Clinton and Obama Appear at Religious College that Categorizes Homosexuality with Stealing, Adultery & Sexual Abuse

Who chose this venue? CNN? Did you try to find out Jake how and by whom the forum was organized?
If Obama and Clinton were aware of the college’s views, they IMO should have accepted the invitation and use the opportunity to speak out in favor of gay rights, directly and critically addressing the “community covenant” you quote.

To Javan last year Hillary said Republicans had a god complex. She said they vote for judges because of a message from god. Hillary said Bush is obsessed about god. America must like being lied to for them to hold the Clintons in such high regard.
I don’t know how anyone can’t take her seriously.
It is not what she says when she is running for office that are her true feeelings.
Hillary is a passionate gun control advocate but doesn’t speak about that during the pennsylvania primary. All of a sudden we hear about hunting ducks as a child.
Hillary and Obama are against allowing DC residents to carry handguns. They are anti second amendment.

Where is the spirit of tolerance in this article? How can the left be so tolerant of various lifestyles, but so intolerant of viewpoints (and the people that hold them) that oppose them? I see a huge double standard here.

There would have been a outcry i must admit if a republican had done it !! but only closed minded people in my humble opinion would have been the ones doing the crying !!

Oh yes, we should have tolerance for intolerance! Guess we should have been more tolerant of guys like Hitler. Oh wait, we were tolerant of Stalin, that didn’t work out so well for the millions of jews he killed. Nope, not gonna sit back and be okay with views that allow one group of people to look down on another.

“How can politicians appear at a college that espouses these ideas and then turn around and court the gay community at the same time?”
Because the gay community let’s them get away with it. Democrats always get a free pass on homophobia and anti-semitism for that matter. The hypocrisy ends only when those groups say ‘enough’. Until then, Democratic leaders will be allowed their two faces.

“Homosexuality is in fact wrong and a sin – much like stealing, adultery and sexual abuse are in fact sins.”
Holy mouse… USA 2008… I immediately deplore the whole idea of even further embracing religion in a political context… and even the Pope has arrived… Reason, save our souls…

I believe that religion should be left out of the political equation altogether. Whatever happened to separation of church and state in this country? Personally, I am much more likely to support an atheist than someone who professes deep religious beliefs.

How can they go to this school?
Because they read Begala and Carville’s book analyzing what Democrats will need to do in order to be the next president.
Gays
Guns
God
The 3 Gs.
Gays in the military will suit GLT.
Gays and God will suit the religious right.
Guns for hunting will suit 2nd amendment folk.
Handgun control will be good for the urban core and those who are afraid to travel to the urban core.
god is good for all political seasons except in the way Obama used guns and god (tongue in cheek. I think the media has gone too far with this one. Republicans stay out of the Democratic primary).
It will not suit Democrat candidates to acknowledge gays with the right looking for god in this context.
I think it is a b.s. Even if it is a political strategy designed to win the White House, the candidates (any candidate left or right) should not be able to use god as a cloak or a shield for appealing to one group’s biases or religious sentiment. Either you believe gays have the same rights under the Constitution or you don’t. Playing politics with their legal status is despicable.
It is the same sick feeling I get when Hillary uses race as a wedge or Obama avoids race because it makes people uncomfortable (ie. avoiding Memphis on April 4th).
There are big issues facing the country in the future. The candidates can’t be milquetoast when handling a coherent Middle East policy, an environmental strategy that does not rely on oil as an energy source, and defeating the impact of AIDS in the U.S. and abroad.
At some point, each group’s sensitivities (regardless of what group will be most offended) will have to managed on some level (in the most humane way possible without pandering needlessly) to affect the best result for most people including those with sensitivities. How they get there will demonstrate to me whether they can actually be a great commander in chief. Being a Republican lite or Cheney lite is not the answer.

