreement that robbing banks is wrong, yet still impressed at the well planned and perfectly executed theft. You could just as well say "if only my co-workers and I could plan and execute our 'real' jobs as well, our company would be doing great." Would that in anyway condone bank robbing? No. You need to keep the statements in context and not twist them to try and prove some opinion you have.
Another example of using someone's wrong doing as an example to others while not condoning their actions could be something like this: One of my kids comes up to me and say "I'm bored" (that part is a true story all too often) ;-), then I tell them, "ya know, I have a friend who's in prison for taking drugs and stealing stuff... He writes me often and tells me that he gets so bored sitting in prison, but he's recently started reading books to pass the time. If he can find a way to pass the time while in prison, shouldn't you be able to entertain yourself even easier? I mean, hey, you have books, radios, TVs, video games, friends outside playing, board games, and computers. Learn a lesson from my friend and don't let yourself be bored. Find something do to!" Was this story commending the wrongful actions of the person who did drugs and stole stuff? No, it was just part of the story, but the intent of this story, is "other people with less entertainment options and freedom than you find ways to keep from getting bored, and if they can, you should be able to learn a little from them. I wouldn't be encouraging my kids to take drugs or steal with this story, and even they're smart enough to understand that from the context of the story. You see what I'm saying?
Moving on... You then tried to use that incorrect statement to infer that Christians encourage lying:
"... so I would guess that is a a CHristian given ..."
In my opinion, to keep your respect and intellectual integrity, you'll either need to admit that you were wrong in your statement and related inference (instead of just trying to brush it under the rug), or people will have to assume you're twisting things to fit the way that suits your argument best, in which case you'll lose your credibility. It's not a big deal to be wrong and admit it, as long as one is not too proud to do so. What kind of person are you?
-Chris
Chris ,
The man is a homosexual activist, he is here only to ridicule , insult , and actually prove what happens when our identy is wrapped up in something destructive . He has the same rights as you or me , in fact he more rights now in this state , his beliefs and philospy for the most part on sexuality , behavior , and such is taught in public school , where most religious beliefs are sometimes mentioned as a reason for abstinence , but when will you hear the teacher explain that some people feel marriage is a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman . Its the means which families are created and society itself is extended into the future . In Christianity and Judaism it is where the husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. These are just a few of the reasons why sex is considered so precious , a gift from God himself that only married couples should particpate . Now that would be considered promoting religion in todays culture , even if that statement was just one of many , yet this fella feels he is the victim , if his views are not presented it colld be considered discriminatory , yet he still feels to be the victim ..When people of Faith have their views censored , its said to because if their views are presented it is promoting religion . Kind of interesting , first the views are said to be promoting religion and not allowed , then accepted culture and moralaity is changed without any other moality allowed to particpate or be advocated for . They say they are for tolerance , what a scam ...
I guess when you surrender your rights to Christ , people will always see us as having something more then they
do . What a shame , its free, its already been paid for .
"I don't know your motivation for being here in these particular blogs as often as you are, but I'd like to think that maybe you were just unclear on the meaning of that passage, but I'm not so sure after the way tried to gloss over the fact that you made an entirely false statement with a simple "neither here nor there.""
Because of the context of the response. Mick seemed to be alluding that if gay people aren't labeled as bad, or their existence accepted then somehow truth goes out the window. I was probably wrong in my interpretation of that parable - it had been years and I just remembered the 'lord' part and made a mistake. Regardless I still don't think lying is oki and I don't think that merely tolerating gay people's existence leads to lying.
So I said the meaning of the passage is 'neither here nor there' because even though Christians weren't given permission to lie by Jesus that certainly doesn't stop them from doing so as so many of the responses on this blog demonstrate and it isn't right regardless.
Look at the response left to you, my standing up for myself makes me a 'homosexual activist', a pejorative term being used to try and invalidate my positions. And then they say that defending the truth against ignorance and liars is 'ridicule and insulting' and then launches into a free form litany of telling me how I feel. They call me a 'victim' when ironically their complaints are how they can't teach their religious views in a secular school. What does any of that have to do with civil rights legislation that prevents discrimination against all people in the public sector?
Again, tolerance is about letting other people do and believe things that you wouldn't personally and that's all civil rights legislation is about - tolerance. Saying that people, even those you disagree with, have a right to housing, employment, access to public accommodation and financial services. But for some reason 'tolerance' has seem to become a dirty word to so many people calling themselves Christians.
Oh forget 'my motivation' for being here? Because these are where the lies are being told. This is where the 'bad behavior' of intolerance is not only being 'rationalized' as 'acceptable behavior' but saying that it should be allowed in the public sectors covered by the civil rights legislation. As to 'often' - I am here when entries are made and reply to entries left for me. Is that too often?
This is all pretty simple. Jesus was all about peace. When you show intolerance, you get intolerance. The last time religion and politics were as closely aligned as they are now with our so called Christian President, it was the Dark Ages. Keep religion out of politics. Period. If you won't or can't do that, cool. Then we can tax it. As to marriage, do some reading..... historically (WAY before Jesus, and the Bible)... yes... there WAS history before then, it was an economic pact between families to protect property. I have a gay couple living next to me. They in NO WAY threaten my marriage. In fact, they are the BEST neighbors I have. If your marriage can be easily threatened by gay folks, you need to seek counseling. If you want an amendment to the constitution, make divorce illegal. Not marriage between people who love each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home