NationStates Jolt Archive

BIRMINGHAM University's Evangelical Christian Union has been banned from using Student Union Guild rooms and facilities, and has had its bank accounts frozen by Guild authorities after refusing to make politically-correct changes to their charitable constitution on religious grounds.

The Students Union at Birmingham University wanted to impose one of their own leaders onto the CU executive, open membership to people of all faiths and beliefs, and instructed the Christian fellowship to change its constitution. The Guild raised concern at the words "men" and "women", as it could be seen as excluding transsexual/transgender persons.

When the CU tried to book rooms with the Guild after the summer break for normal CU activities, they were told the Guild couldn’t accommodate them, because the CU was involved in too many activities.

Then, when Christians in Sport (whose high profile supporters include Olympic Gold Medallists Jonathan Edwards) attempted to book a room in the CU's name, the Guild insisted on checking the CUs constitution. The Guild objected to many clauses, even though the constitution has been consistent for many years, and its polices are not a new issue for the Guild. The CU has been operating at Birmingham University for the past 76 years, and currently has well over a hundred people attending the CU’s meetings.

Andy Weatherley, CU staff worker in Birmingham, said: "The Guild insists the CU constitution must be amended to include ‘mandatory clauses’, insisting more control and more intrusion by the Guild and open membership to those who would not call themselves Christians.

"Christian Unions should be permitted to restrict membership to only those people who profess faith in Jesus Christ, and that leadership positions are also restricted to the same criteria and the beliefs outlined in the University and College's Christian Fellowship Doctrinal Basis. It is a fundamental right of any organisation to be able to include in its membership only those who abide by the ethos and focus of the organisation. We believe this to be true for all organizations within the Student Union, not just religious or ethnic ones. We are not a special interest group there to attract people with similar interest but a Union of Christians. Whilst our meetings are open to all people, believers and unbelievers when it come to being a voting member or leader of the Christian Union we feel it is perfectly respectable to restrict access to people who call themselves Christians.

The Vice Chancellors report “Extremism and intolerance on Campus”, advises Universities “some clubs of societies to have restricted eligibility, say on religious or nationality grounds. Otherwise, it could be open to a group hostile to the club or society to join and take it over in a way that would be quite wrong. But we urge care in this area.”

Despite the CU agreeing to consider some re-drafting of their constitution and to offer a re-draft to the Guild at their mid-January meeting, the CU were suspended from booking rooms for a week-long Christian Awareness event at the end of January named “Truth”. The Guild has de-recognised the Christian Union and frozen its bank account, including money donated by the public and churches to be used for Christian work in the university. The “Truth” week will only now go ahead because of the good grace offered by the university allowing the CU to place a marquee on a central location on campus.

Birmingham Christian Union has instructed solicitors, who have advised the Guild that unless funds are returned, and a democratic way forward can be found, they will be forced to issue court proceedings against them.

Birmingham University Christian Union is affiliated to UCCF, which has over 77 years experience of working with Christians at universities and colleges of higher and further education throughout the UK.

Pod Bhogal, its communications director said: "In all our years of working with hundreds of HE establishments, this action by Birmingham's Guild is unique. We support the Birmingham CU 100 per cent and will back them in standing up for their rights, and the democratic rights of every student grouping in the university to be able to constitute themselves and to pursue any lawful aims and objectives in a free society. We would not dream of telling a Muslim group or a political society how to elect their leaders or who could or could not become a member, that's entirely a matter to them, based on their own faith principles, the same applies to a CU."

Any thoughts on this. I personally think it is ludicrous to say that a Christian union must not be allowed to restrict its membership on the basis of faith. Just a quick point also, membership does not refer to comming to meetings. Membership means ability to vote on exectuives etc.

Any thoughts on this. I personally think it is ludicrous to say that a Christian union must not be allowed to restrict its membership on the basis of faith. Just a quick point also, membership does not refer to comming to meetings. Membership means ability to vote on exectuives etc.
Yup its a bitch having to treat people fairly

Yup its a bitch having to treat people fairly

Yup, oh how unfair it is not to be able to discriminate on the grounds of religious affiliation.

Yup, oh how unfair it is not to be able to discriminate on the grounds of religious affiliation.

I dont think you fully understand this. Why should a Christian union have to accept a Muslim as a president?

I dont think you fully understand this. Why should a Christian union have to accept a Muslim as a president?

A more pertinent question would be... why the [insert expletive here] would a Muslim want to be president of a Christian Union?

I dont think you fully understand this. Why should a Christian union have to accept a Muslim as a president?
Because they feel like using public facilities and public funding
As such they have no right to seclude anyone that is a student.

I dont think you fully understand this. Why should a Christian union have to accept a Muslim as a president?

Why should they get public funds to discriminate?

Because they feel like using public facilities and public funding
As such they have no right to seclude anyone that is a student.

I think it is an inherent right to exclude or include people based on moral sets. If I belong to a group called Christians Against Buggery well by all means I shouldn't be forced to accept an openly gay person into my group and give them voting rights.

I think it is an inherent right to exclude or include people based on moral sets. If I belong to a group called Christians Against Buggery well by all means I shouldn't be forced to accept an openly gay person into my group and give them voting rights.

Then you cannot have public money.

I think it is an inherent right to exclude or include people based on moral sets. If I belong to a group called Christians Against Buggery well by all means I shouldn't be forced to accept an openly gay person into my group and give them voting rights.
If you want public funding you do

Private funding that is a different matter ... if you are privatly funded you can do whatever the fuck you want

I just reserve the right to make fun of you:p

I think it is an inherent right to exclude or include people based on moral sets. If I belong to a group called Christians Against Buggery well by all means I shouldn't be forced to accept an openly gay person into my group and give them voting rights.
If you're in a university and accepting funds from its Societies Commission (or whatever they call it), then yes you should have to. Now, if you don't want to accept their money or facilities, fire ahead. Otherwise, put up with it.

