Tufts University Bans Christian Student Group for Requiring Leaders to Embrace ‘Basic Biblical Truths of Christianity’
Tufts is a great church of Leftism so this sort of anti-Christian Fascism is to be expected. I rather wonder why Christian students go there.
If the local churches put up on their billboards something like: "Tufts is anti-Christian. Don't go there", it would probably have a salutory effect. I think the time has come for churches to come to the aid of Christian students. The Leftist oppressors should not have it all their own way
Ironical that Tufts was originally founded by Christians devoted to religious tolerance.
There’s a troubling pattern developing on college campuses across America, as universities are increasingly preventing Christian campus groups from requiring that their leaders be practicing believers. If these clubs fail to comply with so-called “non-discrimination policies,” they are often de-legitimized and banned from official-recognition.
Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, is the latest higher education facility to crack down on student-led religious groups. In a recent move, the school’s student government banned the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF), an evangelical organization. The decision was made because TCF, which is the campus’ chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, requires that those serving in leadership positions must embrace “basic biblical truths of Christianity.”
The group’s demand that leaders be Bible-believing Christians was found to be in violation of Tuft’s non-discrimination policy. Last month, the Judiciary recommended that the belief requirement be moved from the constitution’s bylaws to its mission statement; while the bylaws are legally-binding, the mission statement is not. TCF didn’t comply and, now, the group is officially unrecognized by the university.
The ban, which was put in place by the Tufts Community Union Judiciary, means that TCF can no longer use the Tufts name for official campus activities. Additionally, its members are forbidden from scheduling events or reserving space through the school’s Office for Campus Life. As is generally the case when these bans go into effect, the group will also be unable, as other student groups do, to receive money from the school.
While TCF plans to appeal the decision, it could be an uphill battle — especially considering the similar trend that other schools seem to be following. TCF has 10 days to appeal and must file paper work with the Committee on Student Life (CSL), a panel comprised of students and faculty, The Tufts Daily reports.
In 2000, the group faced a similar situation when a student complained that she was denied a leadership role due to her sexual orientation. After being re-recognized, the organization appealed to the CSL and was re-instated.
“We’re deciding to appeal this decision because we feel like just the purpose of our organization is to…encourage understanding and celebration of each belief [in the Basis of Faith], and the best way to fulfill that purpose is to have leaders that are centered on and unified by these beliefs,” one of the student leaders of the InterVarsity chapter told the Daily. ”We feel like we have the right to be selective on the basis of belief for our leaders since we’re a student group that is trying to encourage understanding about a faith-based set of beliefs.”
Tufts isn’t the only campus community battling over Christian student groups’ rights to require faithful leadership. As TheBlaze reported earlier this month, Yale is facing a similar issue after the Beta Upsilon Chi (BYX) fraternity has come under fire for requiring its members to embrace Christianity. And the non-discrimination policy issues at Vanderbilt University have been widely-reported as well.
While non-discrimination policies are well-intentioned, the notion that a Christian group would be forced to allow leaders who don’t embrace the faith is relatively silly. Similarly, a gay rights group being forced to allow someone opposed to same-sex marriage to lead would also be problematic.
SOURCE
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).
1 comment:
"Ironical that Tufts was originally founded by Christians devoted to religious tolerance."
So, you find it ironic that a university that was founded by Christians devoted to religious tolerance of those with differing beliefs, that they would take exception to a campus group restricting it's leaders to only those who adhere to a rigidly defined belief system?
Only from Dr. Ray can such pearls of wisdom pour forth.
He also said, "Similarly, a gay rights group being forced to allow someone opposed to same-sex marriage to lead would also be problematic."
An advocacy group being "forced" to accept someone as a leader who maintains a belief system that is contrary to the groups cause is a hell of a lot different than what is being discussed here. The article referenced a past claim of discrimination over someone being denied a leadership position because she was gay. Apparently, to some, (Dr. Ray being one of them apparently) being gay means they are unable to be a good Christian in all other respects, and therefore are unworthy of leadership responsibilities?
"....the campus’ chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, requires that those serving in leadership positions must embrace “basic biblical truths of Christianity.”
And herein lies the rub...who defines what are the "basic biblical truths of christianity"? Apparently believing in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior isn't enough. We now have to delve deeper into the nuances of their beliefs. So tell me, who is it who will be self-righteously sitting in judgment of those wishing to assume leadership roles and determining if they are "Christian enough" in their eyes? I call myself a Christian, but should I be excluded from a leadership position because I happen to support gay marriage, as many other Christians do? Keep in mind, saying we support gay marriage doesn't mean that we are advocates and go out campaigning on the issue, making it our mission in life to get other Christians to change their minds, etc...it's just a personal belief many of us have that differs from one specific aspect of our church's beliefs.
I would assume leaders are elected via votes from the group members. Just a silly suggestion here....but I suggest that those who imposed this rule should have the confidence to leave it up to the voting power of their members to decide who is and who isn't "Christian enough" to lead the group. Perhaps they should trust that their members will recognize and refuse to elect a leader who is bound and determined to lead them to the dark side....And perhaps leave it to God on judgment day to determine who is and isn't Christian enough for his liking.
Post a Comment