The Ethos of Intolerance!

 
While driving into Detroit, I was mesmerized by a highway billboard near the entrance ramp. The billboard was sponsored by Eastern Michigan University, and it announced their "Ethos Week" program, which ran from March 12th to March 16th of this year. In 2006, the faculty of the College of Business at Eastern Michigan University decided that they wanted to develop a strong statement of the ethics and values that represented the spirit of the College of Business. They planned a week of "activities" intended to promote business ethics and to further ethics education. The ideas being promoted were very good, except for a little fact that goes unnoticed by most people. That fact is this: in order to have a business ethical code, different people must recognize and agree to some type of common ethical code in the first place! Also, ALL ethical codes are derived from someone's religious belief! ALL societies have some sort of ethical code that is derived from their religious views as to what actions constitute "right" and  "wrong"! If the Christian "ethical" code is no longer acceptable to society, where did the university get its code from? It sure did not materialize out of nowhere ex nihilo! This is why the sign caught my attention and sparked a nauseating response in me when I saw it.

Signs-5 Man Electrical Band

And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you

Woah!

Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign

And the sign said anybody caught trespassing would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and yelled at the house, Hey! what gives you the right
To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in
If God was here, he'd tell you to your face, man you're some kinda sinner


Now, hey you Mister! can't you read, you got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat
You can't even watch, no you can't eat, you ain't suppose to be here
Sign said you got to have a membership card to get inside

Uh!

And the sign said everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray
But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all,
I didn't have a penny to pay, so I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said thank you Lord for thinking about me, I'm alive and doing fine

Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, cant you read the sign!

In case you don't know, Eastern Michigan University has been involved in an "ethical" lawsuit involving one of its former students. Let me set the table for you in regard to the background of the lawsuit. A young Christian African-American woman by the name of Julea Ward was in the EMU Master's Counseling Program when she was assigned a counseling case involving a young homosexual man. She never refused to counsel the young man about his sexual orientation - she just refused to affirm his current sexual lifestyle! She approached the head of the counseling department with a request that the case be handled by someone whose "ethical" base beliefs would not be in conflict with the young man's or the university's "ethical code." When the head of the counseling department refused to allow this simple requested courtesy, it set off a chain reaction of nuclear proportions. Julea's path took her down the road of department inquisitions and rebukes. Finally, after jumping through numerous departmental and university hoops with an appearance of a just and fair investigation and hearing, Julea was dismissed from the Master's counseling program, needing only a few additional credits to graduate. Julea sued the university and was recently allowed the right to continue the lawsuit through the U.S. Court System. Eastern's action against Julea was supported publicly by University of Michigan and Michigan State University. Several other want-to-be "cultural relevant universities" also sided with Eastern Michigan University in its righteous crusade.

 I went to the website of EMU and looked at their College of Business Ethos Statement. I'm sure this "ethical" statement reflects the "ethical" position of the university as well as other "professional" disciplines inside and outside the university. Read the following statement along with my comments concerning the"ethical standards"!

College of Business Ethos Statement

1

Integrity Integrity is practicing in all areas of life what we profess to believe. It is commitment to professional standards in the whole person.

When Julea tried to practice what she believed, she was ridiculed, rebuked, and dismissed from the program. It is committed to professional standards in the whole person! What is the standard and who decided that the "standard" should be the professional standard?

2

Honesty Honesty requires respect for the truth; it means being truthful, sincere, and straightforward.

Respect for the truth - Whose truth? What is truth? How about some respect for Julea's religious "truth" commitment? Wasn't Julea truthful, sincere, and straightforward when she brought her concerns to the head of the counseling department at the university?

3

Trustworthiness Growing out of integrity and honesty, trustworthiness is the confidence others have that we mean what we say; we can be counted on.

Can anyone "trust" what these people have to say or do in the future when they violated their own standard of  Respect, Learning, Integrity, Honesty, and Work Ethic by failing to live and apply these values to the case of Julea Ward?

4

Respect Respect is deference or esteem for what we value. We recognize others' worth as ends, not means. Respect is key to our other values.

Did the EMU Counseling Department show "respect" for Julea Ward's values? If not, how can they exhibit other important "values" if respect is the key to those values?

5

Learning We value learning as an end in itself and as a practical tool for success in lifelong professional growth. We gain up-to-date, practical and theoretical knowledge through effective, often participative learning and research.

Did the "professionals" who comprised the hearing panel try to "learn" anything about Julea's position and reasons for passing along the client or did they enter the proceedings with a  preconceived and unbendable mindsets?

6  The Work Ethic We practice self reliance and responsibility to our business profession and community. We are industrious and often self supporting.

• Did this panel act responsibly toward its current student and future counselor, Ms. Ward, or did it deny her any type of courtesy in regards to her beliefs?

Julea's entire story is an blatant example of the institutional hypocrisy running rampant in the nation's universities and educational departments. Christians have heard for years that others do not want Christian "morality" being shoved down their throats! I've said it time and time again - someone's "morality" or "ethics" is going to be shoved down everyone's throats in the form of new laws and sanctions imposed by those in power. The question our society will have to face and ultimately decide is whose "ethical" or "moral" code will it be? At Eastern Michigan University and most other public universities, it will be the anti-Christian, intolerant, religious bigots who will rule the day and set the standard.

