<p>^^ Religious beliefs are not optional, in relation to this discussion. </p>
<p>And note, I did not say the college does not have the right, but I do think it is disrespectful if the student is accepted to then not respect practices of his religion, optional club or not. It is punitive to say unless you disrespect your beliefs you cannot have a club.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>100%, probably not. But major teachings, yes.</p>
<p>So what specific beliefs are the schools disrepecting? I just don’t see it.</p>
<p>For example, basically anyone can come to Catholic mass. You don’t have to be Catholic, Christian, or even believe in God. The Church has certain requirements for taking communion, but that’s it. So I don’t see how there would be any teaching of the Church that would require you to create a club on campus that would require that its members to even believe in the Trinity.</p>
<p>^^ In the Bowdoin case, the practice of homosexuality was (and still is) against one of the group’s major tenets. To tell the group it must accept someone who promotes a practice that is antithetical to the group is disrespecting a major group belief.</p>
<p>But does that religion forbid homosexuals from attending that particular church’s service?</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure no one is “practicing” homosexuality at a Christian group meeting at Bowdoin.</p>
<p>No one knows what goes on in people’s bedrooms, unless of course they are broadcasting it over the internet.</p>
<p>Personally, I wish public universities would move away from associating with any religious group. I think it just unnecessarily leaves open such a can of worms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. To insist that everyone in the club be gay would be disrespecting the group’s belief. Allowing gay students to come to meetings and even run for office is not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be a possibility. </p>
<p>However, it is no different than not being able to enter a Muslim groups ceremony eating and carrying bacon. I am quite sure the college would protect Muslim students against someone defiling their beliefs in that manner.</p>
<p>Attending a Muslim meeting carrying bacon is not at all the same thing as allowing people who eat bacon into the group. Which is what we are discussing here.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t think there was ever any question that membership in campus groups should be open to any and all, and certainly open membership was not an issue in the well known examples of Catholic and Evangelical groups being forced to meet off campus, and not being allowed to post notices anymore at school. It was simply the new requirements that some Universities have added that ‘leadership’ of any religious group had to be open to people who were not associated with the group’s beliefs. Most religious groups on campus (including Catholics of course) would welcome members of various faiths or no faith, but allowing large student groups to be run by people who don’t share the fundamental reason for existence of the group is silly. Why would any University object to allowing the Catholic Student Association to say that the Catholic Student center (or Newman center) etc. has to be run by someone who is Catholic? It is ridiculous that a group can’t decide that one of its leadership requirements is sharing the very thing which binds the group together - especially for the groups mentioned in the Vanderbilt example (which were some of the largest on campus and had caused no problems over many, many years). See e.g. <a href=“http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-04-01/vanderbilt-bias-catholic-group/53935512/1”>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-04-01/vanderbilt-bias-catholic-group/53935512/1</a></p>
<p>Also note the issue is not really about funding but about speech restriction on religious groups. Other campus groups are allowed to meet on campus and have requirements on their members or leaders, but religious groups were not. That the Vanderbilt Catholics are now restricted from using the word Vanderbilt (Vanderbilt Catholic became “University Catholic” to avoid confrontation with the school who does not approve of them) when they go to mass or a prayer service seems silly. That they can’t post notices on campus seems even more silly. My main objection is that they created a problem where none existed - if the group is open to all members and does not discriminate why can’t they set their own leadership requirements that match their mission and purpose? And even if their funding were restricted, why would their speech be restricted (can’t post notices about events and also can’t meet on campus)?</p>
<p>If having a leader who meets a certain benchmark of Catholicism is important to the group, wouldn’t that group elect such a person over a candidate who was, well, less benchmark-meeting?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In what way are other groups allowed to exclude certain students from running for office?</p>
<p>@OHMomof2 - what gives you the right to determine what a group considers a major tenet of its foundation and what is not? I can tell you there are Christian groups that see homosexuality, as reprehensible, as Muslims see bacon.</p>
<p>Nothing gives me - or you - that right, which is exactly my point. The groups elect their own leaders, do they not? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe this is correct. But, I would go a little further in that certain persons running for office goes beyond just non-association to the point where they do not support or promote the group’s foundation. The role of the officers is to lead and promote a group’s beliefs or else why have them? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do have the right, if I am a member of the group. Go ahead and go into the Muslim meeting with bacon and see what happens to you and see who the college punishes. Your statement is hypocritical to the core. You give Muslims a pass on a core belief, but want to determine what you can force Christians to accept.</p>
<p>If you are a member of the group - which I assume you are not since you seem to be a parent - then you get to elect the leader you want. That leader presumably shares the beliefs you care most about, in the group. Probably, if most in the group think a gay person makes a bad leader, that member is not elected to leadership. Voila - freedom!</p>
<p>I’m going to assume the guy who brings bacon into the Muslim meeting probably also loses the Muslim group leader election. Ain’t democracy grand?</p>
<p>^^ You were the one that made the qualifying statement they are not the same. I am saying both beliefs should be respected identically. But hey if your logic works for you, no problem.</p>
<p>No, if you re-read what I wrote, I said being a bacon eater - not eating bacon in the meeting - is analogous to being gay.</p>
<p>And both beliefs SHOULD be respected identically. I totally think bacon eaters should be allowed in Muslim clubs and also to run for office. Don’t you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>awcntdb, you keep bringing up all the special treatment Muslims are getting and all the “forcing” of Christians to conform to certain rules. I have asked before, and will ask again–where are your examples that support your position? So far you’ve offered nothing.</p>