I support the stand you have taken in regard to this nondiscrimination being extended to religious groups on the Vanderbilt campus. As a pastor it also seems to me to be a common sense issue. Protecting religious groups to choose their own leadership should be in relationship to the beliefs and strengths of belief of leaders.

We need to keep the people who are insisting on rediculous rules like this in prayer, because they seem to have been blinded. Saying that the leader of a group doesn't have to have the same core beliefs and convictions as the group they are to lead is like saying a school math club leader who believes math is a waste of time will lead that group well, or that a music teacher who does not believe in contact sports will be a good football coach. Every organization should have an appropriate leader for that particular group, who believes in what the group stands for. It is impossible for a person to be an appropriate leader for a group if he or she does not share the group's core beliefs. The point of having a group or organization is to gather with other like-minded people. The leader of a group is someone who not only leads, but cares for and watches over ther organization. Would the people who aare insisting on these rules say that a babysitter who does not agree with their core beliefs on caring for their young children is qualified to watch over their children while they are away?

Thank you for staying with the issue at Vanderbilt. It was good to see the 35 names listed at the end of the letter. There is such a stranglehold on Christianity in many sectors that a bold stand must be taken.

It only makes sense that the leaders of these religious groups share the common values and beliefs of the students they lead and represent. Where is the common sense these days? Thanks for all you do, Congressman Forbes.

Thank you for addressing this further erosion of our fundamental freedom of religion. As the grandmother of 3 Vanderbilt graduates I have been watching this closely and keeping my children and grandchildren informed with every email I get concerning it. My children and grandchildren are all very concerned about this. They all were associated with the Reformed University Fellowship (RUF) while there. I am praying that the Chancellor and the Governor will listen to the voices of reason and change the policy. May God bless your efforts as you labor in the very pit of 'non-commonsense'!!!

If I'm right Vanderbilt University is a private university and Catholic. I don't think the Government can dictate to a private religious institution as to what they must allow on their campus. That's like going into a catholic, jewious, muslim, or any other private school and tell them what they must except in their school in reguards to religion. The way I read the constitution the Government would be out of line. If the student or students don't like the private school they can go to one that is funded by the Government and I think they are called public.

I don't understand how these Catholic universities: Georgetown,Boston College,Fordham,Marquette,Loyola,Many of America’s and England’s oldest universities were established as religious institutions, but now they advocate evolutionary thinking. What happened?Changing Worldviews The book The Sacred and the Secular University (2000) is an insightful study by Roberts and Turner, two secular historians who show no evidence of overt Christian bias. They discuss the change in American universities from the Christian worldview to naturalistic philosophy. They point out that universities across the board fell first in the area of science: “In the sciences, the critical departure from this hegemonic construct took place in the 1870s.” They add that “‘methodological naturalism’1 was the critical innovation” (p. 11). Naturalism opposes God’s Word in Genesis, the foundational book of the Bible. As Psalm 11:3 states, “When the foundation is destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Cracks in the foundation led to a collapse of the Christian worldview at these schools. A Fractured Foundation The cracks first appeared in the late 1700s and early 1800s, culminating with the influence of Charles Lyell’s three volumes of Principles of Geology in the 1830s. Belief in an old-earth seriously wounded widespread acceptance of the Flood and the biblical chronology, and Lyell just “finished off the victim and nailed the coffin shut,” as AiG historian Dr. Terry Mortenson says. This old-earth belief permeated universities by the mid 1800s, setting the stage for Darwin’s evolutionary model in 1859 (Origin of Species) and his later work on human evolution The Descent of Man (1871), both of which required long ages. After Christian universities adopted these compromises, the slide from biblical Christianity to naturalism soon followed. Roberts and Turner explain why Christians compromised with naturalistic scientists: “The determination of scientists to bring phenomena within the purview of naturalistic description evoked a mixed response from Christians outside the scientific community. . . . Many clergymen and theologians—most commonly those who embrace a ‘liberal’ approach to Christian thought—sought to avoid that outcome by joining scientists in embracing an immanentist conception of God’s relationship to the world [emphasis added]” (p. 31). An immanent position holds that deity would be bound within the universe, which is what these naturalistic scientists were teaching. Undoubtedly, compromise with belief in an ancient earth and evolution contributed greatly to the spiritual downfall of these institutions. Once Christians began adopting a naturalistic view, including evolution or earth history over millions of years, it didn’t take long for the rest of their faith to come crumbling down. They had given up the Bible as their starting point and had accepted naturalistic science instead. Genesis is written as literal history; so it should be taken as such. (See Steven W. Boyd, “The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story,” ICR Impact Article #377, Nov. 2004.) The demise of former Christian universities should be a lesson to individuals, churches, Christian colleges and universities, and seminaries to stand firm on the Bible’s clear teachings and beware of any doctrine that is not biblically sound. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3–4, NKJV). Scary

College students need guidance and they need religious leaders that are true to God. I don't want to see our Christian colleges being taken over by Muslims religion. As a Christian I wouldn't want my child to be subject to Muslim teachings. TheMuslims have done a very good job of taking over in Europe and other countries. The Constitution is Religious freedom but we have to draw a line some place or our kids will be taken over by the wrong religion. The so called Christian religion has some bad situations with religion. Waco, Jim Jones, Baker and others. Billy Graham, Norman Peal. the best. True believers!

