The main difference in the arguments rears its head.
And that is the one issue with saying the honor code should be applied “intelligently”. Intelligently towards whom? And intelligently towards what end? Those are the pertinent questions.
If the honor code and the religion are the most important to the practitioners, then the most intelligent thing for them to do to preserve that code and religion is to enforce the honor code.
If a legal position/outcome is more important to them than their religion, then they might look the other way re the honor code.
I think the school took a choice, and the religion and honor code won out.
@awcntdb "“No, you do not have such standing to imps your views on their behavior in a religious community”
I agree completely, as long as they are within the law. However, the government does not provide funding for religious communities. If BYU is really a religious community, then they can do whatever they want to, but should not receive government funds.
@awcntdb “Specifically, you wrote this: “Do you think that maybe the slaves like it?” The only logical inference to make is that you are comparing these students and what they are experiencing to being slaves because you deem their environment as bigoted and misogynistic. There is no other reason for you to make this analogy if that were not the argument you were trying to make.”
You raised the point that if people are happy living this way, why not leave them alone. I am saying that there are a couple of issues with that. The point of that statement is that it is the same argument pro-slavery groups made that the slaves were happy and liked being slaves.
I understand you think it is fine for tax money to sent to private schools who do not afford equal rights to students, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference or religious view.
So what is your view of the question I posed earlier: If Harvard were to announce tomorrow that they will no longer admit religious students of any kind, I think the government should not provide funds for a school like that. However, you have argued that private schools can adopt any religious code they wish. Do you still think that is fine in this case, and the government should continue to provide funding for the school, or does your rule only apply to religious views you like?
Any chance you can provide a clear response to that question without the ad hominem?
Well, as usual @Much2learn, your argument falls apart.
Like Boston College, BYU’s admission process does not discriminate on the basis of religion. However, just as most of the students that attend Boston College are Catholic, most students that attend BYU are Mormon. This is an informed and conscious decision on the part of prospective students. Hardly the stuff of slavery.
So dismissing a person because they purposefully broke the rules (rules which they agreed to, by the way!) is somehow the same as not admitting religious students of any kind?
The context is totally different in both of these cases… On one hand, the person broke the rules, and on the other, the person did nothing wrong whatsoever.
@fractalmstr No, as you can read, I am saying that organizations who do not wish to treat people of all races, genders, and religious views equally should not receive government funding.
In contrast @awfntdb thinks private schools can adopt any religious view the wish and still recieve government funding. I am trying to understand whether he is consistent in that view, or only has that view for all groups, or only groups he likes.
To be honest, it is the woman’s fault for going to a university like BYU. When you attend universities run by zealots, you can’t expect much else. But I still expect a “revelation” in the near future.
I think this is a false distinction. The honor code has to be enforced with real-world procedures. Just to take an extreme example, what if a school with such an honor code expelled students based on unproven anonymous accusations? They might claim that the code was so important that any suspicion of a violation was enough to separate a potential offender. But that would be a stupid argument, right?
What evidence do you have of them not treating people of all races, genders, and religious views equally here? Do you know that there is a small Muslim population at BYU?
~13,000 women attend BYU. I’m pretty sure if the school were as horrible as some people here make it out to be, they would have chosen another place to go.
As any economist would ask, “As compared to what?”
One question is: As compared to BYU, would “ladies” be better off at schools where women are claiming to routinely get drunk/stoned and then are sexually assaulted, even though their own honor code forbids alcohol and drugs on campus?
It could easily be said that the schools, which purposely turn a blind eye to the very drinking and drugs conditions that create an environment ripe for sexual assault are the schools most dangerous to females, not the schools that enforce their honor codes after-the-fact. The BYU cases are after-the-fact, and the female broke the honor code that BYU uses to limit such possibilities.
Therefore, it is fair to ask which schools are actually thinking more of the females in a preventive manner that would reduces sexual assault scenarios. BYU that is upfront about its no drinking and drug policies or schools who seem not to care about the behaviors, which leads to environments that foster sexual assault and then only step in after the assault has taken place?
I do not doubt that females who choose to attend BYU factor these environmental issues into their reasons for going there.
This quote pretends the females who choose to attend BYU are blasé about the no alcohol, no drugs, no sex policies etc. I bet all the females know that the honor code is strictly enforced regardless.
Therefore, the post only postures as if it is saying something that pretends to warn all females, when it is a rather targeted in its audience. More specifically, the post only applies to females who want special treatment after they break the rules and also find themselves in deeper issues, such as being raped or physically assaulted.
You need to stop saying things that no one has implied or said. And you clearly do not get the gist of this thread.
The BYU case is not really about religious views; it is actually about an honor code being enforced. More to the point, the question of this thread is whether an honor code should be applied to an alleged victim of a crime. It is not BYU’s religious views that are in question; it is its blanket application of its honor code, irrespective of what the views/beleifs in that code are.
Hold on a minute, @awcntdb …didn’t you just argue that to BYU, the honor code might be more important for religious reasons than legal niceties? Either this is about religion, or it isn’t. Personally, I don’t see why it has to be about religion at all…which is why I predict that BYU will eventually explain that its policy never intended to punish students for violations revealed solely by their own reporting of more serious violations. They probably won’t need to change any policy, but simply remind those enforcing the rules of this point.
Yes, I did state that BYU’s “honor code might be more important for religious reasons than legal niceties,” but that is quite different than saying that a school can adopt any religious view that it wants and still receive federal funding. We know that is not the case for, I believe, Bob Jones University lost its federal funding over its ban on interracial dating.
To your point, it is not a “religious view” to take your religion’s vows seriously and to enforce them. That is just a fact, or else, one would not take those vows. No more so than people are expected to adhere to their marriage vows; marriage vows too are not just a “view.”
Specifically, it does not matter what is in the honor code as it pertains to any religious beliefs or BYU’s religious views. In fact, it is not BYU’s religion in question at all; it is whether others think that law, or as you put it, “legal niceties” supersede honor codes (religious based or not) in general. And that when it comes to honor code violations, as experienced by BYU, that honor codes should take a back seat to legal matters.
It was never about religion and always about the vows and whether the college should look the other way if a vow violation during an investigation about a complaint is discovered. It is not about religion. All colleges should be looking at every aspect of an assault accusation…the difference is that BYU has behavioral expectations for ALL students ALL the time without question. In my opinion it is may be the reverse of the Yale speculation. Many are speculating that the yale basektball player has “other violations” not related to the night of the accusation and that is the compelling reason he is expelled. If BYU uncovers evidence that an accuser has previously violated these vows I think that is fair to act upon those breaches separate from the accusation issue. On the other hand I could support BYU not punishing an accuser for events related only to the moment/day/night in question especially in cases where there is a criminal investigation underway.
In this case, for the young woman involved, the good news is that she has been offered admission to other universities. She has also served to make this a national issue. People and the government are looking at religiously affiliated universities in a much harsher light. That’s good. You need look no further than the child abuse scandal affecting the Catholic and other churches to know that these institutions do not apply their values, principles and behavioural expectations universally.