LDS teen sueing Fellowship of Christian Athletes over religious discrimination


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Came across this today: http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Teen-Alleges-She-Was-Denied-Leadership-Position-Because-She-s-Mormon-Sues-School-District/s/89012 links to https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article215920295.html

My brief summary -- she was a member of the FCA throughout high school, nominated by her peers to be on the chapter's leadership council, but ultimately denied the position because leaders of the FCA did not approve of her Mormon faith (Mormons are not Christian or not Christian enough or something like that).

I don't know what to think of this. Part of me wonders if the parties on both sides truly understand the issues around "Are Mormons Christians?" How does the popular "religious freedom" topic figure into this? Some Facebook commenters recalled that, back in the "good old days" Mormons were not even allowed to be members of the FCA.

I know that defining what/who is Christian gets tricky sometimes. Sometimes I wonder if a group like this would be better named "Fellowship of Protestant Athletes" since it so often seems that "Christian" in so many of these cases is really synonymous with "Protestant" -- a (large) subset of what more inclusive definitions would call Christian.

What do you think? Should Mormons use the law and the courts to "force" Christian/Protestant/Catholic groups to accept us? Should we be quicker to acknowledge the theological differences and acquiesce to these decisions by other, larger Christian groups?

I thought the MormonHub community might be interested in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Came across this today: http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Teen-Alleges-She-Was-Denied-Leadership-Position-Because-She-s-Mormon-Sues-School-District/s/89012 links to https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article215920295.html

My brief summary -- she was a member of the FCA throughout high school, nominated by her peers to be on the chapter's leadership council, but ultimately denied the position because leaders of the FCA did not approve of her Mormon faith (Mormons are not Christian or not Christian enough or something like that).

I don't know what to think of this. Part of me wonders if the parties on both sides truly understand the issues around "Are Mormons Christians?" How does the popular "religious freedom" topic figure into this? Some Facebook commenters recalled that, back in the "good old days" Mormons were not even allowed to be members of the FCA.

I know that defining what/who is Christian gets tricky sometimes. Sometimes I wonder if a group like this would be better named "Fellowship of Protestant Athletes" since it so often seems that "Christian" in so many of these cases is really synonymous with "Protestant" -- a (large) subset of what more inclusive definitions would call Christian.

What do you think? Should Mormons use the law and the courts to "force" Christian/Protestant/Catholic groups to accept us? Should we be quicker to acknowledge the theological differences and acquiesce to these decisions by other, larger Christian groups?

I thought the MormonHub community might be interested in this.

Not having followed the link and just going by your excerpt, in my opinion her case is a losing one.  A private organization, by virtue of their 1st amendment protection, have the freedom to define their membership/leadership.  Their definition of Christian is Trinitarian.  Mormons don't fit that definition.

Think of it this way - somebody claims they are Mormon.  But they think the Book of Mormon is not the golden plates given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni.  Rather, they believe the Book of Mormon is this papyrus writing that details the story of the Igorots in the Philippines.  Would you still accept them as Mormons like, say, to get the Mormon rate at BYU?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

What do you think? Should Mormons use the law and the courts to "force" Christian/Protestant/Catholic groups to accept us? 

No. If an LDS baker can pick and choose who they serve, than Christian/Protestant/Catholic groups should be allowed to do the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh.  We homeschooled our kids, and for years took them to an educational co-op run by our local mega church.  Nice people, loved the heck out of my wife.  Here's how it went:

Random friendly parent: "You're so smart and funny and great with the kids, you should totally teach next semester!"
Wife: "Yeah, that's not gonna happen."
RFP: "How come?"
Wife: "We're Mormon."
RFP: "Oh.  Well, we love you anyway!"

Lather, rinse, repeat.  It was pretty much never personal.  At the end of the day, if you were going to teach, you had to sign a statement of faith, which said you believed in the doctrine of the trinity.  Totally appropriate condition for a mainstream Christian church to require teachers of children to believe such.  We were totally ok with trinitarians teaching our kids music, history, art, hula dancing, basic keyboarding, math, and a hundred other classes.  Totally knocked us out of the running for a teaching gig.