Boy scouts have been nailed this way also.

Boy scouts have been nailed this way also.
Yup ... they just got to fund raised and rent the space ... hell my eagle scout year we fund raised enough to buy our own plot of land and build a small meeting place.

The issue here seems to be one of conforming to the legislation of the university Student Union, which seems reasonable to me. If a group wants to receive funding and privileges from a higher body, they need to accept that body's conditions.

The CU does have a case for exclusivity, but it needs to float with the governing bodies; otherwise, no deal.

Yup its a bitch having to treat people fairly
It's nothing to do with treating people unfairly. That money is available to anyone, they just have to set up their own society to get it. Hell at my university, we had all sorts of societies claiming money. This one society restricting its membership doesn't discriminate against anyone; I don't believe there's anything there that says members of this society get any extra benefits when compared to other societies. Each society has its own purpose, whether it be enabling its members to play sports or extoll the benefits of Tunnocks' Caramel Wafers or whatever. It completely destroys the point of funding ANY of these societies, if every society has to include the same elements.

It's nothing to do with treating people unfairly. That money is available to anyone, they just have to set up their own society to get it. Hell at my university, we had all sorts of societies claiming money. This one society restricting its membership doesn't discriminate against anyone; I don't believe there's anything there that says members of this society get any extra benefits when compared to other societies. Each society has its own purpose, whether it be enabling its members to play sports or extoll the benefits of Tunnocks' Caramel Wafers or whatever. It completely destroys the point of funding ANY of these societies, if every society has to include the same elements.

Yea but

It's an easy way to make trouble for Christians and who wouldn't want that?

i had to read through so much of that article to tell whether it was the real birmingham university down the road from me or the fake birmingham in alabama...

that's quite petty, but what would you expect from the sort of people who get drawn towards student union politics?

Christ did not exclude based on race, religion or creed. Any true Christian would follow his example. These people are hypocrites.

It's nothing to do with treating people unfairly. That money is available to anyone, they just have to set up their own society to get it. Hell at my university, we had all sorts of societies claiming money. This one society restricting its membership doesn't discriminate against anyone; I don't believe there's anything there that says members of this society get any extra benefits when compared to other societies. Each society has its own purpose, whether it be enabling its members to play sports or extoll the benefits of Tunnocks' Caramel Wafers or whatever. It completely destroys the point of funding ANY of these societies, if every society has to include the same elements.
A student group can have a purpose without discriminating

We have a few awsome christian groups on our campus that manage such. Even as an atheist I have attended a few meetings

Why should they get public funds to discriminate?

What public funds. Universities are private entites.

A student group can have a purpose without discriminating

We have a few awsome christian groups on our campus that manage such. Even as an atheist I have attended a few meetings

I did mention this in my first post. It isnt about restrciting attendence. Its about restricting membership. As a non Christian you are quite entitled to go to the meetings, etc. But its another thing to force a Christian group to have to allow non Christians to vote on the CU's president. Thats like forcing a Church to accept a Muslim decon.

Christ did not exclude based on race, religion or creed. Any true Christian would follow his example. These people are hypocrites.

What exactly do you mean by discrimination. These people do not exclude non Christians from visiting the meatings, or going out to them etc. They just exclude them from being on the exective of the group. That seems fair. Or are you going to ask Muslim groups to accept Christian leaders.

If you're in a university and accepting funds from its Societies Commission (or whatever they call it), then yes you should have to. Now, if you don't want to accept their money or facilities, fire ahead. Otherwise, put up with it.

Thats rediculous. Then the society cannot exist becuse it needs university resoruces to exist on the campus. Else it wouldnt be a univeristy society.

What public funds. Universities are private entites.
No they're not.

No they're not.

Yes they are. Else what do you call the tuition fees legislation. Those fees do not go to the governmnent. And a degree from Lesticer isnt the same as one from Canterbury. If universitys were government run and owned you would see many diffrences.

Yes they are. Else what do you call the tuition fees legislation. Those fees do not go to the governmnent. And a degree from Lesticer isnt the same as one from Canterbury. If universitys were government run and owned you would see many diffrences.

I don't pay fees. The Universities are funded by Govt. funds.

Then you cannot have public money.

That may be how it is in America but this is not America. In the UK, furtherment of religion is one of the offical charity clasifications and as such can recieve government support in (amoungst other things) the form of gift aid.

I don't pay fees. The Universities are funded by Govt. funds.

What country are you from and when did you go to university. In the UK you have to pay now a maximum of £3000 per year. That debt can be payed back in a series of installments under various conditions. But you still have to pay.

In the UK, furtherment of religion is one of the offical charity clasifications and as such can recieve government support in (amoungst other things) the form of gift aid.

Source or evidence?

Source or evidence?

Our register of charities shows over 22,000 religious charities of all shapes and sizes working in England and Wales today, playing a vital role in society. As a modern regulator, it's important the Charity Commission has a clear understanding of the context in which faith-based charities work. We want to hear their experiences of working with us and look at ways to encourage effectiveness in this unique part of the charity sector.

So we have set up a programme of events to visit mosques, churches and temples all over the country to listen to the experiences of faith communities and use this information to improve the services we provide.

We've defined faith-based charities as not only those whose sole aim is to advance a particular faith (e.g. Islam or Sikhism) but also those where a particular faith is the driving force behind the charitable activity (e.g. to advance education or relieve poverty). Following our successful consultation with independent and black majority churches, we have also held seminars for Muslim charities in Leicester, Bradford and Birmingham with further seminars planned for Bolton, and London. Other events for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish and minority faith groups are also planned.

