David French writes at National Review Online:
I don’t have time to detail Eugene’s argument in all its complexity, but the one sentence summary is: Public universities are not constitutionally compelled to provide government benefits (like room access and student fee funding) to “discriminatory” Christian student organizations.... [Here is] his post’s primary shortcoming:Eugene cites two cases, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitor of the University of Virginia as foundational to the fraternity’s position. Yet this is incomplete. Boy Scouts (holding that the Scouts could exclude scoutmasters who were openly engaged in homosexual behavior) and Rosenberger (holding that religious student organizations were entitled to viewpoint-neutral access to student-fee funds) are certainly important, but they rest on a foundation of other cases, most importantly Healy v. James (reversing a university’s decision to deny recognition to Students for a Democratic Society) and Widmar v. Vincent (holding that universities had to provide religious student organizations with equal access to university benefits).
Healy is particularly crucial, because it places the discussion of student-organization associational rights in the right context — the university context. I think Eugene’s key flaw is to treat the university environment and university student-organization system as essentially like any other government program, when they most assuredly are not. The Healy court got this, holding that there was a free-association interest in student-organization recognition: “There can be no doubt that denial of official recognition, without justification, to college organizations burdens or abridges that associational right.” On campus, recognition typically equates with existence.
Everything flows from this initial determination. Once the free-association right locks in, the panoply of associational rights attach — including the now well-established right to expressive organizations to exclude those who do not share the organization’s mission or message. In fact, in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, a similar case, the Seventh Circuit found Healy to be “legally indistinguishable” and then went on to apply Dale to decide the precise associational issue.
On the university campus (this qualifier is critical), the Supreme Court has clearly established the following: Student organizations have a free-association right in recognition; religious student organizations have a right to access university facilities; and religious student organizations have a right to access student-activity-fee funds. On and off campus, expressive organizations have a free-association right to exclude those who don’t share their beliefs.
I’ll have more to say on this topic when I have time, but it is simply wrong to phrase this as a “government benefits” case. It is a governmental obligation to provide facilities access to Christian student groups (Widmar) once they’ve opened those facilities for use by other groups. Similarly, it is a government obligation to fund religious student groups from mandatory student activity fees (Rosenberger, Southworth) if other expressive organizations are funded. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that student activity fees are a fund that belong to the students — and not “government funds” in the classic sense.
What universities have done is defy their obligations by creating two tiers of access — a right of access for those groups that comply with expansive nondiscrimination policies (including policies that prohibit Christian groups from reserving leadership for Christians, thereby destroying their ability to guarantee the integrity of their message) and the leftovers for everyone else, or even no access at all if “recognized” groups have reserved all space (or taken all the funds). This action essentially overrules Healy, Rosenberger, and Widmar through the back door.
Once again, this (relatively) short post doesn’t address all of Eugene’s comments, so there will be more to say. However, he did ask that any critics address two questions he raised: Can a university require a democratic process for student organizations? No, it cannot. And can it require student leadership? Perhaps, but only because courts have long recognized a distinction between the free-speech rights of students versus off-campus speakers or groups, with the forum created for the students and student groups. See, for example, Widmar.
I look forward to further discussion, but I would submit that by phrasing this as essentially a “government benefits” case, Professor Volokh is missing the point. Student-organization recognition isn’t a benefit; it’s (as the Supreme Court has said) a right.
I much appreciate Mr. French’s response, but here’s why I don’t think it quite works:
1. The government of course has no obligation to fund student groups, or to give them access to university classrooms, bulletin boards, and the like. In that respect, such access is indeed a “government benefit.”
2. Of course, Rosenberger and other cases (including Southworth and Widmar) make clear that the government can’t discriminate based on viewpoint even in the distribution of government benefits, once a limited public forum is created. It may also be in some measure restricted in its imposition of content-based but viewpoint-neutral rules, but that’s not important here. I explained in another post why the non-discrimination rule isn’t viewpoint– or content-based.
3. What about Healy? Healy was also a case in which a group was excluded largely because of its viewpoint. (The group was excluded because the University President “found that the organization’s philosophy was antithetical to the school’s policies,” and “that approval should not be granted to any group that ‘openly repudiates’ the College’s dedication to academic freedom.”) The Court did say that, “There can be no doubt that denial of official recognition, without justification, to college organizations burdens or abridges that associational right. The primary impediment to free association flowing from nonrecognition is the denial of use of campus facilities for meetings and other appropriate purposes. Petitioners’ associational interests also were circumscribed by the denial of the use of campus bulletin boards and the school newspaper.” But as the Court has since made clear, student groups don’t have a general right to use campus facilities (such as rooms within university buildings) or bulletin boards. They at most have a right to not be discriminated against based on the viewpoint of their speech (and perhaps in some situations based on the content of their speech) once the university decides to open up such facilities to student groups generally.
4. Nor does Healy suggest that groups have a right to what one might call “associational-choice-neutral” access to property that the university has opened to student groups, much as groups have a right to viewpoint-neutral access to such property. In fact, footnote 11 of Healy expressly says that content-neutral nondiscrimination rules were not at issue in that case:
The standards for official recognition require applicants to provide a clear statement of purposes, criteria for membership, rules of procedure, and a list of officers. Applicants must limit membership to “matriculated students” and may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or nationality. ... Petitioners have not challenged these standards and their validity is not here in question.
So whether the matter arises as to funding or room access at public universities, or funding or room access in other government-owned institutions, the result is the same: The First Amendment doesn’t stop the government from making such benefits available only to groups that don’t discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.
Eric Rasmusen says:
Do you think the Constitution *does* forbid a university from refusing to fund student groups with racial or religious purposes so long as they formally allow any student to hold office and even if the elected officer is always of the same religion or race? If not, how do you distinguish?
Quote
December 11, 2009, 1:49 pmShelbyC says:
I think one of the things that is being missed here is that bans on discrimination based on religion are not viewpoint or content neutral, since religion is itself a type of viewpoint.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 1:49 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Assume that you are right. What about a ban on discrimination of a sort that is endorsed by certain religions (such as discrimination against homosexuals). Are you suggesting that such a prohibition would also constitute viewpoint discrimination of a sort that the Constitution forbids?
It occurs to me that the concept of “viewpoint discrimination” needs to be refined. Every rule that lays out a non-universal standard (such as being against discrimination instead of simply not addressing the issue) can be accused of discriminating against people and groups that favor such discrimination. (In fact, even the failure to address the issue can be said to express the viewpoint of not being concerned.)
“Good” viewpoint discrimination lays out a rule that applies generally without regard to individual circumstances, even though it has an adverse effect on some groups or people. But the effect is indirect. “Bad” viewpoint discrimination would act directly on groups or people who favor or oppose certain specifics.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 2:14 pmADF Alliance Alert » Volokh replies to French: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and the Court’s University Speech Decisions says:
[...] Professor Eugene Volokh has written this response to ADF attorney David French. It concludes: “So whether the matter arises as to funding or [...]
Dilan Esper says:
I think that a lot of folks are confusing the viewpoint that people should be allowed to discriminate against non-Christians (which cannot form the basis of a discriminatory funding decision) and the discrimination itself (which can). These are two different things.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 4:06 pmArthurKirkland says:
Getting into fights about the particulars of religious doctrine — what if a student demands that any person who eats shellfish or visits a barber be denied membership in the Christian Law Society at a campus (which seems roughly as theologically sound as bashing gays or celebrating the greedy) — is a tedious exercise, particularly with respect to student and government funds for student organizations, but I expect the “heads-we-win-tails-you-lose” religious crusaders to press it.
Who decides whether someone is “Christian” enough to belong in a student group? Should the tolerant Christians (arguing tolerance is more Christ-like, and is preached by many churches) be permitted to banish the fundamentalists? Should the fundamentalists be permitted to banish the tolerant? Should the really strict fundamentalists — who disdain the greedy, the shrimp-eaters, the unbearded, the beer-drinkers — be permitted to banish the squishy fundamentalists, who defile churches with rock bands and affluence-is-great seminars (or vice versa)? Should the really really strict fundamentalists — who have no use for anyone unwilling to stone a daughter at God’s command — be permitted to banish the really strict fundamentalists (or vice versa?).
