By the way, the Wheaton discussed is NOT the excellent liberal arts college in Massachusetts. This is the "no dancing allowed" nutcase Wheaton.

A friend of mine used to teach at a bible thumper private school in Georgia. The students went on a school trip to a beach town in Florida one year. None of the students were allowed to get in the ocean, not even dip a toe in. They were told that there was probably someone of the opposite sex swimming in it somewhere.

This was 20 years ago, but that mentality (or lack thereof) is alive and well today.

I don't think religion should be banned. I just wish they were all like the Shakers. The problem would be solved in one or two generations.

WOW Unbelievable.

Larry

It's a private school and, from the article: "Wheaton requires faculty and staff to sign a faith statement and adhere to standards of conduct in areas including marriage, said Provost Stan Jones."

You may disagree wholeheartedly with whether some divorces violate Scripture and whether that ought to even be relevant as to one's employment status... but how comfortable are you with the fact he basically signed a morality contract and that it's a private institution?

Should the school have the legal footing to adhere to its standards and policies when they've been agreed to in advance and the school's not taking public monies?

Employees have been let go by other companies for behavior (while not illegal) that violates policy. I personally have a problem with what the school's doing and would think twice before accepting employment there... but they are within their rights to uphold their code of ethics/conduct.

A private organization (like the Boy Scouts) can set any rules they wish.

But the heart of Christian faith is compassion and forgiveness. Unfortunately, Wheaton is playing into the hard-ass view that so many people think is the true faith.

That's bad for Wheaton, bad for the prof., bad for the students and bad for the faith.

Wheaton is a suburb of Chicago.

They say, there are more churches per capita in Wheaton, than anywhere else in the world.

Religion is about guilt, power, control and who get to wear the funny hat. In my opinion, they all suck. However, a private organization that has conditions of employment, that an employee has agreed to, has the right to dismiss that employee if they violate these conditions as long as the conditions do not violate a federal law.

He should go teach at Bob Jones, where the President's wife was banging the freshmen. He'd be considered hardline.

Religion is a tax deductable mental disorder.

Divorce is a mistake which you should have made a promise on.

It's his own fault for taking a job there. They were upfront about it, as stupid as it is.

The Christian Right, an the Moral Police have had as there Lord an Savior for the past 25 years, Ronald Reagan I wonder if they know that he to was divorced????

FUNNY LIBS THINK THAT THE RIGHT....ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT ARE RELIGIOUS

COMMENTS LIKE THAT SHOW WHAT POLITICAL HACKS THEY REALLY ARE

praise the lord and kick 'em when they're down

praise the lord and kick 'em when they're down

vernon said......

A private organization (like the Boy Scouts) can set any rules they wish.



I only wish you were correct......a gay man in charge of a dozen young boys...and the left doesnt see whats POTENTIALY wrong with that....and YES its probably worse if they find a molester as leader....


but again, he got offered the job and he knew what the rules were and he signed it anyway and now he broke that rule and I believe the consequences are spelled out pretty clear.
but I found this to be interesting..it says that the college has had profs whose marriage has ended but they have to talk to a staff member as to the divorce meeting bibical standards and Gramm told them about it but wouldnt discuss the details...and he said he didnt want to accuse his spouse, so he declined the appeal...let me say that again....HE DECLINED AN APPEAL......now that speaks highly of him that he wouldnt get into the details, but HE DECLINED AN APPEAL........

Fire your marriage counselor too if they get a divorce, just some common sense.

If your marriage counselor can't fix their own marriage then they can't fix yours.

Same goes for family councilers, some of these people have never had a family or been married but are able to council just with a degree alone.

I just wanted to point out there are times when people should be fired for divorce.

It's a private school, so they have the right to have whatever moral code they want. The professor knew what he was getting into when he took the job.

I suspect the university president considers himself "pro-family" and "pro-marriage". If this is the case, at least he is being consistent.

I have more respect for someone who is consistent with these matters than someone who claims to be for the institution of marriage, yet has a couple of divorces under his belt.

DAMN LIBERAL ACADEMIA!...OH WAIT...These are 'christian' right-wing fundamentalist fucktards!

It's a good thing that the republicunt senators that wrote the 'Sanctity Of Marriage Act' don't work there. Marriage was a joke to them. With 4 of them being married more than once, 2 more than 3 times and one was on his 4 divorce......but they were going to try and tell us all how marriage is a precious thing that no gay could understand.

BTW...isn't about time the righties dragged out that old campaign promise of banning gay marriage by re-writing the constitution?

Thou Shalt Not be a Gentleman...

BTW, Northguy, that was Oral Roberts U, not Bob Jones.
(Sometimes, the religious hypocrisy jokes just write themselves!)

So this evangelical college is going to punish the professor for his sins?

I wonder what they consider the big sin is here, not sufficiently controlling his wife or not being a good husband or just failing in his marriage?

BTW...isn't about time the righties dragged out that old campaign promise of banning gay marriage by re-writing the constitution?

Posted by COMMONSENSE


uh....that has NEVER happened.
adding an amendment isnt re-writing the constitution. it IS ALREADY written IN the const. that you can add to it with amendments. so that wouldnt be re-writing it.......its doing what the writing says you can do.
now some judge ruling that something is legal according TO the consti when it ISNT There.....thats re-writing it, isnt it.
I mean why couldnt the abortionist just put THAT into an amendment...no, judges ruled on it.

that might not have been clear but first comment.
IF it says you can add amendments, then how can an amendment be called re-writing?
there, thats what I was asking.

"adding an amendment isnt re-writing the constitution."

Using that "logic", blacks are 3/5ths of a person, and women can't vote.

Adding an amendment is the very essence of rewriting the Constitution.

That's some top shelf hootch yer swillin' there, BLT.