Reason 346 to bust teacher unions: Special consideration given to “Non-Christians” in contract

When an opening for promotion arises in the Ferndale public school system, special preference is given to non-Christians, among others.

From page 22 of the Ferndale Michigan Public School teacher’s union contract:



  1. John,

    As reprehensible as this sounds…and it indeed does to me…I’m not sure that we can argue that non-Christians are not a minority. However, I would argue that they are not a protected class and thus should not be considered as deserving of special consideration as any of the other more legally recognized minorities.

    Personally, my position is that race or national origin has no bearing on a position as important as one involved with teaching our young. Merit only should be considered. Is this the best person for the job based on ability alone.

    • I understand non christian is a minority, but it singles out a particular religion and gives preference for particular religions which is what the crybaby atheists always complain about.

  2. paynehollow says:

    If I may offer an opinion…? I would note that the rules say with two equally qualified candidates, give preference to a person that would promote our school diversity. As someone who values diversity, I have no problem at all with this.

    If I have a school staff that is predominantly white and Christian and female and I have two equally qualified candidates, I’d want to see a black Muslim male (or some combination of those traits) hired. If I had a school staff that was predominantly black Muslim male and given a choice between equally qualified candidates, I’d choose a white Christian female. Like that.

    I would not, of course, advocate choosing on these secondary traits to pick a lesser qualified candidate, but all things being equal, I’d easily choose for diversity when I could. And, if I were applying for the position and lost out to the “minority” candidate, I’d say, “Good on that school/business/whatever.” (and this almost certainly has happened to me, fyi.)

    Diversity itself adds to the educational experience, seems to me.

    Just one man’s opinion, for what it’s worth.


  3. paynehollow says:

    My opinion would be that it is not a discrimination against, at all, but rather, a stated support of diversity. The point is not “Let’s discriminate against white Christians,” the point is diversity. Now, if some school were discriminating for the purpose of causing harm to a group, well, that would be a bad sort of discrimination.

    Holding values in favor of diversity – given two equally qualified candidates – I don’t believe that fits the legal or moral definition of illegal or immoral discrimination. But I’m not a lawyer, that’s just my opinion, for what it’s worth.

    John, did you know that most elementary school teachers are female? Did you know (at least in my experience) that elementary schools really would like to have more male teachers? If a school has two equally qualified candidates and one is male and one is female – and 90% of their teachers are female – do you think it would be wrong to let the male teacher have the advantage in that situation?

    I certainly do, and I don’t think it would be negatively or illegally discriminatory to do so.

    But maybe we just disagree on this point.

    Thanks for your thoughts.


  4. If this were challenged in court, it would fall. They would be forced legally to remove that language.

    This is a perfect example of affirmative action run amok.

    The blind worshipping of diversity and multiculturalism in any pyrrhic way is just as bad as discrimination itself.

    How’s that for crybaby atheist John?

    I am curious if you realize that there is a vast array of social and political dynamics within the non theist tent? One of the minorities are far left leaning social liberals, yet I have never seen them cry either.

    • Nash

      I should have been more clear, when I say crybaby atheist, im dpeaking more of the activist types, like from FFRF or those who use the ACLU to shield themselves from religion.

      Ill have a post on this kind of thing tomorrow morning.

      I applaud your view on this point. I thknk its an honest attempt at true fairness on your part.

  5. I don’t think non-Christians are a minority any more. That would be a tough one to prove.

    Nevertheless, can you imagine the uproar if it gave Christians preferential treatment?

    As for “diversity,” Thomas Sowell said it very well:
    The benefits of “diversity” need only be asserted, reiterated and insisted upon – but never demonstrated or even illustrated empirically, much less proved. …

    Merely saying words like “diversity,” “glass ceiling” or “disparate impact” banishes any need for evidence to supplement the peer consensus which produces automatic responses not unlike those of Pavlov’s dog.

    Then there is the old canard of “equally qualified” – There will never really be two people applying for a job with “equal” qualifications. The diversity crowd actually finds “closely” qualified to be all that is necessary to screw the one with more merit.

    • Glenn,
      Can you imagine the uproar if it was discovered that for the last 230 years christians had been given preferential treatment all along? White christians at that?

  6. Nash,

    Your scenario never happened except in your dreams.

  7. Considering the benefits Christianity bestows upon the culture, even while allowing that so many ignore, disregard and pretend an opposite effect is true, seeing Christianity as an added quality that enhances the staff is logical. Two otherwise equally qualified applicants with one being Christian and the other not makes the two unequally qualified. The Christian gets the gig.