Good times.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 4:49 pmShafemo says:
A nondiscrimination requirement is a viewpoint-based prohibition. The “discrimination” (or more precisely: exclusion of nonadherents) is the means a group uses to shape and maintain the integrity of its organizational message. Religious and sexual orientation nondiscrimination requirements forbid certain expressive associations to communicate their viewpoints organizationally.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 4:57 pmDilan Esper says:
A nondiscrimination requirement is a viewpoint-based prohibition. The “discrimination” (or more precisely: exclusion of nonadherents) is the means a group uses to shape and maintain the integrity of its organizational message.
1. It can be in specific circumstances, but not always. For instance, there’s no doubt that bigoted exclusion of blacks, Jews, gays, and Catholics is at the core of the KKK’s message. But it’s at the periphery of a lot of other groups’ message.
We’ve made a decision, as a society, to impinge to some extent on maximal freedom of association to promote nondiscrimination norms. And the more peripheral the freedom of association claims are, the more that is defensible. (Indeed, I thought Dale was wrong for that reason– I can imagine exempting a militant anti-gay group from nondiscrimination laws, but this issue was entirely collateral to the Boy Scouts’ message.)
2. Remember, this is funding we are talking about. And funding is different from an underlying prohibition. Nobody is saying that a group of anti-Semitic Christians can’t form a student group and exclude Jews. The question is whether they are going to get university money if they do it.
And what this sort of rule does is draw a speech/conduct distinction where you can continue to preach the message of discriminatory bigotry (speech), but you can’t actually implement discriminatory policies with university money. This may burden speech, but the burden is incidental– bigoted groups still get to preach their bigotry, and their message is only slightly diluted by not being able to practice their bigotry unless they decline university funding.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:05 pmPubliusFL says:
Like whether a group should be founded on exclusive religious principles?
The group in question. Those who disagree can found their own group.
Let’s see: Yes, yes, yes (yes), and yes (yes). That’s freedom of association for ya.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:11 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Why limit yourself to “religious and sexual orientation nondiscrimination requirements”? You can say the same thing about racial non-discrimination requirements. Does that addition change things?
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:17 pmRandy says:
What would be really interesting is where there is a student chapter of the ABC religion. The ABC religion banishes gay people. The student chapter specifically repudiates this and states that gay people are welcome, even in leadership roles, but are otherwise in accordance with all other church doctrine.
The ABC religion hears about this demands that they reverse their anti-gay policy, or threatens to take action against the group.
If ABC does this, than it would have to admit that their anti-gay policy is central to their religious message, right?
Would they be able to actually close down a student chapter, or are religious beliefs protected by IP?
If they did try to shut down the student chapter, would that be a violation of something? (I’m guessing not, unless it were a private school)
If they succeded in shutting down the school group, could the students then organize an ‘everything but the anti-gay” ABC religious studies group?
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:22 pmShelbyC says:
I think they’re all problematic, but it seems most clear wrt religion. I just can’t see how saying that you can discriminate against a religious viewpoint but not a non-religious viewpoint is viewpoint-neutral.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:27 pmRandy says:
Just like to take a step back and thing about how far things have come recently. It wasn’t long ago that any one could have an anti-gay policy and no one would bat an eyelash. No lawsuit could be filed because it would be a loser.
The past battles on civil rights have been won. No one today would even think to file a court case to protect their right to discriminate against blacks, interracial couples, jews, women, handicapped or any other class of people. Gays, of course, are the exception. (Abortion issues probably as well, but I don’t see any religious group disallowing anyone from joining because their beliefs on abortion are ‘wrong.’)
And more and more, religions have decided or are deciding that their core belief, trumping many other considerations, is having an anti-gay platform. In the last ten or fifteen years, as gays have made more advances in society, many religions have made stopping these advances a top priority and core belief. Here in Washington, the Catholic Church has said that if same sex marriage is implemented, they will withdraw from providing all social services, including healthcare for the poor, food for the homeless, drug treatment programs, and so on. Therefore, stopping SSM is more important that providing for the poor and downtrodden.
The anti-gay forces always claim that gays want ‘special rights’ Here is clearly a case where they are demanding special rights. They want a right to university money AND they want an exemption from the non-discrimination policy. Gay groups, of course, cannot have such a special right and must comply with all rules if they wish to receive money.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:34 pmRandy says:
No one has wondered about how such a precedent would apply in the future. IF CLS wins this case, would it then be applied to any church-provided program, such as providing social services? Could a church demand that they are exempt from any discrimination laws they dislike but still receive government contracts? That’s clearly what they want, and it’s clearly what the catholic church is currently arguing in Washington.
How about going further? Assume CLS wins. If I own a business, like a restaurant, and I belong to a church that discriminates against gays, why shouldn’t I be able to discriminate as well? That will certainly be the next case, which I hope they lose. But a victory in CLS could provide traction at the state level.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:38 pmShelbyC says:
I haven’t been able to figure out why, if the government can’t use a condition as a trigger for a fine or a tax, they should be able to use that condition to trigger the loss of a subsidy. It amounts to the same thing, right? The government’s money is really your money.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:39 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Does this mean that the government cannot ever have a non-viewpoint-discrimination policy? That is, is a prohibition against discrimination itself discriminatory? If so, then does this take the government out of the game of forbidding discrimination? If so, would this be limited to the situation of granting recognition to a particular organization, or would it have a wider scope?
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:48 pmShelbyC says:
Keep in mind that this doesn’t only restrict bigoted speech. It affects Christians who want to meet to discuss religion with other Christians, Rape victims who want to discuss issues without men present, lesbians who want to share their concerns only with other lesbians, etc.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:48 pmArthurKirkland says:
But whom should or must the university recognize as the Christian Legal Society if each of four groups indicates that it is the sole keeper of the righteous flame (and sole group entitled to banish all others from voting or participating)? Majority vote can’t control the issue because entitlement to vote would be disputed.
Perhaps the university could or should or must recognize every group that applies (setting aside which group is entitled to which name, an issue the university presumably could leave to litigation among the duelers) . . . and, some would argue, the university must provide funding to each group (as well as to each splinter associated with Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and every/any other religion), perhaps to the point of consuming most or all available funds, at least until the other student groups responded by splintering in pursuit of funding.
Gooder times.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 5:53 pmShelbyC says:
Well, my understanding is that the right of expressive association does in fact take the government out of the game of forbidding discrimination wrt associations with an expressive purpose. The only question here, as I understand it, is whether or not it takes them out of the game of conditioning subsidies on discriminatory membership criteria, which folks are saying they can do as long as the restrictions are viewpoint neutral. I’m just not understanding how a university saying a group can’t discriminate based on religious viewpoint is different than them saying it can’t discriminate based on, say, political viewpoint.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 6:02 pmShelbyC says:
Well, the government decided it wanted to get into the business of funding associations, and then wonders why there are so many expressive association questions.
Which brings to mind another question. If the government bails out the newspaper industry, will they be able to prevent them from discriminating against folks based on political views?
Quote
December 11, 2009, 6:10 pmDilan Esper says:
I haven’t been able to figure out why, if the government can’t use a condition as a trigger for a fine or a tax, they should be able to use that condition to trigger the loss of a subsidy. It amounts to the same thing, right?
That’s a fascinating question, Shelby, and it’s a position often associated with Thurgood Marshall and was taken (to some extent) by the dissenters in Rust v. Sullivan, the case involving the abortion “gag rule” where federally funded doctors were not permitted to discuss abortion with their patients.