When a house is built on a foundation of sand, great will be its fall (Matthew 7:24-27). May God grant us the strength and wisdom to stand our ground in the face of the assault of these secular value attacks. May we be like Shammah (2 Samuel 23:11-12) who took a stand in the middle of a lentil field fighting the Philistines alone while all of Israel fled from the battlefield!  Julea, the battle is not your own. Fight on with strength and the courage that your God will provide - and, like Shammah, God will bring forth a great victory for you and his people (2 Samuel 23:12)!

Stay Holy, My Friends!

Pastor Don

Slippin' Into Darkness!

 Ah ah ah, well, well, well, well, well, well, well.

I was slippin' into darkness

When they took my friend away

I was slippin' into darkness

When they took, when they took my friend away

You know he loved to drink whiskey

Oh oh oh oh

While laughing at the moon.

Slippin' into darkness

Takes my mind beyond the trees

I was slippin' into darkness, yeah

Takes my mind beyond the trees

Well, i talked to my brothers

Oh oh oh oh

Who never said their names.

Slippn' into darkness, yeah

All my troubles though i choose

I was slippin' into darkness, yeah

All my troubles though i choose

I got a wife and a baby, yeah, yeah

Oh oh oh oh

Now my love has gained its fame.

Slippin' into darkness, yeah

When i heard my mother say

I was slippin' into darkness, yeah

When i heard my mother say

You've been slippin' into darkness

Oh oh oh oh

Pretty soon, you're gonna pay.

Yeah, yeah.

How I long for the good old days of great music, pop-and-lock dancing, and Bob Cassady clothing styles! Back in the 1970s, the funk group War hit the national music scene with songs such as "Low Rider," "Cisco Kid," "Spill the Wine" (with one of Pastor John's favorite lead vocalists, Eric Burdon of The Animals), "Why Can't We Be Friends," and a host of other songs laden with politically-charged lyrics common of the times. What made the group War famous and enjoyable to listen to was their upbeat music and easy going attitudes. Their songs combined elements of Latin, rock, reggae, soul, blues, and rock-and-roll into an eclectic, funky sound and unique 70's dancing experience!

The other day I was online checking out various news stories when an article from The Telegraph slapped me upside my head! The title of the article was "Killing Babies No Different From Abortion, Experts Say"!  As soon as I read the title, I thought of a song done by the previously mentioned music group War - "Slippin' Into Darkness." The song was about bad experiences and choices the singer lived through or made and how his life was continually slipping away into a darker and darker realm of horror. The title of the newspaper article was the just a reminder to me of the recent movement our country is experiencing as it continues to slip into its own darkness! With that thought in mind, I want to comment on the newspaper article. I copied it below along with my comments.

By Stephen Adams, The Telegraph

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

• "Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed." Who made the parents the final arbitrator on whether their children should live or die? Why should their determining decision only be limited to their child when they are a baby? Many parents would love to "kill" their "children" when they become teenagers!

• "Morally Irrelevant" - says who? The "Experts"? Who are they and who determined that they are qualified to tell the rest of society what is acceptable and what is not? What if the same standard of "morally irrelevant" was applied to them? Should they then be killed?

• "Ending their lives is no different than abortion?" Who ever said that abortion was a good or right thing to do? What objective standard do they refer to when they make these kinds of pronouncements?  How do they know its no different than an abortion? If a born baby's life is "no different" than a fetus life, could we not use that logic for any group of people?

• "Medical ethicist linked to Oxford University" Medical ethicist? What or who determines what they believe to be right and wrong? Once again, is there some sort of standard that we can all agree upon or is it an opinion of these "experts" that should be accepted by the rest us unchallenged?

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

• Newborn are not "actual persons"?  What are they then some type of subhuman, animal, or alien species? Also, when does a child attain "humanness" or become an "actual" person?

• Do not have a "moral right to life"! Once again, by whose standard? My standard says they do have a right to life! Whose standard are we going to use? I would like to know what these so called "experts" consider "moral" and "immoral"? I've got a pretty good idea!

• The parents can have their baby killed if it is defective or disabled at birth! How about these "academics" whose thinking is clearly defective and disabled in mid to late life, what should we do with them?  

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

• The article's author's have received death threats!  Aren't these "authors" advocating the same thing that they are being threatened with -death threats to the unborn or newborn? It's okay to kill the people they consider "non-human," but it is offensive to suggest someone kill these "academics" who are "more" human?

• These threats were made by "fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society??? There we go - use the old-fashioned technique of demonizing your enemy and misrepresenting their position!  Maybe I'm wrong, but the United States Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Who are the real "fanatics" who are opposed to the "values" of a liberal society? It seems to me that they are the ones trying to change the already established values of their society!!!

  
  

Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

• Both lack those properties that justify the attribution or a right to life to an individual! What "properties" are they talking about that would deny the right to life of these children. Aren't they alive already and, if so, don't they fall under the "unalienable right" to "life"?

• Again, how did they determine that the "moral" status of a fetus is equivalent to that of an infant? Please show us the criteria! Using their nebulous criteria, anyone could be accused of "lacking those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life"!

As our nation continues to slide down the slippery slope of human autonomy at a more accelerated pace, we will reap the judgment of God in greater and greater measure. Verses in Deuteronomy contrast the end results of either obeying or disobeying God's Holy Law:

If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God:  - Deuteronomy 28:1-2

However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: - Deuteronomy 28:15

May the church seek God and his holy anointing as we attempt to turn the nation back to God. If we fail or are slack in our mission, the words of the group War will ring out prophetically:

You've been slippin' into darkness

Oh oh oh oh

Pretty soon, you're gonna pay.

Yeah, yeah!

Stay Holy, My Friends!

 

 

Pastor Don 

 To read more, visit:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html