    Diversity? Highly overrated and of no true value even to those who think people are diverse in ways that needing one of every race or nationality means something significant.

    • Im still trying to figure out how your skin color makes you more or less qualified. Or how it leads to better teaching.

      If the teacher taught from behind a curtain, and you didnt know their demographic, and they were equally qualified, then the students would learn just the same. To suggest that diversity is beneficial for diversity’s sake is just sanctiond discrimination.

  8. I’m sure part of the justification revolves around a child’s perspective. Should the black kids see black teachers, somehow they believe they might relate better and respond better to the teacher. But this could only be true if the parents of those kids did nothing to teach them about the insignificance of skin color and/or learning regardless of who is teaching.

  9. paynehollow says:


    Im still trying to figure out how your skin color makes you more or less qualified. Or how it leads to better teaching.

    Research shows it to be the case that education and other fields benefit from a diversity of backgrounds.

    It’s not that one’s skin color makes one more or less qualified, it’s that we benefit from having a diversity of input from a diversity of backgrounds. Beyond that, research has shown (going from memory here, but I could try to find it) that elementary schools benefit from having more male role models and that minority children benefit from having a more diverse teaching staff.

    There is a great deal of research on this topic, would you be interested in my sending some your way?

    Setting aside the research, as someone who has attended public schools with a diversity of staff and teachers, someone whose children has attended such schools and as someone who has taught as such schools, I can say I greatly value it for many reasons. Just a few…

    1. We live in a diverse world. Meeting a variety of people with a variety of learning styles and backgrounds helps prepare us for this real, diverse world.

    2. We often tend to fear what we don’t know. I am convinced that our improved race relations of today (vs 50 years ago) are largely due to the chance to interact in more diverse situations. This is also true for the improved status of our gay and lesbian friends.

    3. In most fields, there are a wide variety of approaches to problems and problem-solving. Increased exposure to increase solutions is an educational, societal and personal benefit.

    4. Many minority children are lacking positive male role models and, believe it or not, it really does help their educational experience to have minority teachers. I’ve seen it. And it helps them not just in that teacher’s class, but in all their classes.

    5. For peacemaking purposes, it helps to be exposed to and interact in diverse groups.

    I could go on, but I’ll stop there. I’m just offering my opinion that I am solidly convinced – based on research and on personal experience – that we benefit tremendously, measurably by having a diversity of experience in education, in work, in spirituality and in life.

    I’m wondering, has anyone read any research that suggests that we are helped by NOT having diversity in schools or elsewhere?

    One man’s opinion (but backed by much research),


  10. paynehollow says:


    Two otherwise equally qualified applicants with one being Christian and the other not makes the two unequally qualified. The Christian gets the gig.

    So, you would discriminate based on your belief that Christians would be a better teacher, just by virtue of their being a Christian?

    John, is that okay with you? You seemed concerned with the notion of discrimination for any reason.

    I would ask you again: Are you aware that elementary schools have predominantly female teachers and when given a chance, they will hire a male teacher over a female teacher, all other things being equal? (Or at least that’s what I’ve heard – my experience is mostly in high school and middle school).

    Do you think that’s an okay sort of discrimination? Do you think that, all things being equal, they should just flip a coin, or do you think at that point, taking other considerations into account might be reasonable – as long as it’s for positive discrimination, not negative? (That is, we’re not NOT hiring a white female because we’re biased against white folk or females, but because we’re hiring this equally qualified black male teacher because we have fewer black males in our school.)

    You may disagree, but I think that is a positive and good reason to help make a decision between two equally qualified candidates.

    Or how about this? I once lost a job opportunity (when I was young and unmarried) because I applied at the same time as a fella with equal qualifications who, at the time, had a wife and two kids to support. The business told me that they gave the nod to him for that reason. That’s a positive reason, it seems to me, and I don’t call that discrimination against single people, would you?

    I see no harm in this. Maybe it is a legal mistake to spell it out like that, I don’t know, but it seems to me to be for positive reasons, not the negative sort of discrimination of earlier years.


  11. paynehollow says:

    Let me put it another way. Marshall gives an example of negative discrimination…

    Two otherwise equally qualified applicants with one being Christian and the other not makes the two unequally qualified. The Christian gets the gig.

    Christians are better teachers than Others. Or, the inverse – People who aren’t Christians are not as good as Christian teachers.