I am not going to say that position is wrong (and if it were adopted, I agree that it might allow the student group in this case to maintain a discriminatory membership policy), but it is certainly not one that commands a majority of votes on the Supreme Court and is not consistent with the current precedents. If I were on the Court, though, it might get my vote.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 6:47 pmShelbyC says:
gotcha, I hadn’t thought of that case. Not a big fan, myself.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 7:14 pmRandy says:
Arthur: “Perhaps the university could or should or must recognize every group that applies (setting aside which group is entitled to which name, an issue the university presumably could leave to litigation among the duelers)”
I think that’s the best solution, and one many colleges already have.
” . . . and, some would argue, the university must provide funding to each group (as well as to each splinter associated with Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and every/any other religion), perhaps to the point of consuming most or all available funds, at least until the other student groups responded by splintering in pursuit of funding”
There can be strict rules for funding. The first year in existence, you get no funding, for instance. The second year, you get seed money. Funds can be allocated according to your record of producing actual events, and how many students participated. In our school, similar organizations would get wildly different funding because one group has weekly meetings that draw many students and quarterly events, and other groups meet once or twice a year and draw only a dozen or so people. If the campus radio station needed to upgrade equipment, they might get a major funding boost for one year.
All decisions were made on an individual basis, and it worked out perfectly fine.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 8:51 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and the Court’s University Speech Decisions -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free URL, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and the Court’s University Speech Decisions: David French writes at Nationa.. http://bit.ly/8EqY4Z [...]
Gov98 says:
I had such a hard time with the post and for a while I couldn’t figure out why...I think I’ve finally figured it out, and that is because the argumentation here by Prof. Volokh is not remotely persuasive.
Let’s just break this down...
French:
I look forward to further discussion, but I would submit that by phrasing this as essentially a “government benefits” case, Professor Volokh is missing the point. Student-organization recognition isn’t a benefit; it’s (as the Supreme Court has said) a right.
Volokh response:
1. The government of course has no obligation to fund student groups, or to give them access to university classrooms, bulletin boards, and the like. In that respect, such access is indeed a “government benefit.”
Prof. Volokh ignores almost the entire point French is trying to make and states a claim for which French has to me at least persuasively pointed out has issues. Prof. Volokh’s response is little better than “I can’t hear you.”
Then...
2. Of course, Rosenberger and other cases (including Southworth and Widmar) make clear that the government can’t discriminate based on viewpoint even in the distribution of government benefits, once a limited public forum is created. It may also be in some measure restricted in its imposition of content-based but viewpoint-neutral rules, but that’s not important here. I explained in another post why the non-discrimination rule isn’t viewpoint– or content-based.
Prof. Volokh says I’m right that there isn’t a viewpoint discrimination issue here because I’ve already argued that there’s not a viewpoint discrimination issue here, and I am right.
Um sorry boss, but that post wasn’t all that persuasive to begin with so saying, I said it once before makes it true, isn’t really persuasive.
Then Prof. Volokh says:The First Amendment doesn’t stop the government from making such benefits available only to groups that don’t discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.
But what I do not get is this, if the government can forbid a group from discriminating on the basis of religion to receive funding then the government is discriminating on the basis of religion. After all, almost all religions to some degree or another discriminate on the basis of religion. Prof. Volokh says this is okay because it is generally applied. It seems to me though that at some point the disparate impact takes a back seat to the mere fact that forbiding discrimination by a religious group on the basis of religion is actually forbiding all religious groups (except for perhaps Unitarians).
Quote
December 12, 2009, 12:30 amGuy says:
If this were just an Establishment Clause or Free Exercise case, I think this would be easy (at least if we’re still using the Lemon test). A religious group might support religious discrimination, but that doesn’t mean they can engage in it any more than a religious club for a religion that believed in human sacrifice could engage in that (as far as the “excessive entanglement” prong, that might be relevant for church membership, but I don’t think it’s a problem for club membership). Since this is a freedom of association case, I think the question of who they allow membership to is more directly implicated, but I still think it’s neutral enough to survive, for reasons similar to why it would survive the Lemon test.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 3:39 amGov98 says:
A religious group might support religious discrimination, but that doesn’t mean they can engage in it any more than a religious club for a religion that believed in human sacrifice could engage in that
Here’s the thing equating “only coreligionists can become members/leaders of our religious association” to human sacrifice just ignores some very basic fundamentals about religious belief.
The way I see it, is that a school/university can not create a rule that says you can have political clubs but not religious clubs for example. If you then create a rule that says student groups cannot discriminate on the basis of religion you are effectively forbiding religious groups the same access that you are other student groups.
Maybe what I’m not getting is this....If a non-discrimination policy is okay that is there is a rational basis for it...what is it’s rational basis. Let’s assume for race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, there’s a good rational basis for that, because people should not treated differently based upon “who” they are. But does this rational basis apply to religion? No...it cannot, to say that a religion cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, then would be the court or state regulating the religion, and just because it’s broadly applied, shouldn’t save it because it’s not rational as it relates to religions.
(A political group shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of religion, but it should be able to discriminate on the basis of politics. Similarly, a religious group, needs by necessity discriminate on the basis of religious belief.)
Quote
December 12, 2009, 9:53 amArthurKirkland says:
It can work out perfectly fine until the people who believe they are on a mission from God get involved. It seems difficult to resolve on a “rational basis” the claims pressed by people who favor superstition over reason.
My advice to law students: Form drinking clubs (the Somerville Bar Review at Harvard — which so far as I am aware never took student activity funds — is a model) to promote debate of important issues, with mandatory beer consumption. Based on frequency of events, popularity of events, and membership, that club would dominate any rational funding process. Plus, craft brewers (or their wholesalers) could be offered sponsorships. Discuss property rights, environmental law, gender discrimination, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, religion, whether a justice’s first opinion should be unanimous, or whether Springsteen should continue to perform entire albums. Free beer and good conservation. I can’t think of better student organizations: The Twenty-First Amendment Club (Monday nights, in the student lounge) and the [neighborhood] Bar Review (Thursday nights, with a review of the week’s bar published no later than Monday morning).
Quote
December 12, 2009, 10:53 amPubliusFL says:
I think that’s it. A public school has no business deciding who are the true representatives of Christianity, Islam, etc. So best to just let whoever wants to start their own group do so. As Randy said, funding decisions can be made based on length of existence, number of members, level of activity, etc.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 10:59 amGov98 says:
I think that’s it. A public school has no business deciding who are the true representatives of Christianity, Islam, etc. So best to just let whoever wants to start their own group do so. As Randy said, funding decisions can be made based on length of existence, number of members, level of activity, etc.
Which is ultimately the way it was done at Hastings to some degree. The student body made the decision through their elected student body representatives, but the idea was to be exactly on those factors.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 11:10 amtroll_dc2 says:
I would wager that there are far fewer controversies over clubs that limit participation to members of a particular religion than there are over those that exclude homosexuals. How would you address the situation in which a religious or faith-based club discriminates on the ground that gay people (even if members of the proper religion) are antithetical to the theological beliefs that it embraces?
Quote
December 12, 2009, 11:25 amRandy says:
ARthur: “Based on frequency of events, popularity of events, and membership, that club would dominate any rational funding process. ”
Possibly. But at least at my school, all funding decisions were made by the Student Association, who were all entirely elected by the student body.
Actually, the SA would form a committee, chaired by the Treasurer, and the committee would review the budget requests, meet personally with the leaders of the various organizations, and then make funding recommendations based on the total estimated revenue that we would have to play with.
Then, the Assembly ( consisting of elected students) would vote on the actual funding in a public hearing by which every organization again had a chance to be heard. So each organization a) submitted their own budget, b) had a chance to make their argument before the committee and c) had one more chance to make their argument before the entire SA.
IF they were not happy with their budget allocation, their option was to attempt to elect more friendly students next year. Because the process was so transparent, we never had any real problems.
There WAS one issue: There was some sort of women’s counseling or rape crisis organization. Open to all, of course. A man wanted to be a part of it because he sincerely wanted to learn what problems women engendered in society. He wrote a letter to the editor of the campus paper complaining that the group didn’t make him feel welcome, and that they eventually told him that they only wanted women present because some members didn’t feel open or safe with even one man present. I think they even asked him to leave, but he refused.