This project will involve several thousand charities and will continue throughout 2006 and we're looking forward to hearing the views of such a wide range of faith-based charities. A report of our findings from these events will be published later this year.

Attendance at the seminars is usually by invitation but if you're from a faith-based charity and interested in contributing your views or would like more information on our work in this area please contact our press office on 020 7674 2333.

As you can see, one definition is advancement of religion, another is the activities of a religious group which seeks to advance one specific charitable objective.

Also here is the link to a charity I know and am affileited with http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=252123

As you can see, one definition is advancement of religion, another is the activities of a religious group which seeks to advance one specific charitable objective.
I'm sorry.

I fail to the see the link between 'university' and the 'charity commission'.

I'm sorry.

I fail to the see the link between 'university' and the 'charity commission'.

Well the charity commision is a government department. It gives out government money (or public money) to various charities through means of gift aid and other systems. The charity commission has one definition of charity as the furtherment of religion. Thus demonstrating that in the UK at least, there is no grounds for disallowing public money to be given to religious institutions. So to all those who say that the Birmingham CU should not recieve univertity funds because they are public funds and not to be given to religious groups, that is not the case. And thats if the Univeristy is in fact a public instiution which I do not believe it is. I could be mistaken on that however but it is my understanding it is fianced by the fees payed by students.

Wow, this made it to NS General? My flatmate is a member of the BUECU. He has scary posters in his room... He even wrote an angry letter to the student newspaper, Redbrick.

Anyway...

If it interests anyone, the Guild president is gay and there have been accusations that the Guild policy on the CU is unduely influenced by his personal opinion. It was also his idea to ban the National blood service from attending the freshers' fair because of its refusal to accept blood from homosexuals.

Also, the CU does not allow members to vote freely on for who they want to on the commitee. They are restricted to who the outgoing committee nominates. The leadership of the committee is not at stake here. The committee may also expel any member that it deems to be bringing the society into disrepute.

The guild also HAS to intervene with the CU as they are bound by their consititution, which they are bound by law to uphold. However, there is another society that restricts membership. It restricts membership to post-graduates. The guild has not attempted to fix this violation of its consitution. Currently the CU forces members to sign a piece of paper that says they are Christian. Whereas the consitution states that any student who self-defines as being a member of that group is elligble to sign up up to that society. So if I self-defined myself as being disabled I could sign up to the Disabled students society (which they don't mind).

Personally, I think that what the guild was trying to do was right, but it cocked it up massively. But who's idea was it to freeze the CU account?!

Well the charity commision is a government department. It gives out government money (or public money) to various charities through means of gift aid and other systems. The charity commission has one definition of charity as the furtherment of religion. Thus demonstrating that in the UK at least, there is no grounds for disallowing public money to be given to religious institutions. So to all those who say that the Birmingham CU should not recieve univertity funds because they are public funds and not to be given to religious groups, that is not the case. And thats if the Univeristy is in fact a public instiution which I do not believe it is. I could be mistaken on that however but it is my understanding it is fianced by the fees payed by students.

Ok, but my reading of the OP is that they are using public funds (obtained via this Charity Commission) and are excluding persons from joining or attending their organisation and its meetings. That breaks laws that the society is obligated to follow.

Tough shit on them.

Ok, but my reading of the OP is that they are using public funds (obtained via this Charity Commission) and are excluding persons from joining or attending their organisation and its meetings. That breaks laws that the society is obligated to follow.

Tough shit on them.

Firstly, it is not stoppig people from attending its meetings. What it is stopping people doing is becoming a member and thus being able to vote on the commites exectuive or to become a member of the exectuive.

Secondly, religious groups do this all the time. It is in their nature. Can you honestly expect the Catholic church to accept a Muslim as Pope. Or the Ummah to accept a Catholic as a Grand Mufti? Of course not.

Firstly, it is not stoppig people from attending its meetings. What it is stopping people doing is becoming a member and thus being able to vote on the commites exectuive or to become a member of the exectuive.

Secondly, religious groups do this all the time. It is in their nature. Can you honestly expect the Catholic church to accept a Muslim as Pope. Or the Ummah to accept a Catholic as a Grand Mufti? Of course not.

That is all that is important. They broke the rule- tough shit. What do they expect?
"Oh its ok to exclude someone from your group because you don't like their religion?" :rolleyes:

That is all that is important. They broke the rule- tough shit. What do they expect?
"Oh its ok to exclude someone from your group because you don't like their religion?" :rolleyes:

It is a rediculous rule to impinge on religious groups. Of course its ok to discriminate on religious grounds if it is a religious group. If you apply this rule to its logical conclusion, you are proposing that a Muslim should be able to become Pope. Or that a Catholic become a Grand Mufti. Or a WASP to recieve "Black sportsman of the year" award.

What country are you from and when did you go to university. In the UK you have to pay now a maximum of £3000 per year. That debt can be payed back in a series of installments under various conditions. But you still have to pay.When tuition fees were £1200/year I believe the government paid at least 5-fold that to the university. So most universities received the majority of their funding from the government. And are granted the title university by the government and that they are also granted permission to charge tutition fees. It is not their right to chare fees for their services because they are not private institutions.

The university, as a public institution, is confronted by new accounts of the public good and, as an autonomous institution, must engage in exciting new markets for higher education.http://www.kingston.ac.uk/vc-office/mission.htm

It is a rediculous rule to impinge on religious groups. If you apply this rule to its logical conclusion, you are proposing that a Muslim should be able to become Pope. Or that a Catholic become a Grand Mufti. Or a WASP to recieve "Black sportsman of the year" award.

No its not a ridiculous rule. By that logic, it is ok for White Supremicist groups to exculde blacks from their membership becuase it goes against their 'religion'.
The very fact that it is accepted as being 'ok' to exclude people from a group is the point- not on whether they would want to join such a group or not.