“Oh yes, we should have tolerance for intolerance! Guess we should have been more tolerant of guys like Hitler. Oh wait, we were tolerant of Stalin, that didn’t work out so well for the millions of jews he killed.”
Seems to me that we didn’t tolerate Hitler when we went after him for killing Jews. Nor did we tolerate the Japanese when they attacked without provocation. Nor should we tolerate terrorists who vow to wipe us out. Should we tolerate those that attack us for our beliefs? Only if you are an evangelical Christian, then you are fair game, open to attack for being “intolerant.”

What Christian college would exist in the US that doesn’t identify homosexual behavior as being outside of God’s plan for his children? Should the candidates not grace any Christian college with their presence? Is Christianity being reduced to shaping its theology on popular thought and political correctness? Does the gay community need Christianity to reject its doctrines to make it palatable? Cannot both schools of thought co-exist? Christianity can support loving the individual and the rights of all people whether their lifestyles agree with the faith’s tenants. Would it not be discrimination of Christianity to create a climate where followers of that faith have to change or reject their scripture to appease popular thought?

Oh brother. This debate again. No, they should not have appeared at this college which promotes hate filled Bible banging bigotry. The majority of Christians are good decent people that go through life attempting to do the right thing. But then you have the hate mongers like Chris who think that both cultures should co-exist. What a bunch of crap. Hatred that is shielded by scripture is still hatred and bigotry and should not be accepted by anyone. There are Christians and then there are “christians.” We know which one Chris is.

Pandering hypocrites both!

Gee whiz how are the flaming liberals going to spin this “fact”?
I sure we will hear all the excuses in the world…………you know everything but the truth.
The Dems, clearly not the party that our liberal MSM wolfpack press has protrayed for the last several decades.

How dare liberals appear at such a conservative college. What was CNN thinking!? Hats off to Jake for, once again, blowing the lid off of hypocracy in America.

I’m gay and I see this as a NON-ISSUE and I’m NOT outraged or care they went.
I know both candidates support LGBT rights and both will get rid of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”. They are not bigots.
What I would like to know is should the candidates not talk to young voters because the college is anti-lgbt rights?

Clinton…America’s Eva Peron.

Looks like they just want votes to me. I am a christian and I dont think it’s right for gays to be married by a pastor but…I agree with what someone said earlier, should the presidential candidates, who need and want everyone’s opinion and support, not speak to young voters simply because their college teaches certain things which cause others to freak out? No. Everyone deserves to know where these candidates stand, even if they attend a school with controversial ethics.

Not much tolerance here!

As such, its “community covenant” states that members of the Messiah College community “avoid such sinful practices as drunkenness, stealing, dishonesty, profanity, occult practices, sexual intercourse outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, and sexually exploitative or abusive behavior.”
Something’s wrong with this picture. Isn’t religion an instance of occult practice?

Jake, how many Christian colleges do you think you could find that did NOT officially frown on homosexuality? Are you suggesting that Obama and Clinton should have boycotted the entire Christian religion because it officially frowns on homosexuality?
Even if you think this is in the same league as visiting a college that is openly racist and bigoted even in its admission policy, it is not true that no one is criticizing Obama and Clinton for this, because after all, YOU ARE.

Where is the spirit of tolerance in this article? How can the left be so tolerant of various lifestyles, but so intolerant of viewpoints (and the people that hold them) that oppose them? I see a huge double standard here.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 15, 2008 7:42:10 AM
No double standard here. The tolerance applies narrowly to your right to your beliefs, including bigotry. You don’t have to like gays but you have no right to limit their full enjoyment of those inalienable rights we take for granted for everyone–life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Jose C – I think by “sick” they mean “icky,” which seems to be their primary reason for restricting the constitutional rights of others.

I live within 10 miles of Messiah College and can tell you this. A couple years ago they forced the student council president to leave school after they found out he was gay. Now how bad of a student and person could this man have been to be elected as President of the Student council? The place isn’t fit for Mickey Mouse to speak!!!

