Only Real Guns Are Allowed

[CaptainXeroid]

So they can make sure you're not having any fun. :149:

I always wondered the real reason.

 

[Pah]

So, a school tells its students that they are not allowed to play certain video games (what a tragedy:sarcastic, but not a constituional right) and that if they have firearms (a constitutional right) they have to be secure at all times, and subsequently some people on a forum turn this into "they must be racist". That's not very tolerant for people that love to talk about how intolerant the christian right is.

There was a Supreme Court case that shows in detail the racist tendancies and (former) policies of Bob Jones University. Little has changed except the meager admission of blacks to the campus

The intolerance is not with our members.

 

[Melody]

Guess my glasses have quit working. I could've sworn that said "university" but it looks more like a prison to me.

Sunstone, I'd give you frubals but I have to spread the wealth for awhile. I'll try to remember to come back and frubal you for the "intellectually" dead comment. One wonders how many of the classics their students will read if they'll ban contemporary christian music. Guess Catcher in the Rye is out, eh?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wonder if the bullets in thier guns have to have crosses engraved on them and be blessed?

 

[Cr0wley]

Wonder if the bullets in thier guns have to have crosses engraved on them and be blessed?

LoL

Me: "Dude, why do you have a gun?"

Bob Jones University Student: "It's for the vampires, man! The vampires!"

 

[Pah]

Guess my glasses have quit working. I could've sworn that said "university" but it looks more like a prison to me.
...

Dress code http://www.bju.edu/prospective/expect/dress.html I like this one:

Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister have shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions. In protest, we will not allow articles displaying their logos to be worn, carried, or displayed (even if covered or masked in some way).

General expectations http://www.bju.edu/prospective/expect/general.html This caught my eye:

We want students to have wholesome social opportunities in a setting that provides accountability for biblical requirements of purity. It is with this in mind that we chaperon campus activities where men and women students are present and require a chaperon when students date or interact in a mixed group off campus.

Residence Hall Life http://www.bju.edu/prospective/expect/rhall.html Too much opportunity to be without chaperon???

Students may bring automobiles to campus. However, underclassmen (freshmen and sophomores) who are under 21 years old may use their vehicles only to drive home and for extension.

 

[Yerda]

This whole thing makes me wonder what calibre handgun Jesus Christ packed?

Did you know Jesus and Moses used guns to conquer the Romans?

WARNING: Guns are extremely dangerous. Do not purchase, own, clean, operate, or be near guns at any time.

Looked like an AK in the dramatization.

 

[BUDDY]

There was a Supreme Court case that shows in detail the racist tendancies and (former) policies of Bob Jones University. Little has changed except the meager admission of blacks to the campus.

Case please? If I believed everything the judicial system tells me, then I would think that homosexuals in Texas are the devil and its oky to kill your wife if she's cheating.

The intolerance is not with our members.

That, my friend, is entirely a matter of opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I dont remember reading about a supreme court case involving BJU.
Was this case recent?

..require a chaperon when students date or interact in a mixed group off campus.

That is just wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sideburns should not extend past the middle of the ear. Men are expected to remain clean-shaven.

No ZZTop beards? What kind of place could say no to that?

Hairstyles should be neat, orderly, and feminine. Avoid cutting-edge fads and cuts so short that they take on a masculine look.

Feminine? So is all hair supposed to be long? I did see a picture of a guy with short hair on that page.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bob Jones justifies www.landoverbaptist.com - but the sick thing is that the univeristy really promotes the backwards behavior as discussed above...

Which is worse?!

 

[Cr0wley]

Men are not permitted to get tattoos or wear body piercings

And if you got them before you enrolled?

Loyalty to Christ results in separated living. Dishonesty, lewdness, sensual behavior, adultery, homosexuality, sexual perversion of any kind, pornography, illegal use of drugs, and drunkenness all are clearly condemned by God's Word and prohibited here. Further, we believe that biblical principles preclude gambling, dancing, and the beverage use of alcohol.

Whoa whoa whoa, Mr Holy Man! Dancing? And where in the Bible does it say "thou shalt not watch pornography or act in a 'sensual' manner?"