They offered early access to class sign up based on volunteer hours, so I was a hall monitor.  Didn't have to sign any statement of faith.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She should lose based on what @anatess2 said.

Even if she wins she will lose.  Leaders can't lead if the followers will not follow.  Given this climate the government might be willing to force her down their throats... but that is not how you make friends, win hearts, and gain allies...  All she is doing is alienating the group she is a part of.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of hooey. They get to define their own membership. It makes complete sense to me that they want a leader to be someone that follows trinitarianism (sp?). 

A great discussion on why it's ok for Mormons to not identify with mainstream Christians on if we are Christians or not is found on LDS Perspectives:

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/06/07/mormons-christian/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seem to agree that a private organization should be able to determine who its leadership is.  I'm on board.

But the issue gere seems to be that this activity falls under the auspices of the public school, and thus certain rules kick in.  If the rule says you can't discriminate based on religion, then even if the plaintiff were Muslim, Jewish or even Atheist, they would still have a case.

Quote

Dobbins said Ayers’ case is a civil rights claim that violates the Equal Access Act, which requires federally-funded secondary schools to provide equal access to students who are members of non-curriculum groups meeting on school grounds.

So it's really not about whether LDS count as Christians, but rather whether or not the group can use religion as a disqualifier in the first place.

Personally, I think the lawsuit is a bad move and will do more harm than good.  If a club doesn't want you to lead them, using legal force isn't going to show them that you care about them as a leader should.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
46 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Personally, I think the lawsuit is a bad move and will do more harm than good.

I think that's the case with many lawsuits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when I was in high school, we were hosting our student body officer elections. There was some prodigy child, 10 years old if I'm not mistaken in memory, who attended some classes at the high school. People LOVED him. So, they tried to write him in as class president and by that account, he won. But, he didn't fit the rest of the qualifications (I think one being a full-time student, which he was not).

I suppose there could have been a big hue and cry, but it just wasn't a big deal. The school had policies for who could be in office, he didn't fit, that was that.

I think the lawsuit here is a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/2/2018 at 2:25 PM, MrShorty said:

Came across this today: http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Teen-Alleges-She-Was-Denied-Leadership-Position-Because-She-s-Mormon-Sues-School-District/s/89012 links to https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article215920295.html

My brief summary -- she was a member of the FCA throughout high school, nominated by her peers to be on the chapter's leadership council, but ultimately denied the position because leaders of the FCA did not approve of her Mormon faith (Mormons are not Christian or not Christian enough or something like that).

I don't know what to think of this. Part of me wonders if the parties on both sides truly understand the issues around "Are Mormons Christians?" How does the popular "religious freedom" topic figure into this? Some Facebook commenters recalled that, back in the "good old days" Mormons were not even allowed to be members of the FCA.

I know that defining what/who is Christian gets tricky sometimes. Sometimes I wonder if a group like this would be better named "Fellowship of Protestant Athletes" since it so often seems that "Christian" in so many of these cases is really synonymous with "Protestant" -- a (large) subset of what more inclusive definitions would call Christian.

What do you think? Should Mormons use the law and the courts to "force" Christian/Protestant/Catholic groups to accept us? Should we be quicker to acknowledge the theological differences and acquiesce to these decisions by other, larger Christian groups?

I thought the MormonHub community might be interested in this.

if its a gov school then yes, she could do that justifiably. otherwise no.
whether one would want to as an LDS member on the other hand i don't know ( I wouldn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2018 at 6:32 AM, unixknight said:

We seem to agree that a private organization should be able to determine who its leadership is.  I'm on board.

But the issue gere seems to be that this activity falls under the auspices of the public school, and thus certain rules kick in.  If the rule says you can't discriminate based on religion, then even if the plaintiff were Muslim, Jewish or even Atheist, they would still have a case.

So it's really not about whether LDS count as Christians, but rather whether or not the group can use religion as a disqualifier in the first place.

Personally, I think the lawsuit is a bad move and will do more harm than good.  If a club doesn't want you to lead them, using legal force isn't going to show them that you care about them as a leader should.