    It’s a negative discrimination against others based on an unproven stereotype.

    Conversely, advocating hiring a diverse staff is NOT saying that “Christians aren’t good teachers” or “White people/black people/whoever are not good teachers” etc – it’s making the positive case for diversity. And no matter how wonderful a black male Muslim is, he can’t be a white female Jew.

    This is not a negative connotation on any group, but a positive connotation of all groups.

    That is why there is a difference.

    Or at least that’s how it seems to me.

    Respectfully offered for consideration,


  12. Dan,

    Based on your link alone, there is nothing there that provides any reason to suspect that “diversity” is the benefit you like to believe it is. It begins with bullet points, each of which speaks of opinions regarding the benefits, not hard data. But even the lower half does not provide anything that provides hard data that the reason for the differences in outcomes was due specifically to the “diversity” of the groups considered more productive. There is a final link at the end, but I haven’t looked at that yet. Is this another case of your providing the first link that seems to support your position, without you having really studied it to see if it does? Seems so at this point.

    “So, you would discriminate based on your belief that Christians would be a better teacher, just by virtue of their being a Christian?”

    No. By virtue of the fact that a true Christian is a benefit to any organization. The question that remains is whether or not the applicant is a true Christian and not merely a CINO or “progressive” Christian whose perspective is skewed by worldly things.

    The idea that we need people from every culture to understand every culture presupposes that we need to understand the nuances of every culture. I see no rational reason to believe this is so. Where a clash of culture may arise, then a focus on relevant nuances is justified. But diversity has served to highlight differences as opposed to realizing most differences are insignificant and unworthy of the respect given them.

    What is ironic is how for those who think diversity is so important, our nation was set up in a manner that was to allow for diverse thought, with each state ruling itself as it saw fit for the purpose of responding to the needs and beliefs of its citizens. From this diversity, we could look across the borders of our own states and compare outcomes of diverse ideas, adopting those that have appeal for whatever reason, and rejecting those that do not; altering what we do in our state by the implementing from a variety of options provided by the various states as they deal with similar issues we wish to address. But we don’t really have that going on as “diversely” as it had been in the beginning, as too many issues are thought to be those with which the federal government is to deal.

    I would re-iterate that where kids are compelled to achieve simply because a teacher of their own race or nationality is doing the teaching, those kids were raised by parents who did little to teach their kids the insignificance of such things. However, I do agree there is a value that a male presence in the classroom brings that is absent when only female teachers exists. At the same time, if there are other male influences in a child’s life, particularly a boy’s, it is not as important that teachers be male. The main point here is how many men of character and honor do kids have in their lives?

    Your anecdote of your job hunting experience illustrates who things should be if not for the twisted concept of discrimination foisted upon the private sector with the Civil Rights Act of the 60’s. That employer decided based on HIS notion of what was best, as is his right. But the fact that a married guy with kids has a greater need than a single guy is subjective without knowing the details of each applicant’s life. That guy might have hundreds of thousands in the bank that would allow him to exist without a job indefinitely, while you may have been more desperate. Regardless, his “discrimination” against you is no more or less moral than any other subjective decision regarding the choice between two seemingly equal applicants. I would let HIM decide if “diversity” is important to him. I would let HIM decide if he will best be served by that minority applicant. It’s his business.

  13. “Christians are better teachers than Others. Or, the inverse – People who aren’t Christians are not as good as Christian teachers.

    It’s a negative discrimination against others based on an unproven stereotype.”

    Only to non-Christians, CINOS and “progressive” Christians. To actual Christians, it’s “positive discrimination”, or more accurately “common sense”. I would want everyone to come to Christ and live by Christian tenets. I certainly would want my children influenced by Christian teaching, both directly at home, in church and Christian classes, as well as by the example of solid Christians in positions of authority in their lives, teachers especially.

    “A positive connotation of all groups” is moral relativism. From amongst those applying for teacher positions who are not Christian, should none be available, I would choose, to the best of my ability to discern such, from those applicants that appear to most closely resemble and typify Christianity in their manner and behavior. If all I knew was that one applicant was a Christian and the other a muslim, and no muslim teacher taught at the school in need of a teacher, I would select the Christian as better qualified to teach at the school, regardless of whether or not muslim kids attended. If all that separated two of equal qualification was the same, I’d choose in the same way. It’s the better choice for American schools.

