That is clearly shown to all but the most stubborn critics in the freedom to drink in private. It is also substantiated by the requirement to not appear in class within six hours of drinking.
In all provisions of this pledge, it is CLEAR that it is about Teacher / Student interactions with alcohol.
To continue to argue as you are doing also clearly shows that you are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel, Ie. ignoring the obvious to find fault.
Christianity does not forbid alcohol usage, in fact it promotes the usage of wine for health purposes. It does in fact prohibit drunkenness. Now how many undergrads drink wine for health or taste vs drunkenness?
The bible says not to let your freedoms become a stumbling block for someone else. It does not use alcohol as the example, it uses the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. This is a hard thing for the American man on the street to understand, but I will try to put it into terms that a secular man in modern society can relate to. We do not like our baseball hero's to be drug users. While the individual ball player has the right to imbibe in this culture in drugs despite being illegal, he does NOT have to right to do so and influence all the children and young adults that look up to him as a role model. It's not about him, its about them. This pledge simply asks the teachers in this christian university to pledge to the same standards that we would expect from professional ball players.
That is the closest I can get to a secular parallel. It is a parallel, but I also lean on the understanding that there is none so blind as those who refuse to see. If you cannot stomach the moral convictions of this University, you too are free to walk away feeling that somehow you are more moral for choosing freedom over integrity.
The biblical conclusion of eating meat from idols says Better that I never eat meat again than my freedom cause another to stumble.
The pledge is actually well thought out on a Biblical basis, I commend them. The shocking part is the incredible level of corruption that was in place that something as simple as this minor biblicaly based statement could flush them out in droves. Just imagine, you send your kids to a Bible college hoping that the teachers would teach a biblical foundation, and the teachers cannot even curtail their public drinking and sodomy? They were quite free to sign the pledge and still do these things, but they were so used to the "freedom" to openly live this extra-biblical lifestyle that they were actually offended at having to give lip service to the very foundation of the Universtiy that they are supposed to be teaching in!
Amazing...
Woe to those who worship their freedom more than their responsibility to a God that is both Holy and a Judge. That is not freedom, it is rebellion and the gates of Hell were built to contain them and the angels that lead them astray.
To continue to argue as you are doing also clearly shows that you are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel, Ie. ignoring the obvious to find fault.
<><><><><
I’d be interested in hearing what you think my point is. Mainly because I don’t think you have yet unearthed it. It’s a big thread, lots of posts, hard to keep things in context.
I’ve consistently stated that it is within the school’s rights to have whatever rules in place they want. If the school wishes to disallow their staff to drink beer in public, hey, if you can live with that rule ... go for it.
But folks like you, who confound drinking a beer in public with a lack of high moral standards (how else should I read your statement: “I really do not see it as a problem to ask someone who is in a position of leadership to have high moral standards”?), yes, with that I take issue.
You may want to examine your gnat and camel in the context of your own statements.