We spoke with the woman in charge, and told her that under our rules, everyone is entitled to be at any meeting. So what they did is they just refused to talk about their real issues whenever this man was present. They talked about other things. Eventually he stopped going.
To me, this is how it should work. You don’t like someone? Ask them to leave. If they refuse, you still have to allow them to participate. But that doesn’t mean you have to be nice to them, or make them feel welcome. You can still conduct your meetings as you see fit, and so you don’t have to talk about everything if you don’t like this person. The leadership of the organization has no requirement to always have open meetings. So there are ways to deal with such situations without involving lawyers or courts.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 11:28 amGov98 says:
To me, this is how it should work. You don’t like someone? Ask them to leave. If they refuse, you still have to allow them to participate. But that doesn’t mean you have to be nice to them, or make them feel welcome. You can still conduct your meetings as you see fit, and so you don’t have to talk about everything if you don’t like this person. The leadership of the organization has no requirement to always have open meetings. So there are ways to deal with such situations without involving lawyers or courts.
I don’t know myself, but my guess is that the CLS welcomed anyone to attend. However, membership and ultimately leadership was conditioned upon ascribing to the tenants of the religious group. I don’t have a problem with the women’s group making men feel unwelcome, but should men be allowed to join and run the women’s group? That seems quite awkward if not absurd.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 11:33 amGov98 says:
How would you address the situation in which a religious or faith-based club discriminates on the ground that gay people (even if members of the proper religion) are antithetical to the theological beliefs that it embraces?
Let’s hold aside the idea of a church created in 2009, called the church of anti-gay people, and focus on the two major religions that this is an issue for...Islam and Christianity...
Any willing person can go to either’s holy book and see that sexual behavior, including, but not limited to homosexuality, is of a concern to the religion. That’s not really fairly in dispute. That Episcopalians or what ever “interpret” the Bible differently, doesn’t at all change the fact that the Bible fairly read makes sexual conduct a significant issue in the practice of the tenets of the faith.
As far as it goes, and I am not familiar with CLS rules etc., but I find it hard to believe that CLS would prohibit a person who is gay from participating or being a member or even becoming a leader, as long as that person ascribes to the tenets of the faith, which would preclude someone from engaging in proscribed conduct, including, but not limited sexual acts with someone of the same sex, and sexual acts with someone not one’s spouse, or any other continuing, unrepented of sin.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 12:10 pmRandy says:
Gov98: “but should men be allowed to join and run the women’s group? That seems quite awkward if not absurd.”
As Loki has explained in another thread, we’ve never encountered students so hell bent on taking over a student group that they go in en masse and take over. If men want to run and operate a women’s group, it’s actually much easier to start up a new group. Then, when they find that no women have actually joined, they will probably disband.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
“but I find it hard to believe that CLS would prohibit a person who is gay from participating or being a member or even becoming a leader, as long as that person ascribes to the tenets of the faith, which would preclude someone from engaging in proscribed conduct, including, but not limited sexual acts with someone of the same sex, and sexual acts with someone not one’s spouse, or any other continuing, unrepented of sin.”
IF that’s the case, than CLS would have to start off every meeting by asking if anyone has masturbated, or had sex outside of marriage since the last meeting. Only sexual virgins would be allowed to have a leadership position, or they could be a non-virgin so long as they repent and promise to remain celebate until marriage If so, that person has to confess and repent or else they will be expunged. I think that would pretty much put a damper on any chance they get students to attend.
And why stop there? There are clear prohitibitions on lots of things in the Bible — eating shellfish, swearing, not honoring your parents — the list goes on. Should anyone who wants to be a leader or a member be required to check off every sin mentioned in the Bible and swear that he or she either has not committed the sin, or has repented for it, and promises to never ever commit any more sins?
Or are you suggesting that only gay people be subjected to a sexual inquisition?
I think if any student group really wants to accomplish anything and attract anyone other than Pat Robertson’s kids as members, they would apply the same litmus test to everyone or to no one, and really it’s best to test no one. It’s easier, and the one who don’t really like the group will eventually drop out anyway.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 2:34 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Fwiw, here is a Washington Post article on how an unofficial gay student group operates at Catholic University. Basically, it works around the restrictions and prohibitions.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 2:59 pmArthurKirkland says:
Why should anyone accept the assertion that homosexuality is antithetical to Christian beliefs. Do not some Christian churches welcome (and ordain) gays?
Homosexuality offends some Christians, but (a) their objection appears to derive from personal or political preferences instead of theology, at least with respect to those who do not express equal objection to torture, opulence, homelessness, current application of the death penalty, etc. and (b) who died and made them the boss of other Christians?
If someone overlooks fornication, greed, adultery, meanness, gluttony, arrogance, and the like while shunning gays, I see bigotry, not theology.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 3:44 pmGov98 says:
As Loki has explained in another thread, we’ve never encountered students so hell bent on taking over a student group that they go in en masse and take over. If men want to run and operate a women’s group, it’s actually much easier to start up a new group. Then, when they find that no women have actually joined, they will probably disband.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
Is it? Or is it only out of your assumptions that you make this unsupported assertion...look 2 comments down...
Why should anyone accept the assertion that homosexuality is antithetical to Christian beliefs. Do not some Christian churches welcome (and ordain) gays?
This is exactly the problem. People have snuck in and undermined and in fact practice a false gospel and then some throw it back in Christian faces saying see...some Christians don’t practice tenet “X,” I say they’re not genuine Christians...
Look the New Testament is full of references to within 60 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ people trying to distort the Gospel.
1 John 2:19 (They went out from us because they were not of us.”
2 Corinthians 11:3 (Why should anyone accept the assertion that homosexuality is antithetical to Christian beliefs. Do not some Christian churches welcome (and ordain) gays?)
Galatians 1:6 (I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—)
I could go on...So Christian Theology is rife with reference to concern with distorting the Bible and the Gospel...
You say:
And why stop there? There are clear prohitibitions on lots of things in the Bible — eating shellfish, swearing, not honoring your parents — the list goes on. Should anyone who wants to be a leader or a member be required to check off every sin mentioned in the Bible and swear that he or she either has not committed the sin, or has repented for it, and promises to never ever commit any more sins?
Yes, and in fact, as it relate to current new testament commands that is they way it is...Now, there is not to be any continuing sin in any leaders life, and there ought not be...that they fail is normal, but if they choose to continue in it without repenting then yes they ought not be in leadership (as to dietary restrictions I will note that the Bible is clear see Acts 15 that dietary restrictions do not apply to the New Testament Believer.)
Quote
December 12, 2009, 4:05 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Gov98, I looked up Acts 15 to see how the New Testament did away with the dietary restrictions, and, frankly, I did not see anything that helped me to understand how Leviticus got overruled, except that there was evident unhappiness over circumcision.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 4:28 pmPubliusFL says:
Why? They didn’t start off every meeting by asking if anyone had engaged in homosexual acts. The undisputed evidence is that aside from asking all members to sign their Statement of Faith, they made no effort to determine whether any members were actively homosexual.
What evidence is there that anyone was subjected to a sexual inquisition?
Quote
December 12, 2009, 4:50 pmPubliusFL says:
Perhaps he meant Acts 21. See in particular verses 20 through 25.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 4:55 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I did not see anything in Acts either. Obviously, I am missing something.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 5:13 pmSandy says:
I think it is pretty clear Volokh is not going to respond to the many commentators and David French who point out that religion, unlike sex or race, IS a viewpoint. Except in the way Gov98 identified by referring back to his own assertion as evidence of his claim. What it means to be Christian, for example, is to BELIEVE in certain views and doctrines. That is why this policy is constitutionally exactly like saying “student groups cannot discriminate on the basis of a person’s endorsement of the democratic agenda” It would be LOL to say that is not a viewpoint based policy.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 6:13 pmGov98 says:
Acts 15:28–29: What more do you want
28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 7:12 pmDilan Esper says:
I think it is pretty clear Volokh is not going to respond to the many commentators and David French who point out that religion, unlike sex or race, IS a viewpoint. Except in the way Gov98 identified by referring back to his own assertion as evidence of his claim. What it means to be Christian, for example, is to BELIEVE in certain views and doctrines.
