Prominent American university attempts to squash religious freedom

[Falvlun]

I am afraid i don't understand what this has to do with that quote.
Considering i share the opinion expressed on that post, i would appreciate a clarification.

If you don't want to be discriminated against based upon your religion, then it seems a bit hypocritical to then ask for the right to discriminate against others based upon their religion. It was specifically a response to the bolded portion of Me Myself's post.

 

[Willamena]

If you don't want to be discriminated against based upon your religion, then it seems a bit hypocritical to then ask for the right to discriminate against others based upon their religion.

The students, though, are asking for no more or less than what people (groups) outside this university have: what they call "the right to use faith-based criteria when selecting leaders."

In the sense that they must abide this policy, which supposes to be aligned with constitutional issues, where groups outside the university don't, it does seem a bit hypocritical on the part of the university to impose it.

Though, I suppose, somebody has to be first.

 

[cablescavenger]

It won't work.
If an atheist tries to gain leadership of a christian group and fails, how is the university going to prove it was on religious grounds? and if they did uphold the claim and instate the atheist, the group would just disband and start up another group.

 

[Falvlun]

The students, though, are asking for no more or less than what people (groups) outside this university have: what they call "the right to use faith-based criteria when selecting leaders."

In the sense that they must abide this policy, which supposes to be aligned with constitutional issues, where groups outside the university don't, it does seem a bit hypocritical on the part of the university to impose it.

Though, I suppose, somebody has to be first.

I see what you are saying. It's a pretty standard university policy, however. No religious discrimination in clubs, period. My only point-- the original one I made-- was that it protects Christians just as much as it protects atheists, etc. I was a student rep and an RA at my college, hence some familiarity. We had clubs protesting it as well.

 

[Falvlun]

It won't work.
If an atheist tries to gain leadership of a christian group and fails, how is the university going to prove it was on religious grounds? and if they did uphold the claim and instate the atheist, the group would just disband and start up another group.

That was my thoughts too. There's always ways to work around such anti-discrimination laws, because it's so hard to prove.

 

[Koldo]

If you don't want to be discriminated against based upon your religion, then it seems a bit hypocritical to then ask for the right to discriminate against others based upon their religion. It was specifically a response to the bolded portion of Me Myself's post.

What he is saying in that it is fine to "discriminate" against people while selecting a leader if the characterestic in question is strictly related to the fundamental core characteristics the group is built upon.

Non-religious groups are not built on religious characteristics. Therefore, members of any religion should be eligible. Any other particular characteristic could be taken in consideration though depending on what the group is about. For example, to be a leader of the 'cooking group' the ability to cook could be taken into consideration.

 

[Me Myself]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I will never submit to that gringo myth

If you don't want to be discriminated against based on your religion, then you can't discriminate others based on their religion.

Someone wants to be part of the volleyball team but he doesn´t play volleyball. They don´t let him in because he deson´t play volleyball.

Someone wants to be part of the synchronised swimming group and he rocks at synchronized swimming. He is not allowed because he doesn´t play volleyball. Does this make sense? Why of course not.

It´s the same with religion. Only things that are relevant should be dis/qualifiers. Sometimes religion will be relevant, sometims it won´t be.

Likewise, the rule doesn't say you have to elevate the atheist to leadership positions. It just says that he should be given the opportunity like anyone else. There are (or at least should be) other criteria for a leadership of a club than just his religious affiliation, like whether he is a good organizer, whether he displays knowledge of the club and the topic, whether he is a good ambassador for the club, etc. Just like the chess noob probably won't be elected to lead the chess club, the atheist probably won't be elected to lead the Christian club.

I don´t think it´s apropiate for the atheist who is very well knowledgeable of christianity, good diplomat and good organizer to be the leader of the club of christian anything.

Probably a member could be reasonable as he abides by the rules, etc. But religion should be completely fair basis of disqualification as leadership. It is a specifically religios group made by students.

 

[Me Myself]

What he is saying in that it is fine to "discriminate" against people while selecting a leader if the characterestic in question is strictly related to the fundamental core characteristics the group is built upon.

Non-religious groups are not built on religious characteristics. Therefore, members of any religion should be eligible. Any other particular characteristic could be taken in consideration though depending on what the group is about. For example, to be a leader of the 'cooking group' the ability to cook could be taken into consideration.

exactly.

 

[Willamena]

Suppose, though, that a person was a member of a Christian group and a theologian, but not Christian. He may, in fact, know more about Christianity than many of the group. Should he be discriminated against (for the leadership position) because he's not Christian?

