Oral Roberts University: The Next Conservative Scandal
By Lee Russ
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 09:15 PM
Three former Oral Roberts University professors filed a lawsuit against the school and four administrators on Oct. 2. They claim wrongful termination and wrongful causing of one professor's resignation. This seemingly ordinary lawsuit is shining a very harsh light on ORU (and Oral Roberts Ministries) because of the reason the professors say they were fired.
The professors claim that their firings were retaliation for having turned over to University administrators a report alleging that the Richard Roberts family extensively spent university money for personal uses. That report, titled Scandal Vulnerability Assessment, was prepared by Oral Roberts Ministries itself, to estimate that organization's possible liability for the actions of the Roberts family. The lawsuit docs are available in pdf form on the Tulsa World's web site. The Scandal Vulnerability Assessment appears as Exhibit A to the amended Complaint, beginning at page 14 of the pdf document.Note: While the information in the report is just that--rather than fully proven facts--note that the report was prepared for the Oral Roberts Ministries by Stephanie Cantees, who is apparently the sister-in-law of the University President, Richard Roberts.
In addition to details of exactly how the University's President, the son of founder Oral Roberts, and his wife have misused University and Ministry funds, along with some sense of how much money they have misused, the Vulnerability Assessment cites information concerning misdeeds that, while not specifically claimed to comprise sexual misconduct, certainly raise that possibility.
The first of those misbehaviors concerns the wife of the University President, Lindsay Roberts, who allegedly "spent the night in the ORU guest house with an underage male on nine separate occasions," was photographed alone in a car with the same male after the citywide curfew for minors unaccompanied by a parent, had the same male in her house often enough that her daughters requested special locks for their bedroom doors, and had a longtime University employee fired so that the underage male could take his job.
The second of those misbehaviors is that the university hired as a "mentor" for students a "convicted sexual deviant" who was then given "unrestricted access to students" while serving in his mentor position.
The University President, Richard Roberts, just requested a leave of absence from his University position, though he will continue in his role as chairman and chief executive of Oral Roberts Ministries.
And don't for a minute think that all the dirt has been exposed yet.
Comments
Labeling this story as a conservative scandal is misleading at best. Lee seems to be in training for a position with Media Matters and their group of disinformation specialists.
I take it then that you folks think that Oral Roberts University and Oral Roberts Ministries are not conservative? On what basis?
Let me put it to you this way. I'm conservative, but not religious (in the general sense). There is a distinction between religious conservatives and policy conservatives. Yes, they do intersect, but you are (seemingly) attempting to paint all conservatives as hyporcites and/or scandal whores. Just ain't the case chico.
Try the heading again with "The next religious jackass scandal" and I bet you win more friends and influence far more people.
BMJ
Labeling this story as a conservative scandal is misleading at best.
I think it's better described as an "evangelical scandal" myself, but how is it inaccurate to describe evangelicals as conservatives? They've been hand-in-glove for 20 years. Conservatives don't get to disown the evangelicals when one of them strays from righteousness.
...the Vulnerability Assessment cites information concerning misdeeds that, while not specifically claimed to comprise sexual misconduct, certainly raise that possibility
How do you get to be Head of the Class at ORU?
Pass yer Oral Exams with flying colors!
Apparently, this young student that Lindsey took under her wing (or tween her thighs, wotever) choose to go there. Originally this student was headed fer Bob Jones university but decided he liked Oral U better than BJ U. Okay, time fer these overly salacious jokes to Peter out fer a time.
On Topic?
Is funny to Spud how often in blogworld the right maintain vehemently the non-reality that religion is the sole province of the right and then when one of these scandals pop up (as they invariably do) they get offended when reminded of such statements.
Sexual impropiety aside fer just a sec, the allegations that University funds were being used, apparently, for personal reason is deeply troubling.
"The do as I say not as I do" hypocrisy that seems so prevelant in todays mega-church world goes miles and days towards explaining the increased athiestic/ agnostic backlash to the percieved evils of organised religion. From Christopher Hitchen and Richard Dawkins books to decreased numbers of new priests and failing congregation it seems painfully obvious to one such as Spud that modern religion is in a real crisis mode that can only be overcome by throwing out the filthy bathwater of the centuries and keeping the baby of positive spirituality alive and well. A tricky feat, indeed.
A new reformation is needed in which the hide-bound, immoral antiquated beliefs that have come to taint modern organised religion are expunged in an attempt to achieve truly moral modern and progressive stances that include embracing other creeds as equally valid including no creed folk.