Its the principle of the law which is a stake here- not the "Sure, why would they want to anyway?" argument.

It is a rediculous rule to impinge on religious groups. Of course its ok to discriminate on religious grounds if it is a religious group. If you apply this rule to its logical conclusion, you are proposing that a Muslim should be able to become Pope. Or that a Catholic become a Grand Mufti. Or a WASP to recieve "Black sportsman of the year" award.
If the Catholic church is getting money from the Italian Government, Italy has every right to say "Elect a Muslim Pope or we won't give you any money" and to act on that demand. The Church can ignore them if it wishes, but it does so at the expense of Italian funding.

What country are you from and when did you go to university. In the UK you have to pay now a maximum of £3000 per year. That debt can be payed back in a series of installments under various conditions. But you still have to pay.
No you don't. All current students still pay the £1150; it's only for students starting next year that the 3k top-up fees come into play.

That is all that is important. They broke the rule- tough shit. What do they expect?
"Oh its ok to exclude someone from your group because you don't like their religion?" :rolleyes:
I don't see why it shouldn't be OK. Yes it is nice thought that every club welcome every viewpoint and enthusiasm, but you have to balance that with the risk as a university of no longer being able to offer your students the advantage of access, for example, to a university funded hunting club, because it has been taken over by anti hunting activists whom the club was forced to accept, or indeed being no longer able to offer as a university a club for discussion and worship etc. for Christians/Muslims/Sihks etc. because these clubs have been taken over by people not interested in these things.
You have to strike a balance, but I think the potential for discrimination is actually higher by pressing for total inclusivity of all clubs.

I don't see why it shouldn't be OK. Yes it is nice thought that every club welcome every viewpoint and enthusiasm, but you have to balance that with the risk as a university of no longer being able to offer your students the advantage of access, for example, to a university funded hunting club, because it has been taken over by anti hunting activists whom the club was forced to accept, or indeed being no longer able to offer as a university a club for discussion and worship etc. for Christians/Muslims/Sihks etc. because these clubs have been taken over by people not interested in these things.
You have to strike a balance, but I think the potential for discrimination is actually higher by pressing for total inclusivity of all clubs.

Its having the ability to join that gives them the freedom.

The fact that people are being told that the cannot join a group because they are of a different creed, colour or race does not strike you as restricive in the slightest?

Yup its a bitch having to treat people fairly
Care to explain how restricting voting to those who agree with the principles of the CU is not treating people fairly?

Secondly, religious groups do this all the time. It is in their nature. Can you honestly expect the Catholic church to accept a Muslim as Pope. Or the Ummah to accept a Catholic as a Grand Mufti? Of course not.

Again, you fail to understand the point. The CU can discriminate any way they want as long as they aren't receiving university funds. If they want that money, then they need to follow the unversity's rules, which means not discriminating based on religion.

No its not a ridiculous rule. By that logic, it is ok for White Supremicist groups to exculde blacks from their membership becuase it goes against their 'religion'.
The very fact that it is accepted as being 'ok' to exclude people from a group is the point- not on whether they would want to join such a group or not.

Its the principle of the law which is a stake here- not the "Sure, why would they want to anyway?" argument.

Again you have ignored the unbolded parts. Of course its fair. To put it another way is it fair for corperate bodies to ban me from their exective board because I am not an employe of their company. It is the nature of the group and the nature of the exclusion you are not considering here. And this time read all of my post and respond to all of it. Dont just select the bits you can respond to. You are proposing that the Catholic world should have no complaints about a Muslim pope. Or the Muslim world should have no complaints about a Catholic Grand Mufti

Again, you fail to understand the point. The CU can discriminate any way they want as long as they aren't receiving university funds. If they want that money, then they need to follow the unversity's rules, which means not discriminating based on religion.

Exactly!

Because they feel like using public facilities and public funding
As such they have no right to seclude anyone that is a student.
Well, considering that it's only been for like ... seventy-five years, yeah, these people need to quit trying to exclude others all of a sudden! :rolleyes:

Again, you fail to understand the point. The CU can discriminate any way they want as long as they aren't receiving university funds. If they want that money, then they need to follow the unversity's rules, which means not discriminating based on religion.

The public funds argument has already been destroyed. Religions recieve public funds from the charity commision. There is no reason to deny them funds from the university on the grounds of there being religous groups. See the top of page three.

Well the charity commision is a government department. It gives out government money (or public money) to various charities through means of gift aid and other systems. The charity commission has one definition of charity as the furtherment of religion. Thus demonstrating that in the UK at least, there is no grounds for disallowing public money to be given to religious institutions. So to all those who say that the Birmingham CU should not recieve univertity funds because they are public funds and not to be given to religious groups, that is not the case. And thats if the Univeristy is in fact a public instiution which I do not believe it is. I could be mistaken on that however but it is my understanding it is fianced by the fees payed by students

You are proposing that the Catholic world should have no complaints about a Muslim pope. Or the Muslim world should have no complaints about a Catholic Grand Mufti

EVER HEAR OF CONVERSION?
Otherwise you are making an idiotic argument. A Muslim, does not believe in Christ being the Son of God, and therefore would not deem it a good use of his/her time to join Catholicism and therefore would not want to become 'Head' of the Church.

If the Catholic church is getting money from the Italian Government, Italy has every right to say "Elect a Muslim Pope or we won't give you any money" and to act on that demand. The Church can ignore them if it wishes, but it does so at the expense of Italian funding.
Well that's true but in that circumstance there is no way you could say that the Italian government is respecting people's religious beliefs. And given that that is the sole reason for the withdrawal of funding by the university it doesn't make a good analogy. Yes the Italian government could force the Catholics to appoint a Muslim pope and the muslims a hindu imam, or refuse to withhold funding, but that wouldn't be multiculturalism, it would be meddling.

