Landlord Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us/colleges-and-evangelicals-collide-on-bias-policy.html?_r=0 In a collision between religious freedom and anti-discrimination policies, the student group, and its advisers, have refused to agree to the college’s demand that any student, regardless of his or her religious beliefs, should be able to run for election as a leader of any group, including the Christian association. Similar conflicts are playing out on a handful of campuses around the country, driven by the universities’ desire to rid their campuses of bias, particularly against gay men and lesbians, but also, in the eyes of evangelicals, fueled by a discomfort in academia with conservative forms of Christianity. The universities have been emboldened to regulate religious groups by a Supreme Court ruling in 2010 that found it was constitutional for a public law school in California to deny recognition to a Christian student group that excluded gays. I am hardly ever one to voice anything as far as Christians not being treated fairly in America, but this just does not make any logical sense to me. Why would it not make sense for a Christian group to appoint Christian leaders? Isn't that the nature of all self-organizing and self-identifying organizations? The same way that the president of the United States has to be a United States citizen, and the same way that the members of a college student senate need to be students that attend the school? I feel like idelogical organizations, whether they are political or religious or philosophical, should be able to protect themselves from what essentially comes down to trolls. It would be absurd for people of faith to take over an atheistic club, for jews to be in leadership of a muslim group, or for democrats to take over a young republicans group. I don't get it. Link to comment
NUance Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 should be able to run for election as a leader I don't see the harm in that. In fact, it seems silly for the Christian groups to disagree. It's doesn't sound like they are being forced to elect them, just to allow atheists to run. /Also: OP, you no good with the quotes. Use your little toggle switch my man. Edit: That's better. lol Link to comment
HeyBurke Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 This one is a head-scratcher. There's no problem with forcing them to accept non-Christian members, but the leadership should be Christian. Having it otherwise would be like having a Democrat run for President on the Republican ticket. Makes no sense. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 It seems that our right of association would allow any group to be free to set the standards for their group. Why would an atheist want to be in a Christian group? One good: To learn about Christianity as a seeker Another bad: to subvert the group. From OP handful of campuses around the country, driven by the universities’ desire to rid their campuses of bias It seems we are getting into thought and speech policing here. Colleges are said to be the bastion of free speech - this is true as long as it is liberal free speech. If a Christian organization's theology is contrary to the liberal thought police it is now called 'bias" or "homophobic" or some other derogatory term. This is all about thought control. If the liberal leaders of these univs really believed in free association and free speech, Christian groups (and others of the polar opposite) would all be able to organize and run their group as they seem fit to do as long it no laws are violated and their activities are legal (no terrorist groups allowed). A recent movie has been in the theaters which is somewhat related: "God is NOT dead" It is based on the numerous religious freedom lawsuits won by Christian groups fighting the thought police of liberal univ/colleges. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 That's dumb. What's to prevent, say, Democrat college students from joining the Young Republicans in droves, then electing a Democrat as the club leader? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the Young Republicans club, and infringe on their right to do... Republicany things? There's a difference between like-minded people getting together for structured fun and camaraderie, and hateful, biased groups doing stupid stuff. Although, if I were a student at that college, I'd immediately start seeking admission to the hottest sororities on campus. If any student can join any group or organization, that's only fair, right? Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 In a sick way, this makes complete sense with the way things are going in this country. We were bound to get to the ridiculously idiotic point sooner or later. It is now sooner. Common sense doesn't reside here anymore. Link to comment
darkhorse85 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 That's dumb. What's to prevent, say, Democrat college students from joining the Young Republicans in droves, then electing a Democrat as the club leader? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the Young Republicans club, and infringe on their right to do... Republicany things? There's a difference between like-minded people getting together for structured fun and camaraderie, and hateful, biased groups doing stupid stuff. Although, if I were a student at that college, I'd immediately start seeking admission to the hottest sororities on campus. If any student can join any group or organization, that's only fair, right? Omega Mu, right? Link to comment
zoogs Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I can see the argument that if you want to use the school's name, funding, and resources, you should be required to not have discriminatory policy (although I imagine the leadership pool will be very self-selecting, anyway...) Knapp raises a good point about sororities. Do those operate under the same heading, though? i.e, does the Greek system use university funds or are they separate entities. Link to comment
Excel Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Gah, another LL "it's so hard to be a Christian thread". Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Meh, this is a non-issue, really. Your organizations obviously aren't going to elect someone that doesn't represent their values or isn't truly one of them (e.g. Young Democrats voting a pro-GOP org leader, a Christian org voting for an atheist org leader), and as far as I can tell, the entire campus doesn't vote for these positions--just those specific members of the group. Of course, the "Christian Persecution Complex" makes this a front-page issue of Defcon Wharrgarbl signifigance. Also, FTFA: At most universities that have begun requiring religious groups to sign nondiscrimination policies, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and mainline Protestant groups have agreed, saying they do not discriminate and do not anticipate that the new policies will cause problems." So, in reality, you have different religious groups that are able to agree, but a subset of Persecuted Christians is pitching a hissy fit? To quote the Guardians of the Galaxy trailer..."What a bunch of a-holes". Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Your organizations obviously aren't going to elect someone that doesn't represent their values or isn't truly one of them (e.g. Young Democrats voting a pro-GOP org leader, a Christian org voting for an atheist org leader) You may be right, but it's possible *if* anyone who wants to join an organization is allowed to join. If that's the case, and you have 50 Young Republicans and 100 Democrats join the club under those rules, why couldn't they elect a Democrat to club president? Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 Meh, this is a non-issue, really. Your organizations obviously aren't going to elect someone that doesn't represent their values or isn't truly one of them (e.g. Young Democrats voting a pro-GOP org leader, a Christian org voting for an atheist org leader), and as far as I can tell, the entire campus doesn't vote for these positions--just those specific members of the group. Of course, the "Christian Persecution Complex" makes this a front-page issue of Defcon Wharrgarbl signifigance. I mean I don't necessarily disagree although I think it opens up the door for possible sabotage if any bored group of students gets ornery enough, but the non-issue argument goes both ways. If it's a non-issue to allow it to happen it should also be a non-issue to let it slide in logical circumstances. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 More links to the discussion An article on the subject http://www.christianpost.com/news/intervarsity-colleges-take-non-discrimination-policies-to-illogical-extreme-against-christian-student-groups-121372/ an opinion http://www.christianpost.com/news/liberal-intolerant-universities-do-they-really-believe-this-nonsense-121358/ Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 More links to the discussion An article on the subject http://www.christianpost.com/news/intervarsity-colleges-take-non-discrimination-policies-to-illogical-extreme-against-christian-student-groups-121372/ an opinion http://www.christianpost.com/news/liberal-intolerant-universities-do-they-really-believe-this-nonsense-121358/ They're both opinion/editorial, considering the source... Link to comment
Recommended Posts