Oh boy…What a non-issue. I actually watched the “Compassion Forum” and found it to be quite enlightening. Both Barack and Hillary stuck to their already voiced positions in response to the questions answered. Homosexuality was not included in the agenda. What was most interesting was to see folks of obviously different interpretations of their beliefs interact in a relatively civil manner.Presumably all of the folks were of one religious faith or another: Barack,Hillary both of Christian persuasions versus the inteviewers and audience. The body language of the interviewers/audience as they listened and tried to reconcile the candidates answers was telling. The most tension was generated with the “when does life begin?” question as it relates to a woman’s right to choose. Both Hillary and Barack responsed honestly and in accordance with their previously stated positions.

I also live within 10 miles of Messiah College and I recall that about a decade or so ago, the theater arts professor at the school was asked by his students to share his views on homosexuality. He stated that he believed that St. Paul would not object to a couple of the same sex living in a loving and monogamous relationship. Some of his students reported him to the administration and he was summarily fired. So much for compassion.

Sexual behavior is 100% biological by the laws of nature & of nature’s God and even though society does not tolerate all behaviors insofar as passing laws against behaviors it doesn’t condone, people still make a discriminatory conscious choice to choose who, what, & how many they will bed or wed.

Messiah College did not create the concept of sin. Nor did they write the scriptures. They merely choose to be a college that admits people from their own community who share their own basic beliefs. Freedom to worship the God of our choice is the very foundation of the need for a country like the U.S.
Some of you seem to think that christians do not have the right to practice their faith Faith and the right to practice that faith is an essential freedome in this country. When did it fall out of fashion to protect the basic rights of Americans? There are many faiths in my country and I am proud of that. I am not a buddhist but I would fight for the right for other Americans to be buddhist if they so chose.

Society has the right to pass laws against consenting adults choosing to practice the sexual behaviors of polygamy, bigamy, adultery, & homosexuality, but does law enforcement only enforce politically-correct laws against polygamy? Its like outlawing marriage to prevent divorce.

The college sticks to a Biblical basis. They don’t speak out against homosexuality. They let people come on campus and protest it. Students are rather sympathetic to homosexuals. Chapels are held surrounding the issue of homosexuality and how students should be inclusive. Perhaps people should do their research before slamming Messiah College – a place dedicated to broadening peoples world views – not promoting one idea or way of life but to promote exploration of faith – whatever that means for the individual

I can’t believe that any of this makes any bit of difference to the college or the candidates for that matter. As an alumni and now a parent of a student at Messiah College, I can only defend the college. It is listed as a private Christian college. Therefore, this college has the right to make up rules according to the biblical concepts it espouses. Last I checked freedom of religion was still part of the constitution, although some of the citizens of the US seem to try to exclude that.
It is sad to me that so many who preach that every voice should be heard and every culture and religion included are the same ones who seem to think that because a small minority do not share Christian ideals, we need to stay away from those churches and now Christian colleges.
I feel truly blessed that I graduated from this school with a very solid education and also am glad that I send my son to a school where he gets a great education and where there is very little violence and crime. Maybe it is because of some of those ideals and rules that the campus does not have as much violence and crime as public colleges and universities.

Wow, I like how the author cited a STUDENT’S HOMEPAGE that refers to counseling homosexuals, not even an OFFICIAL Messiah College website. Do your research, Messiah is incomparable to Bob Jones in nearly every way. Messiah College is about embracing diversity and differences, not shutting out all views different from our own.

“How can the left be so tolerant of various lifestyles, but so intolerant of viewpoints (and the people that hold them) that oppose them?”
Javan, for people who believe in a free and fair society, it really does not matter whether a “lifestyle” or a “viewpoint” is different from our own. It matters whether any given lifestyle or viewpoint infringes on the rights of others. I don’t care if Messiah or Bob Jones administrators live a lifestyle of celibacy or choose their own mate on the basis of race and/or sex. I DO care if they do not support the rights of other adults to make their own relationship choices and to be respected and treated as equals under the law. That’s where they cross the line into bigotry.