Well, considering that it's only been for like ... seventy-five years, yeah, these people need to quit trying to exclude others all of a sudden! :rolleyes:

So, so long as it is engrained in the tradition of the society, why bother to change it? Great argument. :rolleyes:

Slavery? Nah, it been in place for ages! Why would we bother changing it now!

EVER HEAR OF CONVERSION?
Otherwise you are making an idiotic argument. A Muslim, does not believe in Christ being the Son of God, and therefore would not deem it a good use of his/her time to join Catholicism and therefore would not want to become 'Head' of the Church.

That is irrelvent. You said so yourself


The very fact that it is accepted as being 'ok' to exclude people from a group is the point- not on whether they would want to join such a group or not.

Its the principle of the law which is a stake here- not the "Sure, why would they want to anyway?" argument.

So dont go backfliping on me

That is irrelvent. You said so yourself



So dont go backfliping on me

Thats kinda my point! Its irrelevant to keep bringing up that point.

In the end, it is about the principle of the rule not the 'oh its ok' argument. If the society breaks the university rules, the the university is well within its rights to withhold money and/or possible recognition as a legitimate university organisation.

Any thoughts on this. I personally think it is ludicrous to say that a Christian union must not be allowed to restrict its membership on the basis of faith. Just a quick point also, membership does not refer to comming to meetings. Membership means ability to vote on exectuives etc.
At my school the religious groups aren't allowed to restrict membership on teh basis of religion, race or sexual orientation... so you can join the chinese christian association if you don't belong to either classification if you so chose. I don't think anyone does though.

Ok, but my reading of the OP is that they are using public funds (obtained via this Charity Commission) and are excluding persons from joining or attending their organisation and its meetings. That breaks laws that the society is obligated to follow.

Tough shit on them.
You know what? I'm going to note all of this down and the very next time something similar comes up about Muslims or gays or any other group for which you have the hots, I'm going to remind you of your position.

Thats kinda my point! Its irrelevant to keep bringing up that point.

In the end, it is about the principle of the rule not the 'oh its ok' argument. If the society breaks the university rules, the the university is well within its rights to withhold money and/or possible recognition as a legitimate university organisation.

The univesrsity rule is flawed. That is what I am saying. The university cannot enforce this on religious groups, on the grounds that religous groups are, by their very nature, discriminatory in terms of their leadership. If indeed they break the university rules then it is ok to pull them up. But my point is that the univeristy rule is flawed in attempting to apply this to all groups.

Government-mandated membership restrictions on private organizations are stupid, as well as contributing to such organizations by government. It is not government's job to say which organizations should recieve funds extracted perforce from taxpayers. Atheists shouldn't have to pay for my Christian organizations, and vica versa.

Its having the ability to join that gives them the freedom.

The fact that people are being told that the cannot join a group because they are of a different creed, colour or race does not strike you as restricive in the slightest?
I never get tired of hearing this. Religion is in no way comparable to race and trying to repeatedly use them as analogous is just an attempt to cloud the issue. This is a question about beliefs and opinions. The university will, I presume, fund anyone who wants to set up a society of like minded people if they want to practice their beliefs, but to force societies to accept anyone regardless of opinions and beliefs to a voting capacity risks taking the freedom away from the members of that society to practice their beliefs as they see fit. Yes giving a society the potential to restrict membership is not ideal, but it is the lesser of two evils.

I never get tired of hearing this. Religion is in no way comparable to race and trying to repeatedly use them as analogous is just an attempt to cloud the issue. This is a question about beliefs and opinions. The university will, I presume, fund anyone who wants to set up a society of like minded people if they want to practice their beliefs, but to force societies to accept anyone regardless of opinions and beliefs to a voting capacity risks taking the freedom away from the members of that society to practice their beliefs as they see fit. Yes giving a society the potential to restrict membership is not ideal, but it is the lesser of two evils.

Finally, someone who understands!

Well that's true but in that circumstance there is no way you could say that the Italian government is respecting people's religious beliefs.
Doesn't matter. It's their own money, and unfortunately they can be as unsupportive of multiculturalism as they want when it comes to giving it out.

So, so long as it is engrained in the tradition of the society, why bother to change it? Great argument. :rolleyes:

Slavery? Nah, it been in place for ages! Why would we bother changing it now!
You are definitly just so ... weird. There is nothing in the world wrong with a group excluding those who do not believe in the group's principles. To do otherwise would simply destroy the freedom of association.

I think we're ignoring the real victims in all this: the countless Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Atheists who are apparently queuing up to become the next president of the CU; can you imagine their disappointment at the backlash against them? :(

Doesn't matter. It's their own money, and unfortunately they can be as unsupportive of multiculturalism as they want when it comes to giving it out.
Yes, you're right, but the whole point of this argument is that these are essentially public-ish funds being distributed and accordingly it is in the cause of multi-culturalism that the University is positing this change of rules. My point is that it is entirely counter-productive.

You are definitly just so ... weird. There is nothing in the world wrong with a group excluding those who do not believe in the group's principles. To do otherwise would simply destroy the freedom of affiliation.
Heh... Affiliation, a freedom? Interesting notion.

I have always seen affiliation as a curse, and I know that many others think likewise.

The public funds argument has already been destroyed. Religions recieve public funds from the charity commision. There is no reason to deny them funds from the university on the grounds of there being religous groups. See the top of page three.

You didn't destroy shit. The money the university is giving them is from the student body itself. The dues that the students pay each year. The charity commision is irrelevant. The students contribute that money, and their elected officials, the student council or guild or whatever, decides how it is distributed. If a group wants some of that money, they must meet the requirements that the student guild, elected representatives of the student body, set out for them. If they don't, no money, tough shit. The Christian group can either: A. get their own money; B. comply with the rules; or, C: get a new student guild elected.