Thank you for demonstrating your conviction, courage, and service by advocating for these students and for all Americans on this issue. The irrationality of this Vanderbilt 'nondiscrimination' policy is disturbing, paving the way for inclusiveness that places, again, the rights of one individual above the rights of 'one individuals'. What reason would, for example, a non-Jew have in wanting to lead a campus Jewish organization? We lose so much collective freedom so that one individual might have a 'right' that is of little value to others and, it seems to me, merely selfish gain to that person. Others suffer a loss of deeply meaningful freedoms at the expense of one. It is so backwards.

Just like Congress, universities have always been a melting pot of conflicting values. Just when I have all but given up on both of them, there appears a glimmering of true hope and strand of honor that there are individuals within those institutions willing to stand up for our constitution and our religious freedom! The university seems to be quite willing to leave its Methodist and American values, perhaps this is a prime opportunity to instruct the "private" university, a university operating in a free society, the art of not honoring student consitutional rights. If they are quite willing to disenfranchise student leadership, perhaps, we can deny all federal and state assistance to their leadership? This means things like their EPA Spinach Solar Cell grants might be revoked!

My first thought was this is to restrict religeous groups. I have always held Vanderbilt in such high regard but like so much in our society they are losing their way. Thank you for what you are doing to try to stem the tide. Sincerely, Ann Babel

I am so sick of all of this. When is this country-my country-going to be concerned about my Christion sensibilities being offended? There is something terribly wrong when every group is afforded freedom of speech and action, except for the one that this country was buiilt upon. This is not rocket science, but the leaders in Washington treat it as if it is..........I want to be able to pray anytime and anywhere I want to pray and salute my flag anywhere and anytime I want to salute my flag. I am offended when I am admonished for doing so, yet all other groups are afforded the oppotunity to pray and burn my flag........I'm so tired and I have lost faith in this country. Our country's leadership can only bow down to evil and unrighteousness. I simply am amazed at times. .My faith is in God and His Son, Jesus Christ. They will be victorious. However, I am very proud of Congressman Forbes who continues to fight the GOOD fight.

Thank you Randy for your efforts in this regard!!!

"When, in the course of human EVENTS, it becomes necessary for one people to DISSOLVE the POLITICAL BANDS which have connected them with another, and to ASSUME among the POWERS of the EARTH the SEPARATE and EQUAL STATION to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the CAUSES which impel them to the separation. Can religious groups dissolve these POLITICAL BANDS that this man made discrimination LAW has encircled them with? A Political Band is being placed around Religion. Can a Body Politic have controll over a Ecclestical Body. These are two seperate bodies or Entities and they are two seperate INCORPORATIONS. One incorporated body is POLITIC which concerns the LAWS of Nature and one incorporated body is SPIRITUAL which concerns Natures God. These two incorporated bodies BY LAW are NOT EQUAL to each other in no way, shape or form. These two incorporations each have different DUTIES to preform at their separate stations. No particular Religion is mixed in with the incorporated body politic--Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion..... and politics is not mixed in with the incorporated Body Ecclestical. Isn't there a law protecting the body politic that says that preachers can NOT talk about politics in their church? Each of these Bodies Incorporated have separate jobs or DUTIES to perform in our country to create, form and make America the Most Excellent and Supreme Country in the Universe. But each one of these incorporations have their own Stations to keep watch over. The Body Politic was given the STATION to NATURES LAWS and the Ecclestical Body was given the STATION of Natures God. Neither body is to interfer with the others STATION. Notice this word STATION. Station means a place where a person or thing stands or is located, especially an assigned POST, POSISTION, OR LOCATION. It also means a place where a person STANDS WHILE ON DUTY. The Incorporated Body Politic has their job to do and the Ecclestical Body has its own job to do in order to create, form, or make America a complete divine Providence. Laws are made according to nature. They are made to equally guard and protect certain kinds of nature. Man was on this earth before any laws were even thought about being made. Man's ideas is what makes the LAWS--someone had to think up this discrimination LAW; but while they were thinking up this law did they realize that the Eccelstical Body is a Seperate Station from the Body Politic ? They can not make laws which will usurp authority over the United States Incorporated Ecclestical Body because this Incorporation has its own BY laws to explicitly follow. Each of these incorporated Bodies are separate and they each have their own separate STATIONS.Religion can not usurp authority over the body Politic and the Body Politic can not usurp authority over Religion. These two must work together for one purpose--to EQUALLY create, form and make a divine Providence for ALL PEOPLE. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED EQUAL; that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights; that among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to SECURE these RIGHTS governments are INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, deriving their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed; that WHENEVER any FORM of government becomes DESTRUCTIVE of these ENDS, it is the right of the people to ALTER or to ABOLISH it, and to institute NEW government, laying its foundation on SUCH principles, and organizing its powers in SUCH form, as to them shall seem most LIKELY to edect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments LONG established should NOT BE CHANGED for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to RIGHT themselves by ABOLISHING THE FORMS TO WHICH THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations; pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to REDUCE THEM under ABSOLUTE despotism, it is THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off SUCH government, and to provide NEW GUARDS for their FUTURE SECURITY.