Religious belief at it's heart has always been a societal control mechanism before anything else. Where it does some good Spud is praise it profusely. When it's used fer evil ends then Spud is decry it loudly.
This seemingly obvious abuse of power and trust at ORU must be investigated further and fitting consequences must result in order fer any measure of trust to be restored to this institution.
So sayeth Spud. So let it be written so let be done.
Be Well.
PS: Good eye, Russ.
Sorry, that should be "Good eye, Lee"
That's wot you get fer haffing two first names and no last one!
Be Well.
"Is funny to Spud how often in blogworld the right maintain vehemently the non-reality that religion is the sole province of the right and then when one of these scandals pop up (as they invariably do) they get offended when reminded of such statements." DETHSPUD
So dethspud you feel it is acceptable to use a false argument from the far right religious nuts to bolster your equally false statement.
How brilliant of you. So does that place you in the realm with the looney left?
Religious fundies are conservative, so...the title stands correct.
Maybe your anger shouldn't be directed at the title of this thread as much as your conservative leaders that have been sucking fundie cock for 30 years, with a 2 for 1 special since the bush league stepped to the plate. You are what you eat.
a few things panch. Religious Fundies are conservative, correct. The majority of conservatives are not religious fundies, so the title remains deceptive.
and anger..... I see you displayed your anger quite clearly. Being on the wrong side of logic and reason tends to bring that out in most liberals.
I used the term "conservative" in the title because this is one of many scandals involving the conservative end of the spectrum. This specific story involves religious extremists, but it is part of a series involving both religious figures and nonreligious figures---Duke Cunningham, the entire Dept. of the Interior, Abramoff, Bob Ney, and many other nonreligious types.
Nothing I've seen here convinces me that this title was wrong or even misleading. If I'm guilty of anythng, it's not explicitly tying this specific scandal into the entire string that preceded it. I didn't do that because I expect that people who visit this site are already aware of that series, as its been pretty extensively covered here. And I have a life apart from posting on the internet, which cuts down the amount of time I can devote to a singe story here.
And while it wouldn't affect the accuracy of my title, I do find it odd that many conservatives, who tend to swear by folks like Rush Limbaugh, or even Bill O'Reilly, are upset at what they perceive to be a misleading title (that's title, folks, like headline, which by its nature can't convey the entire story), while Mr. Limbaugh & Mr. O'Reilly have serious problems with far more important parts of their stories.
Well Lee I haven't watched O'Reilly or listened to Limbaugh ever and I still find your title, headline whatever you want to call it misleading.
The "if they do it I should be able to do it" mentality is pretty sad for either end of the political sprectrum and its a never ending spiral.
I do believe you think this is a conservative scandal and that is what bothers me the most of all
So dethspud you feel it is acceptable to use a false argument from the far right religious nuts to bolster your equally false statement.
How brilliant of you. So does that place you in the realm with the looney left?
Wot false statement?
Be Well.
Libby,
Yu're arguing with yourself. I said up front that the Limbaugh/O'Reilly inaccuracies "wouldn't affect the accuracy of my title."
And yes, I do think this scandal is illustrative of a phenomenon of conservative leaders being absolutely unable to resist the very behaviors for which they excoriate others. The "contract with America" conservatives proved no better at living up to their ethics moralizing than the religious conservatives are at living up to the standards they stridently insist that others follow.
I don't understand why my opinion bothers you. It doesn't mean that every single conservative in the world is "guilty" of something, but it sure does mean that the rank and file conservatives, both religious and social, have a dismaying tendency to follow some rotten people. And that they should probably take the extreme beliefs and pronouncements of their leaders with several grains of salt.
Religion is not the province of the Left or Right. Unethical behavior is not the province of the left or right. (Would a ven diagram help?) All of these sets overlap each other. (Yes, even Left and Right.) The vast majority of us hold opinions from both trends of thought.
You may be a wingnut if...
1. You think religion is for the Left.
2. You think religion is for the Right.
3. You think Leftists are unethical.
4. You think Conservatives are unethical.
5. You think Leftists are not unethical.
6. You think Conservatives are not unethical.
Any questions?
The American Charismatic Movement and the Evangelical movement are both young. They are suffering the same type of growing pains other major religious movements have faced. Yes, they're a bit flamboyant. They attract Narcissists to leadership positions and follow their leaders with blind devotion Reverend Moon must envy.