Yes, you're right, but the whole point of this argument is that these are essentially public-ish funds being distributed and accordingly it is in the cause of multi-culturalism that the University is positing this change of rules. My point is that it is entirely counter-productive.
It's not multi-culturalism; it's pan-culturalism. The idea is not to create many segregated cultures, but one unified vastly varied culture.

And if they want to allocate funds to encourage that system, then it's their choice to do so.

You know what? I'm going to note all of this down and the very next time something similar comes up about Muslims or gays or any other group for which you have the hots, I'm going to remind you of your position.
If you're straight and want to join the GLBT group you can too. They won't care.

You are definitly just so ... weird. There is nothing in the world wrong with a group excluding those who do not believe in the group's principles. To do otherwise would simply destroy the freedom of association.
If you attend a university, you pay tuition and part of the tuition you pay as a full time student goes into supporting the school's clubs. Therefore, you can join whatever club you damn well please because it's funded partly by your own money. If this group wants to get money from the school they need to allow everyone who wants to join the group into the group. What's so hard to understand about that?

You didn't destroy shit. The money the university is giving them is from the student body itself. The dues that the students pay each year. The charity commision is irrelevant. The students contribute that money, and their elected officials, the student council or guild or whatever, decides how it is distributed. If a group wants some of that money, they must meet the requirements that the student guild, elected representatives of the student body, set out for them. If they don't, no money, tough shit. The Christian group can either: A. get their own money; B. comply with the rules; or, C: get a new student guild elected.

It works on the same pricipale as a country. In your example the student body can be replaced with the general public and student money payed in replaced with general taxation. The elected student body can be replaced by the government.

If you attend a university, you pay tuition and part of the tuition you pay as a full time student goes into supporting the school's clubs. Therefore, you can join whatever club you damn well please because it's funded partly by your own money. If this group wants to get money from the school they need to allow everyone who wants to join the group into the group. What's so hard to understand about that?
I'll go this far. If the group recieves public funding, then the government has the right to tell them they have to accept anyone, whether Muslim, Pagan, Agnostic or Atheist, as a member. If they recieve funding from the University or another student group, then the same rules applied to other groups which recieve funding should be applied to them.

I rather suspect that this is a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the CU, but I could be wrong. In either case, they will most likely find funding from other sources and continue to keep the "Christian" in Christian Union.

If you attend a university, you pay tuition and part of the tuition you pay as a full time student goes into supporting the school's clubs. Therefore, you can join whatever club you damn well please because it's funded partly by your own money. If this group wants to get money from the school they need to allow everyone who wants to join the group into the group. What's so hard to understand about that?

Quite simple. The government at present gives money via the charity commision and gift aid to various religious groups. Those groups are allowed to discriminate in terms of their leadership due to the nature of the group.

Here's a good exposition of how the US Constitution has been interpreted to imply freedom of association (http://fact.trib.com/1st.association.html).

Interestingly enough, I go to the University of Birmingham (history student) and have been watching this story unfold over the last few weeks. The majority of the students (most of whom dont give a shit what the Student Guild does) feel that this is decision is rather too politically correct.

Interestingly enough, I go to the University of Birmingham (history student) and have been watching this story unfold over the last few weeks. The majority of the students (most of whom dont give a shit what the Student Guild does) feel that this is decision is rather too politically correct.
Good for them. Perhaps there's hope for the U after all. :)

Here's a good exposition of how the US Constitution has been interpreted to imply freedom of association (http://fact.trib.com/1st.association.html).
Interesting. But does that then imply a legal justification for stereotyping? It seems as though constitutional support for association plays the role of a two-edged sword...

Here's a good exposition of how the US Constitution has been interpreted to imply freedom of association (http://fact.trib.com/1st.association.html).

Not that this is an American issue although that is an interesting document

If you're straight and want to join the GLBT group you can too. They won't care.

But if you then go on about how "evil" you consider homosexuality to be I think they will want to expell you. And they should have that right.

Interestingly enough, I go to the University of Birmingham (history student) and have been watching this story unfold over the last few weeks. The majority of the students (most of whom dont give a shit what the Student Guild does) feel that this is decision is rather too politically correct.

Glad to hear it

Not that this is an American issue although that is an interesting document
In a way, though, it paradoxically supports both sides of the argument. Anyone has a right to become a member of the Christian Union, but the Christian Union has a right to limit itself to a certain demographic.

In a way, though, it paradoxically supports both sides of the argument. Anyone has a right to become a member of the Christian Union, but the Christian Union has a right to limit itself to a certain demographic.

It would seem that way. I can just be reletively thankful then that British law is more flexable than American

While it's perfectly okay to stop funding them, do the students guild have the right to freeze their assets? Or is that stepping over their rights?

Also, the government is not telling them they have to accept anyone, the students guild is ordering them to take a member onto the board chosen by the students guild, and to make changes to their constitution which are anathema to the nature of Christianity.

I'm on the side of the CU here.

It would seem that way. I can just be reletively thankful then that British law is more flexable than American
Well, technically, the American approach to freedom of Association is based on prescedence too. In that respect, the two are just as flexible on this issue; it just happens that there's very little prescedence in the English Courts for the right to associate.

If you're straight and want to join the GLBT group you can too. They won't care.
Ours GLBT group on campus is about a third strait (gay friendly) people.

Kind of brave of them when you think about it they get as much shit for liking us "fags" as we do ourselfs really. And they dont have quite the same vested intrest

While it's perfectly okay to stop funding them, do the students guild have the right to freeze their assets? Or is that stepping over their rights?

Also, the government is not telling them they have to accept anyone, the students guild is ordering them to take a member onto the board chosen by the students guild, and to make changes to their constitution which are anathema to the nature of Christianity.