"When, in the course of human EVENTS, ( a human EVENT just took place--Our MOST HIGHLY ELECTED OFFICER, our President of the United States of America, just announced that he PERSONALLY believes that men have the right to marry men and women have the right to marry women if that is what THEY want to do; but he is going to leave that up to each individual State to decide. But let us NEVER forget that IF it was left up to HIM to decide, He WOULD change our MOST SUPREME LAW of our LAND concerning FAMILIES--marriage being defined as being one man and one woman--into a different FORM so the people could be pleased whether it be right or whether it would be wrong.) This man has FAILED the RELIGIOUS TEST and he has abused his OATH OF OFFICE ending in So Help ME GOD. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.Is he doing his BEST to PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND this SUPREME MARRIAGE LAW that has been in our LAND for years? No, he wants the MARRIAGE FORMS which we have been ACCUSTOMED TO since we became an independent county changed. He thinks that there should be NEW FORMS of marriage because there are new IDEAS as to what marriage is springing up out of nowhere all the time. Now our Constitution states in Article 6, that the Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the MEMBERS of the State Legislatures, and ALL EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL OFFICERS, both of the United States and of the Several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, to SUPPORT THIS Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a QUALIFICATION to any OFFICE or PUBLIC TRUST under the United States. Our President is an elected OFFICIAL. Has he hired people to help him FAITHFULLY do his job? Did these hired people have to take an OATH in order to be QUALIFIED to work in his office? Did they have to say, "So HELP ME God in ordeer to get their jobs? As I study this--I say where is the difference here? Let me TRY to RIGHTLY DIVIDE this. Isn't there a difference between ELECTED PEOPLE whom We. the People HIRE being BOUND BY OATH to faithfully execute this office of the President of the United States and CIVILIANS working in the offices of our elected officials NOT BEING BOUND BY ANT OATH WHATSOEVER? Do I have to be SWORN in to work in the Governors OFFICE or take a OATH to work in the Tax collectors office? Do I have to take an oath as a qualification to work in any government OFFICE or PUBLIC TRUST? NO!! But you DO have to be BOUND TO AN OATH of "SO HELP ME GOD" or AFFIRMATION when you accept an elected posistion in our government. What is the MOST SUPREME LAW concerning marriage--a marriage between one man and woman--gay marriage--men with several wives-- two people living together and having children out of wedlock--interracial marriages--ALL of these different KINDS of people pleasing EVENTS hurt the MINDS of our children and presents confussion and turmoil in our lives and childrens lives. The MOST SUPREME LAW of our LAND is marriage between one man and one woman. When in the Course of human EVENTS it becomes necessary for one people to DISSOLVE the POLITICAL BANDS which have connected them with another, and to ASSUME among the POWERS of the EARTH the SEPARATE and EQUAL STATION to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the CAUSES which impel them to the separation. Another POLITICAL BAND has just been put around another HUMAN EVENT--Marriage is a human EVENT-- Right? People politically banded together and studied for a long time this HUMAN EVENT called marriage and they made a LAW to protect it. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments LONG established should NOT BE CHANGED for light and TRANSCIET causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while EVILS are sufferable, than to RIGHT themselves by ABOLISHING THE FORMS TO WHICH THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED. Why should we change our marriage FORM for TRANSCIET CAUSES? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations; pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to REDUCE THEM under ABSOLUTE despotism, it is THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off SUCH government, and to provide NEW GUARDS for their FUTURE SECURITY. Gay Marriage is NOT according to the laws of nature AND OF natures God.

Sir, Thank you for standing where, so few today are willing to stand. We need leaders who are not purchased, who are willing to fight for what is true, and right.

I missed your prayer caucus coments last week. All our religous freedoms are under attack in the country. No matter what christan faith we are as long as we believe in the Constitution and follow the founding fathers fealings on our wrights as God fearing people. We with lots of prayers to God and Jesus Christ, We can not fail.

I commend you Congressman Forbes on your position. Additionally, I support Congress' withdrawal of taxpayer dollars from Vanderbilt, if there are any, until they desist from their discriminatory practice against Christianity. I wonder if their stance would be the same for LBGT groups...someone opposed to their lifestyle in charge of such a group. Liberals always have a double standard.

It is very important to religious freedom that people be able to regulate their own groups like this. I like the points that Shirley H. made, as they were very poignant. I hope they can sort this out. If anyone is interested, I found a site that talks extensively on the subject of religious freedom and what it means to our respective religions and our country. Here's the link: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedom Hope you enjoy it!