I’m really glad to see religious folks arguing this, because my experience is that a lot of religious conservatives pretend religion is a status and NOT a belief when they accuse anyone who criticizes or makes fun of religion, or points out how false it is, of being an anti-Christian or anti-religious bigot.
In other words, I am very comfortable with a world where religion is treated as one more idea, which stands or falls on its evidence and is subject to criticism, refutation, insult, and ridicule. But a lot of conservative Christians, in my experience, are NOT in fact interested in living in such a world. They want religion to be treated as a status when that position benefits them and a factual claim when that position benefits them.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 7:29 pmGov98 says:
Homosexuality offends some Christians, but (a) their objection appears to derive from personal or political preferences instead of theology, at least with respect to those who do not express equal objection to torture, opulence, homelessness, current application of the death penalty, etc.
This is called religious prejudice. I don’t know enough about the Christian religion to know what is and isn’t forbidden based upon the Bible, but they don’t think like I do, therefore they are biased. I mean just for example...show me from scripture where I am required to object to the death penalty...I am not clear what you mean by opulence, but greed is sin, homelessness is a difficult issue...if someone is homeless because they refuse to work then oh well...they should starve. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.” If it is something else yes they should be provided for, but by who? By the government? I disagree from a policy perspective, because I believe the government to provide for the main purpose of creating to itself a feudal power, inappropriate to a republican form of government. As to torture you tell me what the Bible says on torture...I’m interested if you know.
So you show me where the Bible says I have to think like you... you show me.
(b) who died and made them the boss of other Christians?
But who died and made you the boss of the Bible? Look, anyone can do whatever they want with the Word of God, you can accept it, reject it, manipulate it, whatever. But each and every person is individually accountable to God, with what they do with it. I believe that I am accountable to follow it, obey it, and faithfully interpret it. If someone else wants to do something else with it...fine...BUT if you don’t want to follow it, obey it, and faithfully interpret it, then you practice a different religion than I do, and we don’t belong in the same fellowship or church. That simple.
As to another post...
Only sexual virgins would be allowed to have a leadership position, or they could be a non-virgin so long as they repent and promise to remain celebate until marriage
You do know (or don’t you) that in a number of churches you cannot serve in a leadership position if you’ve ever been divorced? Even if you’re currently married. This is because that is what the Bible says...so the point you make is not as far off as you think. In the end it’s mostly moot, because most Christians do not advertise their sin, they privately repent of it, making it something that rarely comes to the attention of the church. However, if sin is flaunted, I’d expect in most fundamental churches this to be an issue.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 7:42 pmreadery says:
I think everything depends on whether we view student groups as creatures of the University — there to help promote the University’s educational misison and subject to University governance rules — or creatures of the students — there because the University chooses or is obligated to suffer and/or aid them, in the University but not of it.
It seems clear to me that at least some kinds of student groups could be creatures of the University. Perhaps most — everything from French societies to athletic teams could be characterized set up by the University and run by students, if at all, only because the University so chooses. In that respect, Professor French’s view may well not apply to at least some groups.
However, I don’t believe a state University could, consistent with the Establishment Clause, run its own religious groups as its own creatures and part of its missions, choosing which groups to have and what rules they should have according to its own wishes. To do so would strike at the heart of the Establishment Clause; the University would be establishing religion in a very basic and elemental sense of that word.
I believe the only way to avoid a head-on collision with the Establishment Clause is to regard student religious groups as coming under Professor French’s view: they are creatures of the students, not the University, and are there not because the University wants them, but because they have a right to be there under Supreme Court precedents guaranteeing equal access. They are merely in the University, not of it. For this reason, the University has no right to control them or to regulate their membership or governance, except to restrict members to students (since only students have a right to University facilities.)
Professor French argues for a more expansive view, arguing that viewpoint-oriented groups generally are ‘in the University, but not of it’ under Free Speech caselaw. This may well be so. However, Establishment Clause caselaw provides an independent route to this result where religious groups are concerned.
Quote
December 12, 2009, 10:05 pmtroll_dc2 says:
So Paul et al. did not like the dietary laws and most of the other restrictions, and, hence, simply decided not to require adherence to them. I guess you can do that when you make up your own religion.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 11:27 amPubliusFL says:
Well, of course any religion sounds silly if you assume it’s all made up with no divine component. But obviously few adherents of a religion would agree with that perspective.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 5:27 pmRandy says:
“I could go on...So Christian Theology is rife with reference to concern with distorting the Bible and the Gospel...” and “People have snuck in and undermined and in fact practice a false gospel and then some throw it back in Christian faces saying see...some Christians don’t practice tenet “X,” I say they’re not genuine Christians...”
Funny. That’s what a lot of people say about you! If there were only one correct interpretation, then there would be only one Christian religion. But we have hundreds — proof, to me at least, that God allows whatever interpretation you wish. Or else he wouldn’t allow so many with so many disparate beliefs. And that’s just the Christian ones!
” The undisputed evidence is that aside from asking all members to sign their Statement of Faith, they made no effort to determine whether any members were actively homosexual.”
In which case, there is no problem. But of course, they anticipate a problem: That at some point they will have a homosexual in their midst, and they will be forced to accept him or her either as a member, or if he runs for leadership and wins the vote, that won’t be able to expel him. If that’s the issue (and I admit I may not be reading this correctly), then they should do a similar interrogation of all members or potential leaders to make sure that they conform to all Christian beliefs in their activity.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 5:48 pmPubliusFL says:
What’s your basis for thinking that they anticipate more of a problem there than with adultery, fornication, etc?
Quote
December 13, 2009, 6:30 pmreadery says:
But the question of which deviations from religious norms are deserving of subjecting a member to discipline and which aren’t is itself an entirely religious question, a matter of faith in which secular concepts of reason or due process need play no part. Serbian Orthodox Church v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976). As that case noted, religious rules can be “ambiguous and semingly inconsistent,” and it’s of no consequence.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 6:42 pmRandy says:
Publius: “What’s your basis for thinking that they anticipate more of a problem there than with adultery, fornication, etc?”
Because most college age students are not married, so adultery isn’t likely an issue. As for the rest, like masturbation, fornication (sex outside of marriage), I haven’t ever heard of any student religious group that wanted to expel anyone for violating these basic religious rules. However, there are several that have wanted to exclude gays from attending their meetings. Therefore, if past history is any guide, we can expect that their primary goal is to prevent gays from being members and no one else.
Moreover, here is what Mike Dorf from Prawsblawg has to say: “The Hastings opp cert relies on district court findings showing that until a few years ago, CLS had no problem with openly gay and lesbian members. The trouble arose when the national CLS started insisting that its chapters make prospective members take a pledge that, as interpreted by the national organization, required excluding “unrepentant” sexual minorities.”
The phrase “unrepentant sexual minorities” is a euphenism for gays and lesbians.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 7:35 pmRandy says:
Gov : “Acts 15:28–29: What more do you want”
We should all be thankful for Gov’s perspectives. He obviously believes that his church and reading of the Bible is the one correct way, and everyone else is BS. Of course, if he or she really believes that, it would be their duty to attempt to outlaw all other religions, since we can’t have such heresies allowed, and we can’t have people being damned to hell for their misguided beliefs.
But the real issue is that our founding fathers knew that everyone thinks they have the one true church, and this is why they didn’t want any church to be supported by the state, and everyone is allowed to worship the church of their choice. In the eyes of the state, all religions and beliefs are equal. Which is why one church that bans gays shouldn’t be given any special rights as opposed to churches that welcome gays.