  14. paynehollow says:

    I can point to plenty of research that points to the benefits of diversity. I’ll only cite one more source here, because the blog limits how many links you can put in. If you’re wanting more, I can keep providing it, because the research on the topic is pretty widespread…

    Click to access Benefits_Challenges.pdf

    “when applying measures of feasibility and effectiveness, they rated the ideas generated by diverse groups as being of higher quality…”

    Numerous research studies have examined the impact of diversity on students
    and educational outcomes. Cumulatively, these studies provide extensive evidence
    that diversity has a positive impact on all students, minority and majority…”

    “A national longitudinal study of 25,000 undergraduates at 217 four-year colleges and universities showed that institutional policies fostering diversity of the campus community had positive effects on students’ cognitive development, satisfaction with the college experience, and leadership abilities…”

    I could continue, but you can check it out if you want, or research the topic and let me know what you find. The point is, I’ve seen plenty of research that supports the notion that diversity has measurable benefits in many areas, including in education. I’ve seen it for myself, first hand and I’m convinced of the benefits.

    If you read the studies and disagree with them, well, okay. But if you have no reason to disagree with them other than you don’t think so, do you think that’s sufficient reason to disagree with actual research?

    And do you have any research that shows that Christians (or “real Christians”) are the best teachers? Or is it just your opinion?

    (And again, I’m not implying that there’s anything wrong with holding an opinion without any research to support the opinion, I’m just asking the question for clarification’s sake.)



    • Let’s see, students’ subjective feelings about satisfaction in college is taken as empirical evidence that diversity is beneficial???

      That’s liberals for ya – all about feelings. Take another look at the Thomas Sowell citation above. There is no benefit.

  15. Like your first link your highlighted bits (I haven’t checked the recent link yet) sounds like reprints of that first earlier link, and as such, only asserts benefits. As to that last clip, how exactly do they determine that anyone’s cognitive ability was enhanced by diversity or not enhanced by the lack of it? How can they determine such things at all, since one cannot go back and repeat the experience to compare, as if they had never gone through the semesters in the first place? How can they even measure whether the students’ high opinion was truly impacted by the “diversity” of the institution rather than other characteristics of the institution, such as ambiance, climate, general good attitudes and behaviors of the student body and faculty, regardless of their races or ethnicity? What you’ve offered so far suggests massive assertion without offering explanations for exactly how impact can be tangibly measured. The number of studies is irrelevant against the quality of those studies. Some studies are just crap.

  16. paynehollow says:

    Indeed, some studies are. If you have looked into all these various studies and don’t find them worthwhile, then you may want to ignore them. For my part, I have found the many studies to reflect what I’ve seen and experienced in person, so I find them reasonable and have no reason to suspect their validity.

    On the other hand, I have seen no research to support the thesis that Christians are inherently better teachers than other faith traditions – nor have I found that to be the case in my experience – and, no disrespect to your opinion, I simply don’t find your conclusion to be rationally plausible. Thanks for sharing it just the same.



  17. paynehollow says:

    Again, if you want to address some of the research on the topic, here’s another link that I made sure went into the processes by which the data was acquired…

    Click to access DIVREP.PDF

    …it’s all full of tables and charts and explanations of the processes involved and means and averages and all that research-y sorts of stuff. Again, there are many others where this one came from.

    On the other hand, I know of no research that suggests that diversity is somehow “bad” for schools. Do you have any research on that front? It could be I’m just not familiar with it.

    Thanks for your thoughts.



  18. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, with all due respect, that’s a simple quote, not research.

    Do you have any research that supports the notion that there is “no benefit” to diversity?

    Again, I would have to say that I’ve seen it in person, so I’m quite certain that there is some benefit. And, as noted, multiple scholarly research efforts have concluded that there are benefits: hard, measurable, discernible benefits.

    I respectfully note that, while you are free to believe what you want for whatever reasons you want, as someone interested in education (for my children, for my students when I taught, and for society), I want to base our decisions on something more than mere feelings about the question. I hope you can understand where I’m coming from.



    • Trabue,

      The quote from Sowell is based on lots of research, and that is his summation of it. If you’d read Sowell once in a while, you’d actually learn something.

      Common sense SHOULD tell anyone that “diversity” does nothing to change anything for the better, and often changes it for the worse, since “diversity” is pushed for diversity sake, as if all worldviews and cultures are equal.

      Of course you are so set in your “progressive” ways that you have been proven to be unteachable. I’ll let John continue to deal with your ignorance.