These people must be breaking some sort of constitutional right of some kind... Who actually submits to this nonsense?!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That Landover Baptist is sickening. Any place that would justify that isn't worth going to, unless your very cruel hearted, and believe in burning witches at the stake.

 

[Pah]

Case please? If I believed everything the judicial system tells me, then I would think that homosexuals in Texas are the devil and its oky to kill your wife if she's cheating.


That, my friend, is entirely a matter of opinion.

And the opinion happens to be the law of the land :biglaugh: It's called a holding :biglaugh:

Use google for Bob Jones Supreme Court. At least one will have the court opinion that counts

 

[Pah]

I dont remember reading about a supreme court case involving BJU.
Was this case recent?

EEWRED can tell you when he does the google search but definetly within the last 20 years

 

[Fat Old Sun]

For those willing to sort through all of the legal speak: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=574

This is the part that generated all of the publicity and outcry:



Following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in McCrary v. Runyon, 515 F.2d 1082 (1975), aff'd, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), prohibiting racial exclusion from private schools, the University revised its policy. Since May 29, 1975, the University has permitted unmarried Negroes to enroll; but a disciplinary rule prohibits interracial dating and marriage. That rule reads:

• "There is to be no interracial dating.
  

• "1. Students who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. [size=-1][461 U.S. 574, 581] [/size]
  

• "2. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.
  

• "3. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled.
  

• "4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University's dating rules and regulations will be expelled." App. in No. 81-3, p. A197.
  

The University continues to deny admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating. Id., at A277.

 

[BUDDY]

And the opinion happens to be the law of the land :biglaugh: It's called a holding :biglaugh:

I was refering to your statement about intolerence, but nice try.

 

[BUDDY]

EEWRED can tell you when he does the google search but definetly within the last 20 years

22 years ago to be exact. Here is a short synopsis of the case and ruling:
http://www.phschool.com/atschool/supreme_court_cases/bob_jones_university.html

 

[Pah]

I was refering to your statement about intolerence, but nice try.

The Court is the source of my opinion and I'll take care of that in the next post.

 

[Pah]

22 years ago to be exact. Here is a short synopsis of the case and ruling:
http://www.phschool.com/atschool/supreme_court_cases/bob_jones_university.html

You really should have gone to the case itself rather than a classroom synopsis. It documents in several place the intolerance and discrimination Bob Jones Univerity codified in policy

My hat's off to Fat Old Sun for doing the job you should have done.

But I'll expand, a little on Fat Old Sun's work

Selected quotes from the Case.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=461&invol=574

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to decide whether petitioners, nonprofit private schools that prescribe and enforce racially discriminatory admissions standards on the basis of religious doctrine, qualify as tax-exempt organizations under 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, 5 but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race.

Following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in McCrary v. Runyon, 515 F.2d 1082 (1975), aff'd, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), prohibiting racial exclusion from private schools, the University revised its policy. Since May 29, 1975, the University has permitted unmarried Negroes to enroll; but a disciplinary rule prohibits interracial dating and marriage. That rule reads:

"There is to be no interracial dating.

"1. Students who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. [461 U.S. 574, 581]

"2. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.

"3. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled.

"4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University's dating rules and regulations will be expelled." App. in No. 81-3, p. A197.

The University continues to deny admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating. Id., at A277.

We are bound to approach these questions with full awareness that determinations of public benefit and public policy are sensitive matters with serious implications for the institutions affected; a declaration that a given institution is not "charitable" should be made only where there can be no doubt that the activity involved is contrary to a fundamental public policy. But there can no longer be any doubt that racial discrimination in education violates deeply and widely accepted views of elementary justice. Prior to 1954, public education in many places still was conducted under the pall of [461 U.S. 574, 593] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); racial segregation in primary and secondary education prevailed in many parts of the country. See, e. g., Segregation and the Fourteenth Amendment in the States (B. Reams & P. Wilson eds. 1975). 20 This Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), signalled an end to that era. Over the past quarter of a century, every pronouncement of this Court and myriad Acts of Congress and Executive Orders attest a firm national policy to prohibit racial segregation and discrimination in public education.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals are, accordingly,

Affirmed.

An offical government document specifing the intolerance of Bob Jones University.