It has served us well for 200 years, and it is our American tradition. Let’s not fiddle with it.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 7:39 pmRandy says:
Publius, I also found this article. Should pretty much settle the issue that this is about discriminating against gays.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 7:50 pmPubliusFL says:
I don’t see how that settles anything. If a student group has a problem with homosexual activity as one of a number of activities (adultery, fornication, drug use, etc.) that they consider sinful, and the school has a speech code that prohibits discriminatory speech regarding sexual orientation, obviously there’s only one point at which the group’s creed conflicts with the speech code, but that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is any more important to the group than any of the other activities they consider sinful. If the speech code also prohibited discriminatory speech regarding sexual exclusivity, there would be two points of tension with the school (homosexuality and adultery), and so forth. But the school’s speech code doesn’t determine the group’s priorities, just the areas where the school has a problem with them.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 9:04 pmRandy says:
“but that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is any more important to the group than any of the other activities they consider sinful.”
Then we shall see if they move to ban people who masturbate. If they do, then I will concede you are correct. And if they move only to ban gays, then hopefully you will do the same.
Quote
December 13, 2009, 9:53 pmGov98 says:
Troll says:So Paul et al. did not like the dietary laws and most of the other restrictions, and, hence, simply decided not to require adherence to them. I guess you can do that when you make up your own religion.
Love the way you just through in the “et al.” Leave aside the fact that Peter, James, the Jerusalem Council vs.22a(Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church) decided on that, and wait wait for it...it was supported by a vision already observed by Peter.
Acts 10:9–15 “9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.””
But I mean really now who needs to be charitable when we can willy nilly distort Christianity.
Randy says:
We should all be thankful for Gov’s perspectives. He obviously believes that his church and reading of the Bible is the one correct way, and everyone else is BS. Of course, if he or she really believes that, it would be their duty to attempt to outlaw all other religions, since we can’t have such heresies allowed, and we can’t have people being damned to hell for their misguided beliefs.
This is called “making stuff up,” you know nothing about the vast majority of what I believe and somehow, based upon a complete lack of evidence you state that the logical extension of what I believe is that we ought to outlaw other interpretations. That, sir, is what the Catholic Church attempted to do in the past, and I have no interest to do. I am confident in my interpretation in the Word, not because I get it all right, but because I am faithful to rightfully interpret it, and when I am wrong, I have changed my interpretation, oftentimes coming from the wisdom of other believers. But if I agree to a precedent that all other interpretations other than my own should be forbidden, then when (or as current when it has already) my interpretation falls out of favor it would be forbidden, would be incredibly wrong and dangerous. I have no such desire to do that.
There is something called “Individual Soul Liberty.” Simply it is the idea, that the individual is accountable to God for what he/she does and is free to choose how he/she responds or not. But I will not deny, in any way the idea that you will be accountable for how you respond to the Word (as I will be too), but that is between you and the Almighty Judge. If you ask my interpretation, I will faithfully give it.
The issue is, that some interpret the Word wrongly or distort it, and then others, like yourself Randy, use that misinterpretation, to say that the interpretation that I and many others share is wrong. You cannot persuasively say that, until you approach the full counsel of God. Something, I am not sure of, but doubt you have done.
Then we shall see if they move to ban people who masturbate. If they do, then I will concede you are correct. And if they move only to ban gays, then hopefully you will do the same.
This is way weird to say I’m sure, but I’ll say it anyway...Sexual immorality is forbidden, but there is only one (that I recollect) story that suggests that masturbation is a sin (done in lust clearly yes, but let’s leave that aside for now). So I don’t know that masturbation is forbidden. But, let’s take another issue, if someone a member of a church or in leadership of a church, is using pornography, refuses to repent of it/continues to engage it, absolutely that person should be removed from membership and leadership (or just membership if not a leader.)
Quote
December 13, 2009, 11:07 pmPubliusFL says:
All I can say is that in my experience with such groups, I’ve never seen a policy that anyone who engages in any type of sin would be banned. And heterosexual fornication and masturbation were discussed much more frequently than homosexual activity, because those issues are simply more relevant to what the members were dealing with. You know, the whole issue of worrying about the speck in your own eye before worrying about the plank in someone else’s. And as Gov98 says, when sin (any sin) is discussed, the issue isn’t: “Have you committed this sin? Then get out of here, we want no part of you!” It’s: “Is this something you are struggling with? Keep up the good fight, and here are some thoughts that should help!” Sinning itself isn’t a problem for membership. It’s refusing to struggle against or even acknowledge sin that creates an issue, because the whole idea is of a group of sinful people supporting each other in working together toward Godliness. Everyone doesn’t need to be at the same point for this idea to be effective, but everyone does need to be moving in the same direction. You still haven’t come up with any evidence that homosexual activity is treated any differently than any other non-marital sexuality in this regard.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 7:29 amRandy says:
Gov: “This is called “making stuff up,” you know nothing about the vast majority of what I believe.”
And yet, strangely, you claim to know about how much I have counseled with God: “You cannot persuasively say that, until you approach the full counsel of God. Something, I am not sure of, but doubt you have done.”
I’m not interested in persuading you on anything. I do know that I indeed struggled with my sexual orientation both religiously and secularly. After much trauma and trying very hard to be straight, I finally realized that God indeed made me gay, and I’ve never been happier. You, of course, are free to disagree and argue that I’m going to hell and all that. I’m free to ignore it.
“I am confident in my interpretation in the Word, not because I get it all right, but because I am faithful to rightfully interpret it, and when I am wrong, I have changed my interpretation, oftentimes coming from the wisdom of other believers. But if I agree to a precedent that all other interpretations other than my own should be forbidden, then when (or as current when it has already) my interpretation falls out of favor it would be forbidden, would be incredibly wrong and dangerous. I have no such desire to do that.”
In other words, where you know you are wrong, you are willing to change, and where you know you are right, you are not. And the fact that many other Christian demoninations (not to mention two of the three main Judaic religions), finding nothing wrong with homosexuality, and means that they must be wrong, correct?
PUblius: “You still haven’t come up with any evidence that homosexual activity is treated any differently than any other non-marital sexuality in this regard.”
There is a big difference. All people who are gay and out believe that their sexual orientation is normal — normal for them. Those who are religious even say it is a gift from God (as I do). Any openly gay person would, by your own description, disallowed from membership and/or leadership roles in these types of student groups.
Again, I don’t see a problem — all student groups should allow all students to be members. As for leadership roles, I can see it being restricted in some fashion (all have a right to participate, but no one has a right to more that participation). And any religious student who thinks homosexuality is wrong is also entitled to be a member of the gay student group. Tit for tat, as far as I’m concerned. And after all, if your message is a strong one, you have nothing to fear from one or two wayward students in your midst, right?
Quote
December 14, 2009, 10:38 pmtifutel says:
I see this has descended into a fight over religion involving a lot of people who are completely uninformed about how Christianity works. I wish I could expect better.
The issue here is simple. Christian leaders, like all Christians, are sinners, but they are expected to be repentant sinners. That means that when they sin, they must be “sorry” for the sin and they must intend not to commit the sin again. This is the reason that those committed to a homosexual lifestyle are such an issue. One person on here is ranting about people masturbating. But I suspect these people would not stand up publicly and say “you know what, I masturbate all the time and I am proud of it and I expect you all to accept my choice about how to live while also accepting my spiritual leadership.” If they did, a Christian group would have every (moral) right to say, “you know what, we can’t have unrepentant people committed to sin leading this group,” and I would hope they would say that.
It would be much easier for many Christians, me included, if gay sex was not a sin, because we know and like gay people. But to most Christian denominations, it is a sin, and we don’t get to pick what is a sin and what is not (if so, politicians would presumably decide adultery is not a sin, thieves would decide theft was not a sin, etc.). Some sort of anti-gay prejudice does not have to be a core tenet of the group, as long as a commitment to trying to avoid sin is (and it always is). The reason there is a controversy over gay people in the Church is that that is the group that is most actively (at this time) attempting to have their beliefs accepted as Christian doctrine, and those who value the old doctrine don’t like it very much.
