<p>
Interesting. We seem to have gone from “all beliefs should be respected” to “intolerable beliefs are not illegal”. Progress perhaps.</p>
<p>sally305 we’re on the same page here.</p>
<p>So according to awcntdb, a group that gets together to discuss how to lure children into windowless vans should be allowed to get funding from a college and use its meeting spaces. Because no one is actually DOING it–they just want to talk about it.</p>
<p>Sally, having read your posts for a while, I am sure you know this, but if would like to clarify for others who may not., that evangelical churches aren’t always conservative or “right wing.” There are many Protestant churches who are probably as liberal as any other organization, such as the national or world council of churches groups. Some people confuse evangelical with fundamentalist and they are not the same. Many denominations have been quite liberal on social issues for decades. I have been called a liar on cc for discussing my history of activism in support of gay marriage, but for people informed about non-fundamentalist Protestant churches it isn’t even remotely out of the norm, it is completely in keeping with the teachings and/or culture of many denominations.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I believe that is the opposite of what @awcntdb said when he indicated that none of these campus groups has been accused of anything even remotely connected with a crime or incitement to crime much less a felony as you imply with your hypothetical example. I really don’t think anyone I have seen post here has ever been or would be in favor of campus religious groups being allowed to facilitate criminal activity and it is quite odd to assume that such behavior would ever be allowed.</p>
<p>Remember the Harvard and Ohio State examples - the ‘normal’ model of governance, would not allow criminal activity (if you could even find a campus religious group bizarre enough to hold such belief, and if it could ever get any members at all to join with such an offensive constitution), but would allow leaders to be required to agree with the religious goal and mission of the group (obviously). Seems pretty non-controversial despite the dramatic criminal analogies some would like to make.</p>
<p>In fact, @zoosermom, I have referred to such Christian denominations repeatedly throughout this thread.</p>
<p>Yes, zooser, thanks for the reminder. A good example of a liberal denomination is one that actually has “evangelical” in its name: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).</p>
<p>2018RiceParent, how do you know the people trying to lure children into vans have criminal intent? What if they just want to “witness” to them and convert them to their beliefs?</p>
<p>Well, this is timely–a piece on a boy performing a tasteless act on a statue of Jesus. The perspective is interestiing–kind of argues the opposite of what some people here are claiming (that Christians are singled out for “bans,” etc.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would be curious to hear whether posters like RiceParent and awntcdb agree that the kid should have been arrested.</p>
<p><a href=“http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/21351-christian-privilege-and-the-desecration-of-a-jesus-statue”>http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/21351-christian-privilege-and-the-desecration-of-a-jesus-statue</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure the purpose of this hypothetical in that the discussion of this thread is NOT about which groups could get funding, but about forcing ALREADY FUNDED and ESTABLISHED groups to accommodate potential leaders who have no belief in the group’s principles or causes. </p>
<p>However, even if there were a college group that did talk about luring children, which were funded on a college campus, the school probably could be charged with knowingly aiding and abetting the delinquency of a minor, if the college knew this were the purpose of the group. The school would be just as culpable, as the group it funded. This is one for the lawyers though, as laws protecting children are rather strong, as they should be.</p>
<p>Re Post #427, it is simple - if the boy broke the law, then he should be charged. If he did not, then he should not be charged. I have not a clue, which laws apply to what he was doing. </p>
<p>The order is usually one is arrested, then charged; not charged, then arrested. Therefore, getting arrested is not the acid test. Many people get arrested, then not charged with anything. </p>
<p>
Except that these requirements, at least in the Bowdoin case, existed long before the current membership was even at the school. I don’t know the year the Bowdoin non-discrimination clause was put in place, but I know that Bates had something similar when I attended in the mid-80’s. What’s changed is that the school is now requiring that the BCF, like all Bowdoin affiliated clubs, abide by Bowdoin’s campus-wide non-discrimination policy. They’re not singling out religious groups, they’re simply not making an exception for them.</p>
<p>There is freedom of religion.</p>
<p>You can ban a club from advertising on your campus and meeting on your campus. </p>
<p>NO ONE is <em>banning</em> a student’s right to believe. NO ONE is banning the club from existing. There is a point about not using the university’s name in the club’s name, even if they meet off-campus.</p>
<p>A club which bans members based on their religion or sexuality should not be allowed to advertise or meet on campus if it violates the university’s anti-discrimination policies.</p>
<p>An example of how the policy does help would be a small LAC that has only a few service organizations, and they have religious affiliations. An atheist student who would like to get involved with community service may ask to join, but not become a leader of a religiously-affiliated club, because he or she wants to help the community and has no other outlet.</p>
<p>Another example would be the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. The national organizations require belief in God and ban atheists and agnostics (yet no longer ban gays), but local organizations decide about their individual members and there are atheist members. An atheist who wants to become an Eagle scout must lie in order to do so. I cannot blame a university for not wanting to set themselves up for a huge lawsuit if they support campus groups that discriminate.</p>
<p>If you truly want a “free” experience in the way @awcntdb describes, do not go to a university that is not affiliated with your religion. There are more than a few Catholic universities out there.</p>
<p>And by the way, the Constitution <em>CANNOT</em> trump all, because it is completely IMPOSSIBLE in certain situations for every right to be manifest. You cannot have the freedom to exercise religion if your religion requires you to prevent others from free speech!</p>
<p>I do not think @awcntdb is on the right track. I do not think having a campus club is exercising your religion. I do not think, for example, that the Catholic Church has any basic tenet that says “you must organize and meet at your university as a requirement of your religion”.</p>
<p>The Constitution does not allow you to infringe upon the rights of others. That’s where some (most?) libertarians have it wrong, the Constitution has to be both from the inside out = from the individual to the community and from the outside in = from the community to the individual.</p>
<p>^Very well said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? Things change. There is no guarantee that anything will last forever. A college can change its mission or vote on different guiding principles when it wants to. There is no reason groups should be “grandfathered in” to continue with discriminatory practices just because they used to be tolerated.</p>
<p>“You cannot have the freedom to exercise religion if your religion requires you to prevent others from free speech!”</p>
<p>Free speech has to do with the govt restricting speech, not private individuals or private organizations. </p>
<p>"The Constitution does not allow you to infringe upon the rights of others. "</p>
<p>Again, you’re confusing individual and state / govt acts. If I own a publishing company or bookseller, for example, I am not obligated to publish any manuscript sent to me or sell any book in my store. I can be a Christian publisher or a Christian bookseller, and explicitly reject books not written from that perspective. You don’t have a “right” to my publishing company or space in my bookstore. </p>
<p>Likewise, there is no “right” for a relig organization to have use of a private university’s resources. The Lynchburg VA Jewish club doesn’t have a “right” to Liberty University’s meeting spaces. </p>
<p>So Pizzagirl, this all is moot because Bowdoin is private so they don’t have to comply with free speech or freedom of religion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Last I heard, Bowdoin and their policies weren’t Congress… </p>
<p>rhandco, #430 - regarding boy scouts: If I understand correctly, the national organization now allows openly gay youth members but not openly gay leaders or adult volunteers. </p>
<p>These questions are not merely academic:</p>
<p><a href=“New Jersey 'Gay Conversion Therapy' Ban Upheld | HuffPost Latest News”>New Jersey 'Gay Conversion Therapy' Ban Upheld | HuffPost Latest News;
<p>Consolation, re post. 424, i was specifically responding to Sally as an opportunity to add specific information that I have found to be helpful over the years at cc. I respectfully submit to you as a Protestant, that there is a lot of misinformation or lacking information in this forum and I appreciate the chance to offer clarification when the opportunity arises.</p>