I'm on the side of the CU here.
But not only is money an issue here (while I think withdrawing funds would be the most effective method of geting the "we will not accept discrimination" message across)

Student orgs also have a name and association with their sponsor university
In the end it is not a school group without the school so they could not only with hold funds but also efectivly disband the group

Good grief - seriously, when will some of you (in fact, many people in general) realise that there has to be a limit to freedom? Sure it's a noble thing pursue freedom, but not to the extent to which you start dictating to a group the terms of their own governance.

For a prime example many of you must have read Jennifer Government - a text book case of what happens when people have too much freedom.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should restrict people completely, but you can have too much of a good thing. If you're gonna argue this case you might as well say we should abolish all laws - government, civil, whatever - because they restrict our freedoms. Like, we shouldn't have laws prohibiting murder, just think of the poor restricted murderers.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should restrict people completely, but you can have too much of a good thing. If you're gonna argue this case you might as well say we should abolish all laws - government, civil, whatever - because they restrict our freedoms. Like, we shouldn't have laws prohibiting murder, just think of the poor restricted murderers.
Wrong it ceases to be YOUR freedom when you infringe on others rights

Wrong it ceases to be YOUR freedom when you infringe on others rights

So how is forcing a group to accept members that could quite easily ruin its entire ethos not infringing on their rights?

edit: Particular emphasis on 'forcing' there btw

Good grief - seriously, when will some of you (in fact, many people in general) realise that there has to be a limit to freedom? Sure it's a noble thing pursue freedom, but not to the extent to which you start dictating to a group the terms of their own governance.

For a prime example many of you must have read Jennifer Government - a text book case of what happens when people have too much freedom.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should restrict people completely, but you can have too much of a good thing. If you're gonna argue this case you might as well say we should abolish all laws - government, civil, whatever - because they restrict our freedoms. Like, we shouldn't have laws prohibiting murder, just think of the poor restricted murderers.

No one is restricting their freedoms. They're welcome to run their group however they want. All they are saying is that, if you want their money, do things our way. The CU is more than free to reject the money and the stipulations that come with it. That's a freedom that the group seems unwilling to exercise.

Just before I get too deep into this, could someone please point out to em the bit in the article that says the CU is accepting exclusively university funds? I may just have missed it, but still... always good to check.

No one is restricting their freedoms. They're welcome to run their group however they want. All they are saying is that, if you want their money, do things our way. The CU is more than free to reject the money and the stipulations that come with it. That's a freedom that the group seems unwilling to exercise.

And we are saying that their way is stupid and needs changing. You should not force groups to accept things which are completely antithetical their nature. For example, by this logic, the GBLT would have to accept homophobic members if they wished to join and be unable to expell them when they spouted off about their views.

There seems to be some confusion as to the arguements of both people. One side seems to be saying "those are the University rules, take it or leave it" and the other side is saying "the univeristy rules are flawed". It is the latter that I intended to discuss. Its rather pointless contining to say "those are the rules" what I want to discuss is whether the rules need changing.

Its rather pointless contining to say "those are the rules" what I want to discuss is whether the rules need changing.
That decision is solely up to the members of the Birmingham Student Union. If they want it changed, it will be changed; if they don't, it won't. "Needs" doesn't come into it.

It's called Democracy. The electorate, not outside powers, has the authority.

That decision is solely up to the members of the Birmingham Student Union. If they want it changed, it will be changed; if they don't, it won't. "Needs" doesn't come into it.

It's called Democracy. The electorate, not outside powers, has the authority.

Dont tell me that on here we dont discuss the rightness and wrongness of rules made by governments.

bump

Dont tell me that on here we dont discuss the rightness and wrongness of rules made by governments.
Yes, we do. But what we don't do (certainly not if we want to be taken seriously, anyway) is tell other people to alter their legal structure out of our own sense of morality.

My issue with the way you're approaching it is that you're asking if "the rules need to be changed", as though we somehow have authority to over-ride the voice of the students that would be affected by any change. Regardless of what I think would be a good idea to do, the only thing that "needs" to be done is that the students decide themselves what to do.

Any thoughts on this. I personally think it is ludicrous to say that a Christian union must not be allowed to restrict its membership on the basis of faith. Just a quick point also, membership does not refer to comming to meetings. Membership means ability to vote on exectuives etc.

Nice unbiased source there. Really gives both sides of the issue. :rolleyes:

And we are saying that their way is stupid and needs changing. You should not force groups to accept things which are completely antithetical their nature. For example, by this logic, the GBLT would have to accept homophobic members if they wished to join and be unable to expell them when they spouted off about their views.

Groups have a right to funds and student union resources? So I should be able to form a "whites only" student group and get funds?

BTW, what exactly are the BECU being asked to change. It is not as objectionable as what you suggest.

You know what? I'm going to note all of this down and the very next time something similar comes up about Muslims or gays or any other group for which you have the hots, I'm going to remind you of your position.

Yay! :D I take that as a compliment.

a) I seem to be recognised around here now :eek:
b) I would have the same view point regardless of the group involved. Thats just my stance on openness, acceptance and equality. ;)

Nice unbiased source there. Really gives both sides of the issue. :rolleyes:

Well what is the other side? Perhaps you could show us? Please feel free to find another source.

When they got chucked out of the Guild, they actually hired a marquee to host their 'Truth' event. I avoided it. I have to listen to sanctimonious moralising most of the time, I have desire to spend the rest of that time listening to religious sanctimonious moralising.

Groups have a right to funds and student union resources? So I should be able to form a "whites only" student group and get funds?

If you could justify a good reason why that group was white only. But we have already said that discrimiantion against race and religion are two diffrent things. In the case of religion it is a matter of a group of like minded people asscoating. Thus they should not be forced to allow people who are not like minded to be members of that group.


