Universities to Religious Clubs: Let non-believers lead you!

[Just_A_Guy]

Many individuals here seem to be taking the stance that an organization should be free to determine its own rules and then simultaneously denying that right to the larger organization.

If a student organization is allowed to set its own rules governing its operation, then why is not the parent organization permitted to do the same?

 

 

Because as a state actor, a public university should not be discriminating against particular groups--and in particular, limiting their right to assemble on public property--based on, among other things, religion or ideology. 

 

 

Should a bishop be allowed to ordain women if the majority of his congregants support that? No! Why? Because the affiliated with a larger church organization that sets other guidelines. That bishop and ward membership would be free to start their own church and set whatever rules they want, but they are not free to call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor to continue to use the ward building. The church is and probably would excommunicate them for not "following the rules." Rightly so.

 

The key distinction here is that the Church is not currently viewed as a subsidiary of the state, and is therefore allowed to govern itself and promote its agenda more or less independently of outside interference. 

 

Although I acknowledge that the intellectual foundations are being laid (by, inter alia, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and President Obama) for the view that due to their use of state-funded infrastructure and their existence in a majoritarian-run society, all institutions, organizations, structures, and individuals are in fact property of the collective (read:  the state).  We're not there yet--but how will your noble statements about the Church's right to govern its own affairs evolve once it has become the mainstream Democrat position that church and state aren't really separable?

 

 

It is the same thing here. No one is saying that these groups may not form, nor that these groups may meet, nor establish whatever rules that they see fit for membership or leadership. What is being said is that the parent organization (in this case the university) gets a say in what those rules are. If you don't agree then you cannot be a UNIVERSITY Club.

 

Not quite true, as far as I know.  They can't meet on campus.  Not formally, anyways--I suppose they could get together over lunch or meet covertly in a library study room, but they have no guarantee against their meetings being disrupted because they cannot reserve a space for their exclusive use.  And it seems that neither they (as a club), or their members (acting in their capacities as individuals) can use conventional campus communications methods to advertise their activities or disseminate their message.

 

If I'm misinformed, please feel free to correct me.  But the way I see it is that a state entity is giving using its power and prerogatives to limit the activities of groups that embrace and live a particular message that the state doesn't like.  There's no way around this, and I repeat my earlier point:  If gay rights or feminist or racial minority groups felt that this nondiscrimination policy, in conjunction with demographic and political trends, would undermine their club's purposes--this policy would never have seen the light of day.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[RMGuy]

It s not just religious organizations that are impacted. Political ones face the same challenge. College democrats for example must follow the same rules. <gasp>! What if a republican tries to join and take over?!?!

If LDSSA is a church organization then it should follow the rules of the church.

If LDSSA is a University of California organization then it should follow the rules of the University of California

If it attempts to be both then it needs to be subject to both, or make a decision as to which one it wants to affiliate with if both are impossible.

After all, no man can serve two masters...and we believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law...

Or is that only when the outcome is favorable to us?

[RMGuy]

JAG,

This policy applies to ALL campus groups. That means that you, as a white guy could join the NAACP chapter on campus. You could even run for office. Lions, and tigers and bears...oh my!

[RMGuy]

JAG,

This policy applies to ALL campus groups. That means that you, as a white guy could join the NAACP chapter on campus. You could even run for office. Lions, and tigers and bears...oh my!

[RMGuy]

JAG,

This policy applies to ALL campus groups. That means that you, as a white guy could join the NAACP chapter on campus. You could even run for office. Lions, and tigers and bears...oh my!

[estradling75]

After all, no man can serve two masters...and we believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law...

 

 

 

Oh you want to quote scriptures  well then

 

Alma 10

17 Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God.

 

Helaman 4

22 And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people, insomuch that they were wicked even like unto the Lamanites.

 

Helaman 5 

2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

 

I think the Book of Mormon clearly shows what is happening now.  And striving to have your voice heard and get and keep just Laws on the books is the ultimate way we honor, obey and sustain the law...