  19. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, I have read Sowell and like some of what he says, dislike other things he says. But if there is some research, by all means, cite the research that says that there is “no benefit” to diversity. I’d be glad to look at it and add it to the pile of data and research that has reached an opposite conclusion.

    As to “common sense,” well, respectfully, I disagree. Common sense would tell us that there is much to learn from a diversity of resources, experiences and backgrounds. Consider: If I am learning from a single person whose entire life experience has been in rural PA in an Amish enclave sheltered from the world, will he have much experience in dealing with Urban teens? With immigrants from Tunisia? With computer software?

    Clearly, at least in extreme circumstances, we benefit from a diversity of experience. Now, you know I love the Amish, consider them my family, but that teacher’s experience would simply be limited. Common sense would tell me, on the other hand, if I had an Amish teacher, and a teacher from Somalia, and a teacher from urban Atlanta, and a teacher from Latin America… would there not be an incredible wealth of experience and perspective that would be missing coming from just one person?

    I can’t see how common sense could reach any other conclusion that diversity has at least some benefits. That’s my opinion, and the research that I’ve read supports this common sense conclusion.

    What do you think?



    • What do I think? I think you intentionally take a different “diversity” tact that what is being promoted by the LEFT.

      The LEFT’s idea of diversity is skin color, gender, sex preference, and other “minority” status people.

      Thanks for shifting the discussion to where YOU want to make your stand rather that what the discussion is about.

      No one, to my knowledge, has claimed that diversity of experience is not beneficial – depending of course on the experience. We certainly don’t have a need to learn about homosexual experiences to have good, diverse education.

  20. The problem I see with singling out a minority (and c’mon people, non-christian is a religious minority in almost any school board in the U.S.) based on religion is that we are talking about a public secular school board. This is supposed to be a school system that doesn’t bring religion into the school curriculum.
    So what would it matter if 100% of the teachers were Christian? Or 100% were Muslim, or 100% were Sikh? None of them are supposed to be bringing their religion into the classroom. So in what capacity is a religious affiliation supposed to benefit the student body?
    The only rational explanation I can imagine is being a role model and confidant for students of the same religious affiliation. Though this is a noble goal, I don’t think it is appropriate criteria in a secular school system. How do you square the concept that religious affiliation should both not be part of how you do your job and very important to how you are uniquely qualified for that job?
    It seems like a contradictory set of ideas.

  21. Spent some time with Dan’s most recent link, and again find opinion, not actual evidence, that diversity is beneficial. Again, no indication of how one could establish a benefit when one cannot have a “do over” under the opposite circumstance (diversity in the classroom and then a “do over” with the same kids without diversity in the classroom). Benefits are asserted, not proven. One chart did show the perception changing along political lines, with liberal educators perceiving benefits, and conservative educators, what few there are, seeing none.

    What’s more, Dan’s anecdotal evidence of his own experience shows the same problem. Regardless of whether or not Dan’s perceptions were accurate, rather than figments of his needful imagination, there is no way to take those kids, remove from their memories the experience of being in a “diverse” setting, and then putting them in the opposite situation to see how they fare.

    These “studies” that Dan finds so compelling are eerily similar to AGW studies that also fail to take into account many other variables present that may have far greater influence on the outcomes. These “diversity” studies simply seem to say that because in the opinions of teachers and students there was a benefit, then by golly, there was. How is that compelling in the least?

    It should also be understood that no one here is arguing that diversity of race and ethnicity is is not or cannot be beneficial, or that there are studies that say there is a negative impact, but only that there is nothing but assertion on the side of pro-diversity proponents. Not hard data. And in this discussion, three links offered by Dan, no evidence in any of them as far as I can see at this point.

  22. paynehollow says:

    I respectfully disagree. I think that perhaps you do not understand the nature of sociological research and, if I had to guess, it may be the case that you doubt the reality of sociology or psychology as actual science – I know I’ve heard that from some on your side.

    Regardless, if you don’t find the research compelling, don’t accept it. I do.

    Further, as I’ve noted, there is no research that I’m aware of that supports the rather doubtful claim that Christian teachers are better than non-Christian teachers, all other things being equal.

    I’ll stick with the research that I’ve read which makes sense to me and what I’ve seen and experienced in the classroom. Feel free to disagree.



  23. … I had to guess, it may be the case that you doubt the reality of sociology or psychology as actual science – I know I’ve heard that from some on your side.