They're still good folks. In the next 50 years their movements will become more disciplined and they'll get a handle on their undisciplined leadership. They just need a bit more time to develop corporate savvy.
Laugh if you want, there's lots to laugh about. Just keep in mind, these people are a big voting block that's only growing. They are the inevitable backlash that must accompany the breakneck societal change of the last century.
It would be smart to think rationally about how to best answer their concerns with respect to preserving the desireable aspects of western culture.
They're still good folks. In the next 50 years their movements will become more disciplined and they'll get a handle on their undisciplined leadership. They just need a bit more time to develop corporate savvy.
In terms of helping to end slavery and bringing rights to women and minorities some religions do have some credibility in terms of describing themselves as progressive, moral forces within society.
In terms of working to disenfranchise a percentage of the population ie gays for all time and discouraging sexual education and access to birth control and continuing to encourage the subordination of women all in the name of pleasing God they are inarguably a regressive, immoral force within society.
The three "children of the book" do not need to "develop corporate savvy" as much as they need to develop a true moral core that allows them to evolve spiritually rather than try to turn back the hands of time in a horribly mis-guided attempt at social engineering.
Religions battles against science since the days of Galileo are long lost but still they continue to fight and unfortunately they do enjoy some limited success.
All politics is morality but most political decisions aint particularly moral and therein lies the rub.
Religious folk are a large and powerful voting block in the US, that's undeniable, but if they think they are gonna shove their unconstitutional agenda down the throats of the rest of the nation they are deluding themselves. But there's nothing new about that.
More's the pity.
Be Well.
"In terms of working to disenfranchise a percentage of the population i.e. gays for all time and discouraging sexual education and access to birth control and continuing to encourage the subordination of women all in the name of pleasing God they are inarguably a regressive, immoral force within society."
From your point of view, undoubtedly. The thing is, they define each of those issues differently than you do. They would defend their positions first and foremost by objecting to your redefinitions of their essential arguments. You wouldn't care for their rhetoric either. Your perspectives are both heard, but after the two of you stop exchanging insults, we all get to vote.
"Religious folk are a large and powerful voting block in the US, that's undeniable, but if they think they are going to shove their unconstitutional agenda down the throats of the rest of the nation they are deluding themselves. But there's nothing new about that."
Well, there's my point. "Religious folks" come with a wide variety of political viewpoints. "Religious Folks" are well distributed throughout both major political parties, and many Libertarians are devout Christians. The reason for this reality is inseparable from the meaning of "Christian". Christianity is inalienable from personal liberty, because people can only become Christian by choice. There is no other way. So while there are religious fascists as well as Atheist fascists, Christians who hold this position are dumber than stumps. The opinions of stupid people are bought and sold like toilet paper. They aren't so much to be feared as pitied.
Listen to the religious right, learn what you can from them and counter their arguments rationally. Countering their wingnut rhetoric with your own is counter productive.
Claiming "Religious Folks" have an "unconstitutional agenda" or "are deluding themselves/nothing new about that" simply makes the Left repulsive to people of faith who generally sympathize with liberal positions.
Either the Left or the Right will hold more sway over the United States vast center than the other will in the 2008 elections. That group's candidates will prevail. I'll clue you; it won't be the group that excels at hurling insults at the other. The heartland is not amused by these antics.
But hey, don't listen to me. I think another 8 years of right wing tomfoolery in the White House would be vastly entertaining. Keep on alienating the center. I'll enjoy the laughs. Maybe Oral Robert's boy will run. He seems to have some time on his hands.
Well, there's my point. "Religious folks" come with a wide variety of political viewpoints. "Religious Folks" are well distributed throughout both major political parties, and many Libertarians are devout Christians.
Spud is aware that "'religious folks' come with a wide variety of political viewpoints". Spud was remiss in failing to distinguish between the average person of faith (whether that be Xtian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or wot have you) and the extremist, radical, divisive and fanatical variety. Trouble is, that the more extreme the position held by the person of faith (POF) the more likely it seems that they are gonna be involved in the political process usually to the detriment of society at large.
The reason for this reality is inseparable from the meaning of "Christian". Christianity is inalienable from personal liberty, because people can only become Christian by choice. There is no other way.
Time out fer a quick irony alert. Homophobic Xtians with an anti-Gay agenda (which they disengenuously describe as "pro-family") have indeed made a choice to be that way. They also seem hell-bent on continuing to describe homosexuality as a choice (despite all science to the contrary) in order to adjudge that orientation as immoral. On some level then, they must be aware that to be against giving gay citizens equal rights under the law is unconstitutional, immoral and unneccesarily divisive. Hence the continual lying and denial.
