Bob Jones in the Bible

Bob Jones

It is a fact that we live in a world where democracy, equality and tolerance have become the norm rather than the exception. It appears that the human race is finally advancing towards a stage where peace and harmony are real possibilities. However, if cases such as the Bob Jones University are taken into account, it is also a sad reality that some simply will not divert from their fundamentalist and non-tolerant views.

The Bob Jones interpretation of the Bible is problematic on several levels. Firstly, one must take into account the nature of the institution. As a non-profit, charitable educational institution, it provides a service to the public. It is neither a church, nor does it operate as a private university that could on that basis claim its right to admit or reject applicants as it sees fit.

As an institution that provides a public service, the institution should adhere to public policy and operate for the good of the public as a whole. Bob Jones does not do this. The university discriminates openly against people who are in interracial relationships, and even against those who endorse such relationships. The institution does this on the basis of a literal and fundamental interpretation of a centuries-old portion of the Old Testament in the Bible. This is blatantly discriminatory against a certain sector of society, and based upon racial issues. It is directly against public policy and does not serve the good of the public as whole, as it is excluding a portion of the public based upon race.

In addition to being against the equality laws of the country, this is not right in terms of the nature of the institution. Bob Jones operates on a non-profit, charitable basis. Charity should occur without any consideration for race or religion. Racism and religious fundamentalism have no place in charitable organizations, and should therefore also be excluded from Bob Jones, and indeed from education as a whole. It is directly against the value of the human right to education in the United States.

Secondly, Bob Jones claims to be an educational institution, but interprets Genesis 10 quite literally, like the most religious of foundations. The institution believes that all human beings on earth descended from Noah's family, after all human beings were destroyed in the flood at the time. According to this interpretation, all human beings can be classified into three basic races -- European, Semitic, and African, which descend from Noah's three sons, Japheth, Shem and Ham. According to Genesis 10, it is a sin for people of different races to marry and have children. Bob Jones is claiming that it is simply exercising its right to freedom of religion, and that it should therefore enjoy the privileges of all other non-profit organizations.

The problem with the religious freedom argument once again relates to the fact that the university is a public institution. It operates within a diversity belief systems and races. If it were true to its nature as a charity organization, it would provide an environment in which all religions and races can thrive in harmony and tolerance. However, by exercising its own version of "religious freedom," the university is discriminating against a sector of society it should serve.

This is not to say that the university and its personnel do not have the right to exercise whatever religious views appeal to them most. However, such religious freedom should not be exercised to the detriment of the religious freedoms of others. No person or entity has the right to impose his or her views on others, or to deny the rights of certain persons based on their own beliefs and cultural practices. Hence, while the university has the right of religious freedom, it should not allow this right to become a policy that discriminates against others. Religious freedom, like religion itself, should be a private choice. Bob Jones has made it a public one, and therefore does not serve its public. In this way, the institution does not serve its purpose as a learning environment for the benefit of the public. Instead, it benefits only that sector of the public that holds the same or similar beliefs to its own.

As mentioned, Bob Jones interprets Genesis 10 quite literally. The interpretation of human descendence has been interpreted in just this way by the general public up to the middle of the 19th century. Furthermore, such an interpretation implies two basic suppositions: that the Bible is a historically accurate document, and that the Old Testament and all its laws and regulations are still applicable to life today.

From the Christian, and indeed from the general human viewpoint, the latter cannot be acceptable, particularly in a charitable organization. If Genesis 10 is accepted as the literal truth, all the other Old Testament laws should be accepted as valid as well, including the fact that girls should be banished for the duration of their period and that homosexuals should be killed. Surely this would cause considerable chaos in a democratic country.