This is part of a much larger issue. Some public universities have rescinded official student group status to religious groups that make doctrinal compliance a factor in its membership or leadership appointments. FCA, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, my own church's XA (Chi Alpha), and several others have been forced off campus by relatively new "all-comers" policies. I believe this started snowballing when LGBT students started seeking leadership positions, and state legislators (especially in CA) went to their defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is part of a much larger issue. Some public universities have rescinded official student group status to religious groups that make doctrinal compliance a factor in its membership or leadership appointments. FCA, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, my own church's XA (Chi Alpha), and several others have been forced off campus by relatively new "all-comers" policies. I believe this started snowballing when LGBT students started seeking leadership positions, and state legislators (especially in CA) went to their defense.

For me, it's a weird sort of dilemma.  On one hand, if it's public funded it's a lot harder to defend being able to have that kind of selection criteria.  On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which someone who doesn't meet that criteria wanting to be in a leadership position without some kind of intent to make unwelcome changes.

This, to me, is another good argument against public funding of this sort of thing in the first place.   Take outside money = accept outside control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

For me, it's a weird sort of dilemma.  On one hand, if it's public funded it's a lot harder to defend being able to have that kind of selection criteria.  On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which someone who doesn't meet that criteria wanting to be in a leadership position without some kind of intent to make unwelcome changes.

This, to me, is another good argument against public funding of this sort of thing in the first place.   Take outside money = accept outside control.

Okay, the "publicly funded" argument is weak.  A publicly funded institution cannot strip it's members of 1A rights.  For example, a public school can restrict its paid teachers from free expression or association but it cannot restrict students from free expression association.  So students forming religious clubs and setting up their own rules is outside the purview of the publicly funded school as long as the school/teachers are not the ones setting up such rules.  As a matter of fact, a school preventing the free association of its student organizations is what is anti 1A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, unixknight said:

For me, it's a weird sort of dilemma.  On one hand, if it's public funded it's a lot harder to defend being able to have that kind of selection criteria.  On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which someone who doesn't meet that criteria wanting to be in a leadership position without some kind of intent to make unwelcome changes.

This, to me, is another good argument against public funding of this sort of thing in the first place.   Take outside money = accept outside control.

I beg to differ. Until the SCOTUS decision on marriage there was never an issue with Christians, Muslims, etc. having student organizations on campus that would restrict leadership positions to those who conform with their faith system. It was a given. Honestly, much like the Colorado baker who is already up on new discrimination charges, after winning his SCOTUS case, it seems that some leaders in the LGBT community are determined to humiliate and ostracize their spiritual/ideological opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, the "publicly funded" argument is weak.  A publicly funded institution cannot strip it's members of 1A rights...

It's not MY argument.  Just saying that's how it's implemented.

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I beg to differ. Until the SCOTUS decision on marriage there was never an issue with Christians, Muslims, etc. having student organizations on campus that would restrict leadership positions to those who conform with their faith system. It was a given... 

I think that was justba ticking time bomb.  I remember a case a looong way back, around the time I was in high school in the very early '90s, when this came up.  At the time, it wasn't a big issue but the argument was that free association didn't apply if the organization was being funded by tax dollars.  A couple years later it came up again, this time at the University I was going to.  Religious clubs were allowed, but could not restrict membership because they were funded by student activity fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

It's not MY argument.  Just saying that's how it's implemented.

I think that was justba ticking time bomb.  I remember a case a looong way back, around the time I was in high school in the very early '90s, when this came up.  At the time, it wasn't a big issue but the argument was that free association didn't apply if the organization was being funded by tax dollars.  A couple years later it came up again, this time at the University I was going to.  Religious clubs were allowed, but could not restrict membership because they were funded by student activity fees.

Then the religious clubs should sue.

Let's put it this way, a guy receiving government social welfare can't freely associate anymore because he receives public funds?  I can easily see how the Gen Z conservatives could use that against their welfare-receiving liberal friends...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Then the religious clubs should sue.

Let's put it this way, a guy receiving government social welfare can't freely associate anymore because he receives public funds?  I can easily see how the Gen Z conservatives could use that against their welfare-receiving liberal friends...