    You’re being dishonest, Dan. You damn well know who the “some on your side” is, and it’s not myself, Marshal, or John. It’s Glenn, and you know that he’s in the minority on that issue. So, don’t play games.

    • I may be in the “minority” of those who post here, but there is one huge contingent of Christians and NON-Christians who KNOW that there is no science behind clinical psychology and that it does more harm than good – it is nothing but rent-a-friend and witchcraft with a degree.

  24. paynehollow says:

    No, Terrance, not lying. That’s just the nature of a 50-year-old brain. Thank you for the reminder, though. Patience, please, with us old farts, young man.


  25. “Regardless, if you don’t find the research compelling, don’t accept it.”

    You haven’t offered anything that is worthy of the term “compelling”. Such would include actual evidence and proofs that support the many opinions your links seem only to have. You claimed the third holds something more substantive. I haven’t read every word as yet, but even skimming the contents page doesn’t point to a chapter that would have such substance. As I’ve said, I’ve found only opinions and assertions. If that’s what you call sociological research, then count me among those not impressed.

  26. BTW, Dan. I, personally, don’t need research to tell me what should be obvious to anyone who calls himself a Christian. All other qualities and abilities being equal, the Christian would definitely be the better choice for most any job.

    • “All other qualities and abilities being equal, the Christian would definitely be the better choice for most any job”.

      Well thankfully you and your pre Enlightenment view are a fringe within a minority.

  27. And why exactly, Nash, should you be so thankful for such a thing? You do realize, of course, the irony in that snarky comment, don’t you? It suggests that a Christian would NOT be the better choice for most any job, or that one would be the poorer choice. On what would you base such a proposition? What possible problem could you have with someone who exemplifies what it truly means to be a Christian? Are you that afraid of God and those who revere Him?

    • Of course a christian would not at all be the obvious better candidate for almost every job. That’s an absurd supposition. Christianity like most other warping filters is NOT one I would prefer clouding my views or choices. The last thing we need is more of that filter between children and reality.
      And quit deferring to fear as causal in my premise that the religious should not generally be in positions of power. Your track records speak for themselves. When you try to dismiss your oppositions argument via fear as an excuse over and over it comes off as desperate, not too mention inaccurate.

  28. Glenn,

    I’m not interested in this debate. I merely pointed out that Dan is being dishonest by suggesting it’s a common opinion on this blog. It’s not.

    • Terrance, it was more than just the suggestion that it was a common opinion here, it was also the suggestion that anyone who had such views is irrational. Of course we know anyone who disagrees with Trabue on anything is irrational in his view.

  29. Well, I don’t think it’s irrational. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not irrational. Trabue is just being Trabue.

  30. Considering the vast majority in this country, to say nothing of world-wide, holds some belief in a deity or similar world-view, it is more than a little dishonest to suggest that problems with leaders of faith were due to the fact that were people of faith, rather than imperfect people who may have only claimed to be of faith for the purpose of attaining power and position. Non-believers favor lumping together all people who claim to be members of one faith or another, as if they are all equally Fred Phelps (may God have mercy on his soul—though I wouldn’t be surprised if He didn’t).

    Fear is the basis of Nash’s premise because it assumes that which isn’t true about one who would be the most perfect representation of Christian teaching and values. An example would be the fear that Christian tenets would be forced upon the populace through government fiat. If this were the case, it would have happened at the founding, when so many deeply religious men were running the show. But this would not be in alignment with Christian teaching at all, since nothing in Scripture so much as hints that Christians are to force the faith on anyone, or even that it could be possible to do so. God wants each of us to come to Him of one’s own volition.

    Another example would be the issue of marriage. While no Christian would deny that God’s Will regarding mankind expressing sexuality is only moral within a marriage between male and female, this is only mentioned when non-believers who act as activists and/or enablers of the homosexual agenda accuse opponents of SSM of being driven only by religious belief, rather than by the obvious factual arguments with which they’d rather not have to deal.

    A Christian school administrator instituting codes of dress for students, including those that involve modesty, does so not to satisfy his Christian beliefs, though it may at the same time, but for the obvious understanding of our young and how they are likely to respond to visual stimuli of seeing the hot chicks at school dressed provocatively. (Teachers, as we well know, are also not immune.)

    The plain fact is that most of the problems in this country would not exist, or not exist to the extent they do, were more people living by a truly Christian worldview. The best Christian available is the best choice for any job.

  31. “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: