The solution is to ban all on campus clubs. The clubs can still be formed on
their own without school funds or sanctions.
"It felt like they were being singled out and discriminated
against,"Welcome to what it feels like Christians. Not very
fun, is it.
This is exactly why many faith groups refuse to accept any federal funding
whatsoever. With the federal or any funding comes strings, strings that require
the groups to dance to the piper's tune.
Religious groups have maligned people for time immemorial. I'm not crying for
them now they're playing the victim.
'That simple encounter was the beginning of a classic case of conflict between a
university's nondiscrimination policies and a student religious group's freedom
to define itself.' - Article I agree with DonP. If the
school accepts federal funds, then they are accepting tax money from EVERY
American background. That background, may, and sometimes does,
conflict with some religious dogma. A jewish person might take
offense to a Mulim prayer group, a gay person might take offense to a Mormon
group, etc. for example. So long as a school accepts federal funds,
they CANNOT discriminate against anyone, regardless of religious teachings or
loose said funding. THIS is why many religious groups cry 'foul'
when discriminating against a specific group... but fail to realize
that they are accepting TAX money FROM said group, to function on public
domain. The solution is to accept ZERO federal funding, which would
allow the school, backed by ONLY private funds, to act in whatever method they
deem fit. My example? BYU.
This is an excellent illustration of the importance of shrinking our government.
Cut taxes and stop funding to everything that isn't necessary. If you want a
club, pay for it yourself. Don't fund Christians, or gays, or atheists, or
chess players. Cut taxes and I will spend my money on the clubs I like.
As a former college administrator I was forced by these laws to deny any
religious group to have official status which would have allowed them to be part
of the student government or funding. Why? Because I would have had to allow
the same access to any group including a "bugger" group (look up the
meaning) who also applied.
Craig. absolutly they can meet at each others houses or meet at a social hall
after classes and make no exceptions--- problem solved your comment is the best
The Constitutional right to assemble as a group of people/citizens is specified
in the First Amendment.When a group of people come together, in
clubs, unions, business, churches, religions and any other collective for the
pooling of their efforts, whether voluntary or coerced, it is a governmental
entity. The object being to effect some level of control over the members
usually for the purpose of using the strength of the group.I don't
think this is bad or even avoidable in our society, but we need to recognize and
see the truth of our world. There are thousands of such groups, some good and
some bad, seeking to gain control over people, and the people's money.As a pessimistic, discouraged, non-religious person, I see religious clubs as
being the same as any other commercial users club. Their purpose being the
solidifying of members and the gaining of new.
Absolutely IDC. For 25 years I was our school's unintentional self appointed
chess coach. We traveled the state and in 1998 even went to the U.S.Open in Las
Vegas. In 1995 the superintendent suggested we use public school transportation
and a school credit card. I asked what we would sacrifice if we did so and he
said 'nothing'. We had sufficient funds through candy bar sales and not an obese
kid within 26,000 miles. We sent money and school supplies to a school in Korce,
Albania and Dresden to help rebuild the famed but WW11 gutted Frauenkirchke.
Most of the time on overnighters we stayed in private homes some being ranches
the likes of which the kids had never seen. We had incredible support from
parents who'd even drive 600 mile round trip with totally strange kids in their
vans. You'd have thought they were driving to a state basketball tournament. On
one occasion a principal in my building said he wanted us to use ASB funds until
he learned about our expenditures.Where there is a will there is a
way. Its the American way.
The title of this article is incorrect - it is not "religious" clubs
that face hurdles - it is "exclusionary" clubs that face hurdles.Religious clubs who are willing to follow the same rules as every other
club get the same benefits as every other club.Clubs that don't want
to follow the rules don't get the benefits.Clubs are not churches
and membership in one of these clubs is not part of a persons religious practice
(no church requires membership in a school club), therefore, requiring these
clubs to follow the rules is not an infringement on anyone's religious
freedom.Since membership in a school club is not mandatory,
requiring the clubs to follow certain rules is not an infringement on freedom of
association.Since it is possible to have a "club" not as
part of the school, freedom of assembly is not being infringed.Voluntary participation equals voluntary acceptance of restrictions, freedom
of speech is not being infringed.Requiring people to play by the
same rules everyone else plays by - I thought that was supposed to be a good
I can't imagine why it should matter if belief is part of a club's membership
regulations. If I were a jerk trying to mess with a certain group
that had a club and applied for membership so that I could get more information
on how to harrass said group, shouldn't it be possible for a club to be able to
deny access to the club membership?Suppose I want to form a
roleplaying gamer's group, specifically for playing with a certain set of rules?
Shouldn't I have the right to specify the rules by which we play? If I form a
poker club, and people bring pinnochle cards, they don't get to play the
game--no matter how many people I could get to hijack the poker club and claim
discrimination against pinnochle. Clearly clubs should have the
ability to set certain membership rules. Those that cannot abide by the rules
should not be allowed membership or leadership... otherwise abolish all clubs
and for that matter all parties and all social gatherings because anywhere
there's a school sanctioned gathering, there are gonna be some groundrules set
for those that gather...
The only "club" you should have in High School is the big, long one
you use to smack bullies and mean kids over the head with.
re - raybies | 11:04 a.m"I can't imagine why it should matter if
belief is part of a club's membership regulations"really? so
if some skinheads start a club and their belief is that african-americans cannot
belong, you would be willing to use taxpayer and student funds to support that
club?the issue isn't having a club. Anyone can do that. The issue
is providing school and student rec funds to support the club.I
don't think any club should get any funds unless they accept everyone and anyone
into their club. and that's all these universities are saying. you want some
university and student fee funds? you have to accept anyone in your club that
wants to join.and that is 100% fair. you want a religious club that
excludes people? use your own money and your own facilities. I don't see the
chess club or the science club having a problem with this. why would you think
religious clubs should be special?"Clearly clubs should have
the ability to set certain membership rules."not if everyone is
paying for it. that seems to be the point you all are missing.
When I decide to eat at McDonald's am I not discriminating against Burger
King?The words decide and discriminate have a common Latin root. There is
no decision that can be made without discriminating. Every decision has winners
and losers, especially if they involve money.If discrimination is
outlawed you also prohibit freedom.The only difference between a
dictatorship and freedom is "who makes the decision". That's it!Every place where the government has outlawed discrimination the
government now makes the decisions.We either have freedom of choice
or we don't.Give me liberty or give me death!
These clubs have every right to establish themselves according to the rules they
wish to have. However, if they are exclusionary in nature, they do NOT have the
right to get public support. If they want to exclude, they should support
raybies | 11:04 a.m. April 13, 2011 Layton, UT I can't imagine why
it should matter if belief is part of a club's membership regulations. Clearly clubs should have the ability to set certain membership rules. Those
that cannot abide by the rules should not be allowed membership or leadership...
otherwise abolish all clubs and for that matter all parties and all social
gatherings because anywhere there's a school sanctioned gathering, there are
gonna be some groundrules set for those that gather... -----------No
problem. Just do it on your own nickle and not that of the taxpayer.
Exactly, if you want to make your own club with your own rules, then meet off
campus on your own dime. Campus clubs need to be open to any and all.Those who think Christian clubs are being discriminated against really don't
Here is a quote by BYU law professor Brett Scharffs that did not make it into
the story: Scharffs sees it as tension between two political principles:
Equality and freedom. "And there are certain times when we have more of a
preference for liberty and certain times when we have more of a preference for
equality. We are in an equalitarian age right now. The principle of
non-discrimination and the principle of equality is so ascendant that the risk
that the value of liberty is eclipsed."He pointed out that the
principle of equality (read nondiscrimination) can't, by itself, create a good
society. All religions in the Gulag were treated equally, he said. It is
interesting to think about why nondiscrimination seems to be the ultimate good
and trumps religious freedom.It is very ironic that
nondiscrimination policies are being used to discriminate. And the groups they
are being used against the most, according to FIRE, appears to be religious
groups -- particularly evangelical organizations.Watch for weird
stuff to happen on campuses if they adopt an "all comers" policy:
Democrats taking over Republican clubs. Atheists taking over religious groups.
Jewish people taking over Muslim groups. etc.
'If discrimination is outlawed you also prohibit freedom.' - The Rock | 11:31
a.m. This logic supports slavery. Hypothetical
situation: Rock, I take you, and all of your loved ones, family,
friends, etc and put them to work at zero pay. Slavery.
If you don't like it... 'You outlawing my discrimination and your
prohibiting my freedom!' You are free to make your own choices, up
until they affect another person. Example? Theft
Assault Murder, etc. Also, since WHEN is discrimination a
cornerstone to modern day religion? i.e. a 'moral' value. Discrimination, has no value.
@ Michael De Groote: "Watch for weird stuff to happen on campuses if they
adopt an "all comers" policy: Democrats taking over Republican clubs.
Atheists taking over religious groups. Jewish people taking over Muslim groups.
etc."Anyone who feels the need to behave in this way, probably
will not have any reservations about lying to join the group and limitations on
who can join a group will not prevent this. Indeed, we already see this
happening with private groups and organizations - for example, there have been
numerous stories of "spies" from both sides infiltrating groups on the
other side of the same-sex marriage debate.Additionally, there are
rules of behavior that groups can - and do - put into place to ensure that
discussions stay on topic during meetings and that the meetings are not taken
over to the extent that the purpose of the group is lost to rhetoric from the
@ Rock: Considering the number of times I have corrected you on this and the
ease with which your claim can be proven false, I would think you would stop
using that line.Decide and discriminate do not have a common root -
they are very different words with very different meanings.You can
try to dumb down the conversation all you want, it won't change the facts. Your
refusal to accept the proper usage and meaning of decide and discriminate does
not make your point right. If you have a valid point, make it. If you cannot
make your point without changing the facts, than maybe there is a problem with
the point you are trying to make.And yes, you can decide to go to
McDonald's, but Burger King cannot discriminate against you.
@The Rock, who said: "If discrimination is outlawed you also prohibit
freedom."Discriminate with your own wallet, not mine.
Non-taxpayer-subsidized clubs can discriminate all they like, so far as I'm
concerned.Imagine your tax dollars going to a Baptist group which
hates Mormons.Imagine them going to a Communist club.Imagine them
going to a Muslim group which only wants members who advocate changing our
system to Sharia law.Imagine them going to a homosexual group which
desires to legalize same-sex relations between adults and teens.I
imagine some people who, like you, advocate the freedom to pick and choose
clubs' memberships, might be taken a little aback if you suddenly found your
income going to support them.I'm all for that freedom, contingent on
the clubs supporting themselves.
Interesting that an enlightened college or university would turn down religious
clubs, based on rules and laws that are suppose to protect people from being
discrimnated against.I thought religion is one of the protected
groups under federal law. Since the LGBT community is allowed to have clubs on
campus, why can't religious people?Sounds like more the same,
discriminate against those of faith, while protecting groups that fit in the
upper echelons thought processes.Has anyone else noticed, the
"smarter" and more "enlightened" our leaders and this
country gets, the worst things have gotten?Maybe we're not on the
correct path.....have they ever consider that?Now I'll get attacked
for not marching rank and file with the "elite" class.
re - Michael De Groote | 3:27 p.m - Deseret News "Scharffs sees
it as tension between two political principles: Equality and freedom"everyone is free to have whatever club they want. So freedom is NOT
eing limited. But if you want to use school funds (read as public funds) then
you have to accept everyone.it is the same principle as churches not
receiving public funds in order to restrict membership."Democrats taking over Republican clubs. Atheists taking over religious
groups. Jewish people taking over Muslim groups. etc."taking
over? really? they might cause trouble, but there are solutions to that. me
thinks you protest too much...If I was a student that paid student
fees, I would not want my fees to be used by anyone that was denying membership
based on their personal feelings (in addition to the regular race, sex,
disabilities, etc discriminators). And that is what we are talking about -
preventing membership based on personal feelings. It shouldn't be allowed. Not
with public or general student funds anyway.we will have to agree to
re - The Rock | 11:31 a.m"When I decide to eat at McDonald's am
I not discriminating against Burger King?"yes, you are. And
you are free to "discriminate" against whatever and whoever you want.
But only for you!! But can Burger King discriminate against you?
NO. No one is forcing a person to pick a certain club. But the club cannot
pick the members.do you now understand you ar drawing the wrong
conclusion from your analogy?re - Liberal Ted | 7:34 a.m."Interesting that an enlightened college or university would turn down
religious clubs, based on rules and laws that are suppose to protect people from
being discrimnated against"the university didn't say they
couldn't have the club. They said that if the club wanted to use university
facilities or wanted a share of student dues (paid by all students) then they
had to let all students participate."I thought religion is one
of the protected groups under federal law. Since the LGBT community is allowed
to have clubs on campus, why can't religious people?"anyone can
be in the LGBT club. can anyone join your religious club? didn't think so.
What is the meaning of "fair?" Well, one thing I promise you is that
"fair" is not the same thing as equality. And what of this
"serving the greater good?" Does this mean a compromise or does it
just mean ideology at all costs?"If only we could all see that
we hold a cup of any size. And...that cup of any size will be full only when we
believe it is full."Don 2011