[Just_A_Guy]

It s not just religious organizations that are impacted. Political ones face the same challenge. College democrats for example must follow the same rules. <gasp>! What if a republican tries to join and take over?!?!

 

Demographics makes that more difficult, because the parties are relatively evenly split.  But what if--say--a bunch of tea partiers co-opted the local libertarian club?  Are you still as sanguine about that idea?

 

If LDSSA is a church organization then it should follow the rules of the church.

If LDSSA is a University of California organization then it should follow the rules of the University of California

If it attempts to be both then it needs to be subject to both, or make a decision as to which one it wants to affiliate with if both are impossible.

 

Yeah, because free speech and free assembly were never hallmarks of American university life. 

 

After all, no man can serve two masters...and we believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law...

Or is that only when the outcome is favorable to us?

 

Come, now.  No one's talking about civil disobedience.  They're talking about whether an existing California statute (and additionally, perhaps, some interpretations of constitutional law) is just, or whether it is unjust and ought to be changed. 

 

"The law" said that Helmuth Hubener was a traitor; but I daresay you would (rightly) consider him a hero.  You aren't one to promote this kind of unquestioning obedience to divine (or, as you would probably style it, "ecclesiastical") law.  Why do you insist upon it for civil law?  Do you think Jerry Brown and the California State Legislature have a better sense of justice than Tom Monson does?

 

JAG,

This policy applies to ALL campus groups. That means that you, as a white guy could join the NAACP chapter on campus. You could even run for office. Lions, and tigers and bears...oh my!

 

But I, as an American, cannot form a free association and then have that association assemble on public property.

 

And, going back to your hypothetical:  And what happens in a racist-dominated subculture where the KKK can--and does--decide to co-opt the local NAACP chapter?

 

You refuse to engage this hypothetical, of course, because you think it would never happen.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe this will help the discussion.  In a column for Christianity Today, a former leader for Intervasity Christian Fellowship's graduate school club, at Vanderbilt University, describes the process of its de-recognition.  Vanderbilt is private, so the incident raised no legal concerns.  Nevertheless, it came as a shocker.  She thought they were the "okay" kind of Christians:  Moderate, welcoming all as members, social drinkers, engaged in progressive causes, helpers at Habitat for Humanity house buildings, etc.  So, she mistakenly believed that the threat was a misunderstanding that could be worked out.  At the end of the day there was no real discussion.  Instead it was a line in the sand.  The bottom-line issue was that the school would not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  If they had to demand all-comer policies to get there they would do so.  The school officials knew that the primary question was groups centered around religion.  They decided that discrimination was discrimination, whether it was creedal, or something different.  And, their purpose was to protect against discrimination related to sexual orientation.  That was/is the driver.

 

Now that public schools are doing so, I see RFRA and RLUIPA issues involved.  Is not the government placing a substantial burden on those who have sincerely held religioius beliefs.  Is there a compelling governmental interest?  Perhaps.  The protection of sexual orientation minorities.  Is there a lesser restrictive means than barring religious groups from public university recognition?  Ohio thinks so.  They make allowance.  California does not.  Frankly, it may be that the LBGTQI community is still enraged about Prop. 8, and this as about payback.

 

So, please, let's dispense with the whiny Christians asking for special privileges nonsense.  This backdoor attack is new.  It's being applied retroactively, with no alternatives offered.

[Just_A_Guy]

RFRA doesn't apply to state governments, FWIW.

[prisonchaplain]

RFRA doesn't apply to state governments, FWIW.

 

Yeah--that's why I included RLUIPA.  RFRA is federal only.  I live it daily.  B)

[Urstadt]

Those who lobby for or hand down these kinds of "derecognitions" are smug, self-righteous, anti-religious bigots.

They are intolerant of our "intolerance." It's just reverse bigotry and mindless hypocrisy. Edited September 14, 2014 by Urstadt