If everyone has a ‘right’ to practice their own lifestyle(s) or behavior(s), then why are the polygamists being ‘persecuted’?

Apparently this writer doesn’t understand Christianity.
Messiah is a Christian school, so it shouldn’t be an issue when they have Christian policies on their campus. We have a right to religion in the USA, and what people believe privately is their own business.

Ive read all these comments and Im in the middle of reading, “The 7th Article of the U.S. Constitution adopted & ratified in the year of our LORD”. I wondered which LORD the imperfect founding fathers were referring to & discovered a never overturned UNANIMOUS U.S. Supreme Court opinion with over 87 legal case precedents in 1 case by Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. Supreme Court 2-29-1892 declaring imperfect America as a Judeo-Christian nation. That can’t be I thought to myself as I read the Last Verse of our National Anthem…America’s Outlawed Prayer hidden in a song’s poem…The Star-Spangled Banner’s Last Verse being, “Oh! Thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land (that’s U.S.)
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! (that’s HIM!)
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just, And this be our motto:
IN GOD IS OUR TRUST (Psalms 16:1)
And The Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave (Song of Solomon 2:4)
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!” After all, how dare they sneak God into our National Anthem? It went from bad to worse as I saw the Last Verse of “My Country tis of Thee”…“Our father’s God, to Thee, Author of Liberty, To Thee we sing; Long may our land be Bright with Freedom’s Holy Light; Protect us by Thy Might, Great God, our King!” Fed up I got out a good book to read & read…
“The Holy Bible”.You should all read this book to see ‘Do not kill’, but be Life; ‘Do not commit adultery’, but be Faithful; ‘Do not bear false witness & lie, be Truthful’; ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’; ‘Love God for your neighbor & for yourself’…to live a better life & for more freedom of religious speech please refer to ‘The Holy Bible’. Someone’s moral behavior is bound to take precedence over someone else’s ethics. It’s called the rule of law.

People are born homosexual, just as people are born heterosexual, born with blue eyes, born male or female. It is not a choice. It is genetic.
Polygomy is not genetic.

The language of the presidential oath is specified in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The president-elect traditionally takes the oath with his hand on a Bible. However, this is not a requirement — Theodore Roosevelt took the oath in 1901 without swearing on a Bible.
The vice-president-elect takes the same oath as other federal employees:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The presidential oath does NOT end with the words “so help me God” as incorrectly stated by someone else in these comments, nor is there a requirement to place one’s hand on the Bible or any other book, holy or otherwise.

The same person who incorrectly claimed that the presidential oath ends with the phrase “so help me God” is also incorrectly claiming that society has a right to prohibit consenting adults from choosing to engage in private homosexual behavior.
Perhaps this person lives in some other country? Perhaps that is why he or she is ignorant on matters relating to the United States Constitution, including something as basic as the oath of office for the presidency, confusing it with the oath taken by federal employees.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of consenting adults to engage in private homosexual behavior. This was upheld by the Supreme Court five years ago in Lawrence v. Texas.
There are no currently valid federal or state laws prohibiting homosexual behavior except that it is still prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for members of the armed services. The UCMJ still prohibits adultery, too.

Sex is an act. People are sexual beings. To be born with a genetic mutation such as hermaphroditism, intersexuality, mosaicism, chimerism, or to be born as as a conjoined/siamese twin is not a choice. All human sexuality is a behavioral choice.

Society has a right to prohibit consenting adults from choosing to engage in any private or public behavior or act. The U.S. Constitution can even be used to deprive people of life or limb under due process of law for an illegal act. Federal law supersedes any misquoted policy from the State Department. The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 Legally Requires the Oath Pledge of “so help me God” by the President-elect to do otherwise is a violation of the oath to uphold it & the swearing in would be unconstitutional if not said.