Also, for those anti-religion folks in this thread, I don’t spend my time telling you how to be an atheist or agnostic or whatever so I hope you don’t expect Christians to accept your summary judgment that our views are “bigoted” or your careless attempts to analyze the Bible you don’t really care about. Some of us are serious about religion and are doing our best here, even if we constantly fail through sin and a lack of the full understanding of God.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 10:56 pmRandy says:
Tifutel: “I see this has descended into a fight over religion involving a lot of people who are completely uninformed about how Christianity works. I wish I could expect better.”
Sorry you feel that way, the discussion stayed on topic about whether public universities can require that any student group that receives mandatory student fees be open to all students, or can the student group exclude some students. That was the topic until Gov came in and started talking about Christianity and quoting from the Bible. You are probably right, we shouldn’t have taken his bait, but we did.
And if you bothered to read the comments, that already dealt with the exact issue that you raise. The issue isn’t about the Bible or Christianity — it’s about whether a Christian group can accept mandatory student fees and also discriminate against unrepentant gay students by not allowing them to join their group. I say they cannot, just as a gay group cannot discriminate against a Christian who wants to joing their group. If the Christian group cannot accept that, then their other choise is to refuse and funding from student fees and then they can discriminate against whomever they wish.
Does that sound fair to you?
“I hope you don’t expect Christians to accept your summary judgment that our views are “bigoted” or your careless attempts to analyze the Bible you don’t really care about.”
Sure, So long as you don’t expect gay people accept any summary judgement that gays are immoral, or make careless attempts to inform us what the ‘gay lifestyle’ is, or think that it is something sexual orientation can be changed. Deal?
Quote
December 15, 2009, 1:32 amtifutel says:
“The issue isn’t about the Bible or Christianity — it’s about whether a Christian group can accept mandatory student fees and also discriminate against unrepentant gay students by not allowing them to join their group. I say they cannot, just as a gay group cannot discriminate against a Christian who wants to joing their group.”
This is silly. I presume, then, that you are OK with a bunch of evangelical students hijacking an LGBTQ group? I know there was some dismissal of that possibility earlier in the thread, but at Cornell, for instance, a formerly repentant gay student leader recently decided that he could no longer agree with the group’s views (became unrepentant) and when the group asked him to step down, he tried to get it derecognized. What is to stop a Christian gay student group leader who decides that homosexuality is sinful after all from doing that to a gay group under your proposed regime? I presume what you are depending on to stop this is the greater popularity of the pro-gay viewpoint on campus. That is probably a safe bet, except that it leads to the complete marginalization of any religious or ideological minority. Next you will decide that a Democrat student leader who becomes a Republican can’t be booted from the Democrat group. After all, if they are really strong Democrats, they should have “nothing to fear from one or two wayward students in [their] midst,” right? What could possibly go wrong?
By the way, I certainly do not expect gay people to accept summary judgment that they are immoral. As for the “gay lifestyle,” I was using that as a euphemism for engaging in gay sex. I presume that is more or less a usual part of the “gay lifestyle” unless the particular gay person is being chaste for some reason?
Also, the fact is that some people do change their sexual orientation, for all practical purposes, anyway. I don’t tell people I know believed they were straight for decades and then decided they were gay that they aren’t really gay because they had too much heterosexual sex. I would hope that someone who thought he or she was gay for decades and then decided he or she was straight would get the same consideration. Are they “really” gay, straight, or somewhere in between? I don’t know, but I feel like we have no choice but to take their word for it. Or do you believe the coming out process can only go one way?
Quote
December 15, 2009, 6:26 amGov98 says:
Sorry you feel that way, the discussion stayed on topic about whether public universities can require that any student group that receives mandatory student fees be open to all students, or can the student group exclude some students. That was the topic until Gov came in and started talking about Christianity and quoting from the Bible. You are probably right, we shouldn’t have taken his bait, but we did.
I love getting thrown down as much as the next, and when the charge is just, I’ll take responsibility for it...let’s go back to the tape...my first more focused comment about “Christianity and the Bible” which, included Islam oddly enough was
Any willing person can go to either’s holy book and see that sexual behavior, including, but not limited to homosexuality, is of a concern to the religion. That’s not really fairly in dispute. That Episcopalians or what ever “interpret” the Bible differently, doesn’t at all change the fact that the Bible fairly read makes sexual conduct a significant issue in the practice of the tenets of the faith.
Randy then responded with:
IF that’s the case, than CLS would have to start off every meeting by asking if anyone has masturbated, or had sex outside of marriage since the last meeting. Only sexual virgins would be allowed to have a leadership position, or they could be a non-virgin so long as they repent and promise to remain celebate until marriage If so, that person has to confess and repent or else they will be expunged. I think that would pretty much put a damper on any chance they get students to attend. And why stop there? There are clear prohitibitions on lots of things in the Bible — eating shellfish, swearing, not honoring your parents — the list goes on. Should anyone who wants to be a leader or a member be required to check off every sin mentioned in the Bible and swear that he or she either has not committed the sin, or has repented for it, and promises to never ever commit any more sins?
Randy additionally made the claim that:
As Loki has explained in another thread, we’ve never encountered students so hell bent on taking over a student group that they go in en masse and take over. If men want to run and operate a women’s group, it’s actually much easier to start up a new group. Then, when they find that no women have actually joined, they will probably disband.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
I interpreted that to mean, that Randy perceived that a Christian’s claim to be concerned for the integrity of their chapter or church to be a false claim motivated by some type of bias.
I pointed out, that long before Randy or any other person commenting on this blog that Christianity has been concerned with the integrity of the church or chapter assemblies.
I also in response to Randy’s comment about Shellfish pointed out how, when, and where the vast majority of dietary restrictions were abolished Biblically.
Let me now turn to a couple points:
And yet, strangely, you claim to know about how much I have counseled with God: “You cannot persuasively say that, until you approach the full counsel of God. Something, I am not sure of, but doubt you have done.”
Other than explicitly saying “I am not sure of” I do not know how I could be more clear that I was making a logical inference based upon what I had observed, but expressly disclaimed to know about how much you have or have not “counseled.” That being said “counseled” was probably a poor choice of words. I was refering to how familiar you are with the entire Bible, but that was my poor choice of words, I apologize for the confusion.
You also say however:
In other words, where you know you are wrong, you are willing to change, and where you know you are right, you are not. And the fact that many other Christian demoninations (not to mention two of the three main Judaic religions), finding nothing wrong with homosexuality, and means that they must be wrong, correct?
First, yes, where I am wrong I am willing to change, you then continue to say, where you know you are right, you are not. There are some areas of Biblical Interpretation where I would say it’s 99.9% chance that I’ve got it right, largely because few disagree on that point, and the Bible is plain spoken, it’s not that I could not be wrong it’s just highly unlikely, but if shown to be wrong I would change. You then continue to say:
And the fact that many other Christian demoninations (not to mention two of the three main Judaic religions), finding nothing wrong with homosexuality
I am curious which two of the Judaic religions think homosexuality is not a sin, because last I checked, Islam, and Christianity, and Orthodox Judaism (although I understand there to be debate within all those circles), and I already responded to the Episcopalian question, which has the same application to certain (but far from all) Presbyterian or other denominations.
Let me close by commenting on the following:
I’m not interested in persuading you on anything. I do know that I indeed struggled with my sexual orientation both religiously and secularly. After much trauma and trying very hard to be straight, I finally realized that God indeed made me gay, and I’ve never been happier. You, of course, are free to disagree and argue that I’m going to hell and all that. I’m free to ignore it.
I did not come here or comment here to “win” you to Christianity, instead, as it related to this thread, I desire that you realize that the concerns of CLS are not “made up” or contrived. They may be, yet I hope you recognize that the concerns themselves are discussed within the Bible itself, so being fair to a Bible believing Christian, I just ask you to recognize that.