So while there are religious fascists as well as Atheist fascists, Christians who hold this position are dumber than stumps. The opinions of stupid people are bought and sold like toilet paper. They aren't so much to be feared as pitied.
Anyone who thinks they can eliminate either religion or athiesm are fools who are to be both pitied and feared.
Listen to the religious right, learn what you can from them and counter their arguments rationally. Countering their wingnut rhetoric with your own is counter productive.
Spud does listen and ruminates on wot he has heard. Calling a continued and sustained effort to deny a small percentage of a populations citizenry equal right an "unconstitutional agenda" is not "wingnut rhetoric". It's the plain and simple truth. Spud'll agree that his tone may be overly flippant at times and some of the language in Spud's postings may be inflammatory but by no stretch of the imagination is speaking a simple moral truth ever "counter-productive".
Do you imagine that people like Fred "The Phelcher" Phelps is contributing in a productive manner to the national dialogue with his "God Hates Fags" rhetoric? An extreme example yes, Spud is aware but the sheer naked hate of the man is echoed to a lesser degree by the likes of Rick Santorum, Jerry Falwell, Richard and Lindsey Roberts, Bill Donohue, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.
TBC
Be Well.
The heartland is not amused by these antics.
No doubt. Just as the secular set are not amused by being continually told that they believe "in nothing". Respect is a two way street and many on both sides of the divide seem to have difficulty grasping, much less adhering to, the concept.
But hey, don't listen to me. I think another 8 years of right wing tomfoolery in the White House would be vastly entertaining. Keep on alienating the center. I'll enjoy the laughs. Maybe Oral Robert's boy will run. He seems to have some time on his hands.
George W. Bush's policies (actually Dick Cheney's but let's not get into that) have led to torture, murder, rape, starvation, and defilement of the unborn. Sorry if Spud has a hard time laughing at such things. Having gutted America's constitution one ammendment at a time he has continued to acrue greater and greater power to the executive branch until it can now be safely said that America is a democracy in name only. Citizens privacy rights have eroded to practically nothing while governmental secrecy is at it's highest level ever. Accountability and personal responsibility have flown out the window only to be replaced with plausible deniability, stonewalling and lies pre-approved by focus groups and spread through an overly complient lap-dog press. If you find this all "vastly entertaining" then you are either massively under-informed or an amoral monster.
The ultimate irony underscoring BushCo's so-called "War on Terror" is the fact that in order to fight religious extremists around the globe their policies are actually fostering and feeding the flames of religious extremism. Nowhere is this more painfully apparent than in the United States itself. The connection between the rise of the corporate mercenary and evangelism is obvious to those who would dare look. A lot of the ME policy is being written by people who actually believe in "end times" prophecies. Their mis-guided and immoral actions may well turn armageddon into a self fullfilling prophecy.
All apologies if you find any of the above to be insulting to you or your religious beliefs but please do understand that at the end of the day "Freedom of Religion" includes "Freedom from Religion" too.
Spud is glad we had this li'l chat. Take care of yerself.
Be Well.
a few things panch. Religious Fundies are conservative, correct. The majority of conservatives are not religious fundies, so the title remains deceptive.
and anger..... I see you displayed your anger quite clearly. Being on the wrong side of logic and reason tends to bring that out in most liberals.
Posted by libby at 2007-10-19 04:03 PM
This shit doesn't get me angry, I just shake my head in disbelief at times. In any case, your answer essentially supports the title of the thread, which was the point to start with: roberts = conservative = conservative scandal...unfortunately, the two are now intertwined.
"the title remains deceptive"
No, the title remains accurate but not to your liking. As I said in an earlier comment, I labelled this "conservative" rather than "religious right" because it's part of a series of scandals that have dogged conservatives of all ilks, including both the religious wing and the other wings.
Lee re-iterates...
the title remains accurate but not to your liking
That is Spud's take as well.
But don't forget that when you are dealing with members of the religious right there can only be limited success.
Don't forget the mantra of the religious right.
"We are Religious and we are right"
How do you argue with logic like that?
You don't. ...Cos it aint.
Remember that much of blogworld is concerned less with changing the hearts and minds of individual posters we engage with and more with talking over their heads to the masses of readers who actually might be swayed by persuasive argument.
Be Well.