What’s Happening To Gordon College Is Just The Beginning

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2014/07/10/accreditation-board-r…

why does Gordon need federal money? and why does it count as a federal contractor?

Perhaps we will look back on this day in the not-too-distant future and see where secular accreditation for Christian colleges began to unravel. I believe that is the ultimate goal of the Politically Correct movement, and we have known this day was coming. It is just sad to see it arrive.

I would love to see some expert commentary about what all this means.

The only thing missing from the story is a (hypothetical) quote from someone on the PC side stating: “Of course we know that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.”

I’m not an expert on these matters, but the issue appears to be that:

1. Obama’s executive order will force organization which receive federal funding to not discriminate in hiring LGBT folks.
2. Christian colleges and universities receive federal funding through student loans.
3. Therefore, Christian colleges may soon have to choose whether they’ll receive federal funds or not, if they want to stand fast on God’s word.

I’m not certain what the potential ramifications may be. I’ll let someone who actually knows elaborate on that, but I think I can say that the ramifications will be “bad.”

I wonder if the precedent from the old BJU Supreme Court ruling years ago could come back to bite the Christian college community down the road. If tax exempt status is considered a form of federal subsidy requiring adherence to federal public policy, could it come down to Christian colleges losing their non-profit status if they don’t tow the line?

[SBashoor]…. could it come down to Christian colleges losing their non-profit status if they don’t tow the line?

What the government giveth … the government can taketh away

from student loans. They are going to go after Gordon College’s accreditation!!!! Of course, the accreditation committee will encourage the school to avoid that by firing the president and not “discriminating” against homosexuals. For accreditation you must follow many rules, including certain ones “protecting” faculty, staff and students. That is the door for the pro-homosexual/anti-God crowd to charge discrimination and to terminate a Christian school’s accreditation. As BJU has found out, life is hard as a liberal arts school in 2014 if your graduates have limited access to graduate school and professional licenses.

The hard thing here is that even if you turn down federal money YOU STILL NEED ACCREDITATION.

[SBashoor]

I wonder if the precedent from the old BJU Supreme Court ruling years ago could come back to bite the Christian college community down the road. If tax exempt status is considered a form of federal subsidy requiring adherence to federal public policy, could it come down to Christian colleges losing their non-profit status if they don’t tow the line?

I was reading this article yesterday and have to admit that Bob Jones Sr. completely called this some 80+ years ago in his little tract on acceditation.

And yes, SBashoor, I do think that will happen. Here’s the findings of the SCOTUS, as quoted by Wikipedia:

“Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization…[i] t would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially gender identity discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools’ policies, racial gender identity discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above ‘charitable’ concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3).”

Not that much of a jump, is it?

This is some of the text of the BJU v. USA court case, as recorded by FindLaw.

In approaching this statutory construction question the Court quite adeptly avoids the statute it is construing. This I am sure is no accident, for there is nothing in the language [461 U.S. 574, 613] of 501(c)(3) that supports the result obtained by the Court. Section 501(c)(3) provides tax-exempt status for:

“Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.” 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).

With undeniable clarity, Congress has explicitly defined the requirements for 501(c)(3) status. An entity must be

1. a corporation, or community chest, fund, or foundation,
2. organized for one of the eight enumerated purposes,
3. operated on a nonprofit basis, and
4. free from involvement in lobbying activities and political campaigns.

Nowhere is there to be found some additional, undefined public policy requirement…
…Another way to read the Court’s opinion leads to the conclusion that even though Congress has set forth some of the requirements of a 501(c)(3) organization, it intended that the IRS additionally require that organizations meet a higher standard of public interest, not stated by Congress, but to be determined and defined by the IRS and the courts. This view I find equally unsupportable. Almost a century of statutory history proves that Congress itself intended to decide what 501(c)(3) requires. Congress has expressed its decision in the plainest of terms in 501(c)(3) by providing that tax-exempt status is to be given to any corporation, or community chest, fund, or foundation that is organized for one of the eight enumerated purposes, operated on a nonprofit basis, and uninvolved in lobbying activities or political campaigns. The IRS certainly is empowered to adopt regulations for the enforcement of these specified requirements, and the courts have authority to resolve challenges to the IRS’s exercise of this power, but Congress has left it to neither the IRS nor the courts to select or add to the requirements of 501(c)(3).

Yet President Obama’s Executive Order yesterday explictly mandated the additional public policy requirement of protecting LGBT rights in order to get Federal funding. So Rehnquist was right, but no one cares about that.

from christianity today:

The executive order also lets stand a George W. Bush-era provision allowing religious contractors to hire employees “of a particular religion,” said Thomas Berg, a professor of law and public policy at the University of St. Thomas (Minn.).

“Several federal courts have held that this language, incorporated from elsewhere in antidiscrimination law, allows religious organizations to have standards concerning employees’ conduct if those moral standards stem from the organization’s religious beliefs,” Berg said.

These past orders add up to a patchwork of protection for religious organizations, said Douglas Laycock, a professor of law and religious studies at the University of Virginia.

“And very important, [the] executive order creates no right for anyone to sue anyone else. So gay rights groups cannot organize litigation against religious contactors,” he said. “Only the contracting agencies can enforce this order, and they may quietly enforce it with attention to religious liberty—which is what this administration has mostly done so far.”

it seems like the only concrete things that have happened to gordon college is the city of salem decided find a new contractor to manage city hall and the accreditation agency plans to discuss the issue of discrimination by religious organizations at their september meeting (not evaluating gordon’s accreditation at this meeting).

so gordon might want to look around for a potential new accreditation agency, but really, is the situation really worth getting worked up over?

Religious organization to Obama et al is strictly a CHURCH. Anything other than that they see as a bidness (or business if you will). I don’t see that protecting us for very long. And don’t forget, plenty of Christians say they have no problem with homosexuality.

And while Gordon College’s accreditation is not specifically being addressed at this meeting, it is a threat to get them to fire the president and not “discriminate”. In a short while this can of worms will open further, have no illusion to that.

That will be the future tool used to get colleges to capitulate to the “gay agenda” or face the consequences.

I am starting to see the moral justifications for not paying taxes.

Cue: the ‘render unto Caesar’ quotes. But if you are going to justify the original Tea Party and Revolutionary War, then surely we have the same justification now. (if not more so given the current US constitution creates government as an extension of the people)

NOT paying taxes not an option for me. Frankly you can’t avoid them anyway with withholding and the nature of reporting. One is likely to get into quite a bit of problems, penalties et cetera by seeking to skip paying taxes

[JC]

I am starting to see the moral justifications for not paying taxes.

Cue: the ‘render unto Caesar’ quotes. But if you are going to justify the original Tea Party and Revolutionary War, then surely we have the same justification now. (if not more so given the current US constitution creates government as an extension of the people)

Uh….no. There are no ‘moral’ justifications for withholding taxes, especially since Jesus paid not only civil taxes but also the Jewish temple tax. (Matthew 17:22-27). The background of the revolutionary war is light-years from where we are right now.