The language of the presidential oath is specified in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” However, the swearing in ceremony is unconstitutionally incomplete if the President-elect has not completely affirmed the oath pledge with “So help me God” by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. The legal reason this legal requirement of “So help me God” is so legally important is once Elected, the President of the U.S.; while not a member of the Judiciary, also has the Constitutional Authority & Power to disband, remove, increase, or decrease the number of members of the Judiciary sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

If someone tries to disparage Me by calling Me an idiot, would that behavior reveal bigotry towards the mentally handicapped/challenged? If I am an idiot, is that genetic or environmental and can I change if I am a born idiot? Let’s pass a law to fix it! Let’s get a law passed to make stupid illegal & outlaw idiocy. Oops! I forget, you can’t fix stupid…stupid things like adulterous behavior as people never learn & never change, right? Am I a born liar too? Can I be a liar in my private life but be trusted with the public life of the Presidency? Does the best liar get to be President?

Checkmate! Better questions, better answers, better facts!

“Willful ignorance” would best describe someone who persists in making ridiculous claims in spite of all evidence to the contrary. To claim that the State Department’s official website is wrong on the requirements of the presidential oath is ludicrous.

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. Supreme Court has nothing to do with the presidential oath. It does NOT provide legal support supplementing the ending phrase of “so help me God” to the presidential oath. The requirements of the presidential oath are spelled out in the Constitution. In fact, it is highly likely that should any court in this country ever rule that the phrase “so help me God” MUST be included in an oath of office it would be overturned as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on a “religious test.”
When taking an oath of office, the deponent is allowed to choose to “affirm” rather than “swear.” Even in those oaths, other than the presidential oath, that include the phrase “so help me God,” the deponent is permitted to drop the “so help me God” if he or she chooses to affirm rather than swear.
It has been common practice for decades that presidents-elect choose to add the phrase “so help me God” to their oath of office but that is NOT a requirement and it has NEVER been a requirement, just as it is not now and never has been a requirement that the Bible be used.
No amount of quoting irrelevant Supreme Court rulings or citing the height of buildings in the nation’s capital will change the requirements set forth in the Constitution for the presidential oath.

If the Congress voted unanimously all the time there would that make a supreme court or presidency obsolete Conventionally speaking of the Constitution from a Constitutional Convention perspective?

What Congressional Act or U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned the UNANIMOUS decision of Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. Supreme Court 2-29-1892?
Can people be trusted to read the decision & decide for themselves?

Heterosexuals need to get their act straight to not act-up. Sacred vows of marriage should be protected from adultery, lying, & defilement. The Judeo-Christian definition of marriage: the God ordained & established pre-existing precedent of Holy matrimony only between 1 man & 1 woman. Holy matrimony in marriage needs to be rediscovered not redefined. In regards to a vow or an Oath note the quote of existing Law for politicians (policyticians), …”all officers shall take an Oath closing with the declaration, so help me God…THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION” from Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S. Supreme Court’s NEVER OVERTURNED UNANIMOUS DECISION 2-29-1892. The truth is “so help me God” reaffirms The Truth of this nation’s Ordained Establishment of the Judeo-Christian Religion & not that counterfeit religion of Darwinian secular humanism. Failing the Judeo-Christian Religious Test proves a Commander-in-Chief Officer (CINCO) is not fit for office to adMINISTER The Truth in Law. “Willful Deception” would best describe someone who persists in making ridiculous claims despite of all Self-Evidence & evidence to the contrary. Is “Willful Deception” like lying & perjury or does it depend on what the meaning of the word is…IS!

Well, for one… Visiting a conservative college to speak about ones campaign doesnt been one has changed their liberal opinion.
For two… It just shows respect. Although these colleges are conservative and have really bad taste in making impulsive and hyprocritical decisions, they should hear the liberal view. they may have a change in heart!