In the many years I’ve attended church, I have seen 1 person “one” removed from membership, and it wasn’t for engaging a intercourse with someone of the same sex. It was someone who was engaging in an improper relationship with a woman not his wife, and as far as I know it wasn’t even sexual, it was instead an ongoing and unrepentant lust between him and this other woman, who he continued to see, despite being rebuked. After the removal, the relationship soon thereafter ended and he was restored to membership.
It’s not my goal or place to condemn you to hell. I assume you already know what the Bible says about all sin. We all, myself included have a problem with sin, an eternally large one, there is only one guaranteed way to deal with it (as far as I can see) from the Bible.
By the way, I have attempted to be firm so as to be clear, but not rude. At the same time, I can see how it could be perceived as rudeness. I apologize for appearing inconsiderate during this discussion. For what it is worth, I enjoy talking and discussing with you Randy. You are well thought out and interesting to read.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 8:45 amTim says:
You’re missing the bigger point. It’s not about defining those things. It’s about saying that their religion prohibits those (and other) things and that those who are unapologetic about engaging in those behaviors are excluded.
It’s not about hatred, changing, or summary judgment at all. It’s about refusing service to those who don’t follow their religious beliefs.
You may think it’s damaging and bigoted, and I might even agree with you. But suggesting that they shouldn’t believe that way or that they can’t because you think so is like me trying to tell Muslims what they ought to believe about their religion.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 9:24 amRandy says:
tifutel: “What is to stop a Christian gay student group leader who decides that homosexuality is sinful after all from doing that to a gay group under your proposed regime? ”
Nothing. In fact, that’s exactly what I suggest might happen. Apparently, you missed that part in my comment. I’m not at all afraid of it happening because in all my years of college involvement (as a student and after), I’ve never actually seen an attempting take over or hijacking of any student group. In the unlikely event that there is, students can always leave the hijacked group and start a new one.
“I presume what you are depending on to stop this is the greater popularity of the pro-gay viewpoint on campus. That is probably a safe bet, except that it leads to the complete marginalization of any religious or ideological minority.”
No it doesn’t. Any religious group still has 1st amendment freedoms and can spout as much anti-gay rhetoric as they choose. If that marginilizes them in the eyes of the students, that’s their problem.
” As for the “gay lifestyle,” I was using that as a euphemism for engaging in gay sex.” No need for euphenisms. we are adults here and the word sex doesn’t scare people off.
“Or do you believe the coming out process can only go one way?”
Certainly not. I’m highly sceptical of it, but that’s me and I don’t particularly care what another person does with his life.
Gov: ” am curious which two of the Judaic religions think homosexuality is not a sin,.”
Both Reformed and Conservative Jews support same sex marriage, among other things.
“They may be, yet I hope you recognize that the concerns themselves are discussed within the Bible itself, so being fair to a Bible believing Christian, I just ask you to recognize that.”
I try to. Sometimes it’s rather difficult, but I do try.
” I apologize for appearing inconsiderate during this discussion.”
No apologies necessary, and no offense taken. One must have a thick skin when discussing matters that are of a very personal nature, and I certainly have lost my temper on these boards many times. Whenever someone starts lecturing me about the Bible, however, my back gets up, and that’s a whole ‘nother story. (For most gays that’s true, fyi).
But your larger point is exactly why I think it’s actually *important*, at least within a university context, to allow all students membership in any organization. Sometimes, we can actually learn from each other instead of merely shouting out insults. If we don’t learn that in school, where will we learn it? It’s important to respect each other’s viewpoints but also respect each others’ rights. Sometimes that difficult; sometimes they are impossibly conflicted. That’s why we must, as a society, work together to produce solutions that balance these rights. If an evangelical student group cares so much about their message or whatever that they have to take over a gay group, they will have to sit side by side with real gay people for a period of time. I’m sure tempers will flare and fights will break out. But at least they are interacting and realizing that real people are affected by these sorts of decisions.
Tim: “But suggesting that they shouldn’t believe that way or that they can’t because you think so is like me trying to tell Muslims what they ought to believe about their religion.”
In the real world, you are totally correct. In the college world, if you accept mandatory student fees, you should not be able to exclude any student. A Christian group should all Muslims students to join. If the Christian group doesn’t want to play by those rules, they are free to not accept student money. this is currently the system at every public university system in the US that I am aware of, and most private schools as well, and been for many decades.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 11:42 amTim says:
Well, you’re factually wrong. If it wasn’t clear already, this issue has already been litigated through the 7th Circuit, and went the other way.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 11:50 amRandy says:
Just one more little point — I’m not a particularly religious person, but I do consider my self rather spiritual. One of the reasons is because sometimes, religious people use their book, be it a Bible or Koran or whatever, as a weapon against people they don’t like, and I’m not not just talking about gays. For me, these books, at best, should be used for personal spiritual growth and guidance. Pull out what is relevant to you. But recognize that every person on the planet is different, and is made differently by their creator, and no one book can be a moral or lifestyle guide for each and every one of them. If it works for you, great! But it might not work for another person. This is why, imo, there are so many religions to choose from.
If we could all agree on this simple principle, I think it would go a lot further towards respect and tolerance of all people, and a lot of hot air would simply disappear. Concern yourself with your own salvation (if that’s what you believe), and offer it to others certainly, but don’t push it upon another, or suggest that their belief system is wrong, lest you open yourself up to the suggestion that your belief system is wrong.
And it’s pointless to argue about beliefs, like trying to argue whether red, yellow or green is the better color. Green suits trees just fine, until the fall, when red or yellow seems best for them. And even it’s been a bad year, and the leaves turn an ugly brown, they still come back next year anyway.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 11:52 amGov98 says:
Just one more little point — I’m not a particularly religious person, but I do consider my self rather spiritual. One of the reasons is because sometimes, religious people use their book, be it a Bible or Koran or whatever, as a weapon against people they don’t like, and I’m not not just talking about gays. For me, these books, at best, should be used for personal spiritual growth and guidance. Pull out what is relevant to you. But recognize that every person on the planet is different, and is made differently by their creator, and no one book can be a moral or lifestyle guide for each and every one of them. If it works for you, great! But it might not work for another person. This is why, imo, there are so many religions to choose from.
If we could all agree on this simple principle, I think it would go a lot further towards respect and tolerance of all people, and a lot of hot air would simply disappear.
To the person committed to the Bible as the word of God, this is a little bit like taking a textualist and telling them that the constitution just isn’t that important.
One thing that I do think (among many) that is a serious issues is that sometimes in the Christian community homosexuality is such a bigger concern than it ought to be. The vast majority of the people in the congregation probably struggle with something completely different, and sadly some (although I don’t know how Biblical they are) spend a lot more time complaining about the sinfulness of homosexuals when they have plenty of their own sins they haven’t um...sorted out. This creates the frustration that you see here in this thread by people who say that Christians love to pick at the sin they’re not committing (like homosexuality) while tolerating all sorts of sin. This is a significant issue it’s not right, but it is common (especially among the not genuinely saved, despite claiming to be Christian) to point out how much worse some one else is. See for example in Luke 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.”
There is a song...I love it, it is called There is a fountain. One of my favorite verses is “The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day and there may I though vile as he, wash all my sins away.”
ANY goodness, any claim to “thank goodness I am not like that person engaging in sexual sin X” is a huge issue, I have nothing good of myself to be thankful for, instead, I am just as sinful as any other, and I need God’s mercy and grace completely.
To the Bible believer the Bible is never going to be just another self-help book. For example a quick exegesis for you (Quick), take 2 Peter 1:3, the Bible says “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” then 19–21 say 19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Quickly, the word of God is better than miracles, prophecies, etc it is “more sure” it is the word of God written down. Now, I can’t make you accept that truth claim, in fact, the only thing that can bring you to that truth claim is the word of God itself (Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Romans 10:17). But that’s the truth claim, that I believe, which everything in my life lives in relation to.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 10:02 pm