 

[Me Myself]

Suppose, though, that a person was a member of a Christian group and a theologian, but not Christian. He may, in fact, know more about Christianity than many of the group. Should he be discriminated against because he's not Christian?

If it is a christian group then yes.

If it is merely one of theology that doesn´t need be christian theology then no.

If it is a debate group no. If it is a group of comparative religion no.

But if it is a christian group, yes.

If the leader of the chess group doesn´t play chess, doesn´t like to play chess and wouldn´t even imagine himself playing chess, then that is a very reasonable ground for disqualification at least as a leader of the chess group.

 

[waitasec]

We know it's not going to work that way. The University will figure out a way to allow the atheists, Jews, Hindus, or whatever to keep their "freedom of association" while going after Christians. From what I've seen, whenever they have bylaws like this, it's always directed at the more conservative groups, in practice.

what are you complaining about then...
didn't jesus say this would happen...you should rejoice!
:yes:

 

[Koldo]

Suppose, though, that a person was a member of a Christian group and a theologian, but not Christian. He may, in fact, know more about Christianity than many of the group. Should he be discriminated against (for the leadership position) because he's not Christian?

It would depend on what is the purpose of this christian group.

 

[cablescavenger]

If it is a christian group then yes.

If it is merely one of theology that doesn´t need be christian theology then no.

If it is a debate group no. If it is a group of comparative religion no.

But if it is a christian group, yes.

If the leader of the chess group doesn´t play chess, doesn´t like to play chess and wouldn´t even imagine himself playing chess, then that is a very reasonable ground for disqualification at least as a leader of the chess group.

I am not convinced that most the politicians in America are devout in their faith. Often I think it is a means to an end. If you can accept that in the leaders of your Nation, then why is this any different?

 

[Kathryn]

I was unawares that White Supremacy was a religion...

You haven't heard of Christian Identity churches? Look it up on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.

 

[Kathryn]

It's not about joining the group --if a gay person wants to join an anti-gay group, he does so of his own accord. The policy is just about electing leadership. If a Christian group happens to be composed of mostly Christians, the non-Christians shouldn't be discriminated against.

My point is that leadership is usually from WITHIN the group. The more people with similar interests that join a group, the more voting power they have.

Each group is different, but it would certainly sway the whole focus of a group to flood it with those who didn't fit the belief system or purpose of the group and then they could vote en masse.

This is akin to having someone head up a home schooling coalition, who is anti homeschooling - or someone being head of a gay rights group who hates gays and is opposed to gay rights.

In other words, it's pretty stupid.

 

[Pegg]

It's a private institution, and can set its own bylaws.

Exactly the same way the Cub Scouts can discriminate against gay members, if they so chose.

so are you saying that private institutions/businesses/corporations are exempt from abiding by the constitution?

 

[Drolefille]

so are you saying that private institutions/businesses/corporations are exempt from abiding by the constitution?

The constitution prohibits the government from restricting the freedom of assembly or speech or religion. Private organizations can do whatever they want*. This website can ban speech, the government cannot. So no they're not exempt because it's not covered.

*Other laws, accepting government funding, etc. may alter this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the leader of the chess group doesn´t play chess, doesn´t like to play chess and wouldn´t even imagine himself playing chess, then that is a very reasonable ground for disqualification at least as a leader of the chess group.

I was the president of the photography club at my school. I was a pretty crappy photographer at the time (still am, really), but I had an interest in photography and didn't mind doing the administrative stuff needed to keep the club running. Was this wrong of me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is that leadership is usually from WITHIN the group. The more people with similar interests that join a group, the more voting power they have.

Each group is different, but it would certainly sway the whole focus of a group to flood it with those who didn't fit the belief system or purpose of the group and then they could vote en masse.

This is akin to having someone head up a home schooling coalition, who is anti homeschooling - or someone being head of a gay rights group who hates gays and is opposed to gay rights.

In other words, it's pretty stupid.

Any club that thinks this is a serious risk would always have the option of re-forming as a group unaffiliated with the university, finding meeting space off-campus, and foregoing the funding the university provides to its clubs. Problem solved.

 

[Koldo]

I was the president of the photography club at my school. I was a pretty crappy photographer at the time (still am, really), but I had an interest in photography and didn't mind doing the administrative stuff needed to keep the club running. Was this wrong of me?

Not at all.
You don't have to an expert in something to be the leader of a group.