That's just it...  when funded by student activity fees they had to agree to not restrict in order to receive thosse funds.  That was the agreement they were making.  As for tax funded... well as I mentioned, others has already done so unsuccessfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's just it...  when funded by student activity fees they had to agree to not restrict in order to receive thosse funds.  That was the agreement they were making.  As for tax funded... well as I mentioned, others has already done so unsuccessfully.

That's the exact definition of the government infringing on 1A!  A government can't compel/limit/etc. etc. free speech/religion/press/association/expression/what-did-i-miss... giving them funds do not make them part of the government.

Now here's the interesting part... Trump is speedily putting Consitutionalist judges everywhere in Federal court... soon, it will be high time for suing to free people from these stupidity. 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2018 at 3:25 PM, MrShorty said:

Came across this today: http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Teen-Alleges-She-Was-Denied-Leadership-Position-Because-She-s-Mormon-Sues-School-District/s/89012 links to https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article215920295.html

My brief summary -- she was a member of the FCA throughout high school, nominated by her peers to be on the chapter's leadership council, but ultimately denied the position because leaders of the FCA did not approve of her Mormon faith (Mormons are not Christian or not Christian enough or something like that).

I don't know what to think of this. Part of me wonders if the parties on both sides truly understand the issues around "Are Mormons Christians?" How does the popular "religious freedom" topic figure into this? Some Facebook commenters recalled that, back in the "good old days" Mormons were not even allowed to be members of the FCA.

I know that defining what/who is Christian gets tricky sometimes. Sometimes I wonder if a group like this would be better named "Fellowship of Protestant Athletes" since it so often seems that "Christian" in so many of these cases is really synonymous with "Protestant" -- a (large) subset of what more inclusive definitions would call Christian.

What do you think? Should Mormons use the law and the courts to "force" Christian/Protestant/Catholic groups to accept us? Should we be quicker to acknowledge the theological differences and acquiesce to these decisions by other, larger Christian groups?

I thought the MormonHub community might be interested in this.

It has not been that long since the last fight over this. If Christianity doesn't unite we are heading for bad times and I don't doubt non Christians keep pushing everybody's buttons to keep us divided 

Edited by john4truth
Errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know... law or no law against certain types of discrimination, we shouldn’t seek retribution or force our way into Amy organization that disagrees with us.

I think back to the stories from the General Authorities and I can’t think of any story about discrimination against Mormons that ended in “And I died them, got the guy in charge kicked out, got what I deserved, and everyone lived happily ever after.”

I would only see that justifiable if the “victim” had put forth funds or valuable time and then told no they couldn’t because they are Mormon and we don’t agree with your beliefs and there not being a pre-written standard to back their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2018 at 9:51 AM, unixknight said:

On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which someone who doesn't meet that criteria wanting to be in a leadership position without some kind of intent to make unwelcome changes.

Perhaps that "unwelcome change" is simply the removal of the trinitarian requirement.  LDS don't have a monopoly on nontrinitarian Christianity, so it's possible there could be substantial support for such a move that's been keeping quiet so far.

On 8/30/2018 at 9:51 AM, unixknight said:

This, to me, is another good argument against public funding of this sort of thing in the first place.   Take outside money = accept outside control.

Exactly; we keep hearing how athletic programs are "self supporting," and yet they always have a line in the school budget.  If you don't want to take orders, get off the payroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2018 at 8:11 PM, john4truth said:

It has not been that long since the last fight over this. If Christianity doesn't unite we are heading for bad times and I don't doubt non Christians keep pushing everybody's buttons to keep us divided 

Trouble is, even without those non-Christians, pretty much every denomination is only willing to unite on their own often-incompatible terms.  Just watching the childish actions of some in situations where the only needed action is something everyone who recognizes the teachings of Christ should be in full agreement on, like helping disaster victims, makes it clear that hubris is more of a motivator than love for many.

 

And for those of you thinking "yeah, all those other denominations are so immature" I'd recommend re-watching this: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/lord-is-it-i?lang=eng

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share