BTW, what exactly are the BECU being asked to change. It is not as objectionable as what you suggest.

They are being asked to change their consitution so as to allow members of other faiths to become members and sit on the commitie and be president of said commitie.

Well what is the other side? Perhaps you could show us? Please feel free to find another source.

The Times ran a piece on it and so did the Birmingham University paper, Redbrick. Both were fairly impartial.

The Times ran a piece on it and so did the Birmingham University paper, Redbrick. Both were fairly impartial.

Can you provide links?

Edit. Its ok, found it myself

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2008732,00.html

Says pretty much the same things

The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2008732,00.html

Redbrick doesn't have any online archives.

If you could justify a good reason why that group was white only.

Begs the question.

But we have already said that discrimiantion against race and religion are two diffrent things. In the case of religion it is a matter of a group of like minded people asscoating. Thus they should not be forced to allow people who are not like minded to be members of that group.

So I can't necessarily have a "whites only" group, but I should be able to have a "white supremicists only" group because such would be like-minded people associating. We should be entitled to student union funds and resources without being forced to associate with those who aren't white supremicists.

They are being asked to change their consitution so as to allow members of other faiths to become members and sit on the commitie and be president of said commitie.

And because it is so likely that a member not of faith will become president of the organization there must be a rule against it?

Begs the question.

I agree you proerbly cannot find a good reason for a white only society, unless you were in an African univeristy and it was an Ex-patriaot group


So I can't necessarily have a "whites only" group, but I should be able to have a "white supremicists only" group because such would be like-minded people associating. We should be entitled to student union funds and resources without being forced to associate with those who aren't white supremicists.

Yes. I admit you would find it hard to find a university with one, but you could do it. Provided however that you were not breaking laws on enciting racial hatered.


And because it is so likely that a member not of faith will become president of the organization there must be a rule against it?

Its not the univeristy that is emplaceing this rule. It is the CU. It has a right to govern itself with regard to who it wishes to elect as president. It is not only that. The guild may also wish to install their own members on the commite.

Well what is the other side? Perhaps you could show us? Please feel free to find another source.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1694646,00.html

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=16625191&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=students-ban-christian-group-name_page.html

The guild believes the religious group must open its executive positions to people of all faiths

That is a quote from one of your articles. That is rediculous. I suppose you are now going to tell the Ummah that the next grand Mufti must be a Christian.

I agree you proerbly cannot find a good reason for a white only society, unless you were in an African univeristy and it was an Ex-patriaot group.

I don't think you understand what "begging the question" meant in this context.



Yes. I admit you would find it hard to find a university with one, but you could do it. Provided however that you were not breaking laws on enciting racial hatered..

So you would hold that such a group should be allowed to exist and must be given student union funds and resources?


Its not the univeristy that is emplaceing this rule. It is the CU. It has a right to govern itself with regard to who it wishes to elect as president. It is not only that. The guild may also wish to install their own members on the commite.

Again, it is such a weak organization that it must have a rule that prevents someone antithetical to the organization from being elected its president?

That is a quote from one of your articles. That is rediculous. I suppose you are now going to tell the Ummah that the next grand Mufti must be a Christian.

Who said anything about 'must'?
They would be entitled to (like everyone else), but it would never happen so we are you debating that point?

That is a quote from one of your articles. That is rediculous. I suppose you are now going to tell the Ummah that the next grand Mufti must be a Christian.

"It said 15 faith groups on campus - including the Islamic Society, the Sikh Society and a non-evangelical Christian body - had already complied with the regulations.."

Who said anything about 'must'?
They would be entitled to (like everyone else), but it would never happen so we are you debating that point?

How can a practising Muslim be entitled to be Pope. I dont see how any sane person can see that as making any sense. If they become a Chrsitian then yes, but if they are still a Muslim it makes no sense.

"It said 15 faith groups on campus - including the Islamic Society, the Sikh Society and a non-evangelical Christian body - had already complied with the regulations.."

That does not demaean the right of people to have exclusivity.

What many people here are doing is confusing race and religion as being simmilar. They are not. Religious groups are basicly about the asscoation of like minded people. In the same way that other societies do. It would be wrong to force a society of pro-choice people to accept a president who believed that abortion was evil. Which is what the guild want possibly to do. They want to put people on the CU exective who will have some power over decisions but will not be Christians.

Any thoughts on this. I personally think it is ludicrous to say that a Christian union must not be allowed to restrict its membership on the basis of faith. Just a quick point also, membership does not refer to comming to meetings. Membership means ability to vote on exectuives etc.
Personally, I've got no sympathy for any person who wants to join a superstitious organization. Fighting for somebody's right to join a Christian Union is, to me, like fighting for a black guy's right to join the KKK. I'm sure he does have the right, and I support it in theory, but I'm pretty disgusted by any person who would WANT to choose that, so I'm not going to go out of my way to help them.

Religious groups are basicly about the asscoation of like minded people. In the same way that other societies do. It would be wrong to force a society of pro-choice people to accept a president who believed that abortion was evil.
It's not about forcing them to adopt a particular member; it's about changing their legislation such that the ability for the body's membership to elect a muslim head should they wish to is not prohibited by written law.

There is a difference between not electing and preventing from ever being elected.

It's not about forcing them to adopt a particular member; it's about changing their legislation such that the ability for the body's membership to elect a muslim head should they wish to is not prohibited by written law.

There is a difference between not electing and preventing from ever being elected.
Well put.

That does not demaean the right of people to have exclusivity.

What many people here are doing is confusing race and religion as being simmilar. They are not. Religious groups are basicly about the asscoation of like minded people. In the same way that other societies do. It would be wrong to force a society of pro-choice people to accept a president who believed that abortion was evil. Which is what the guild want possibly to do. They want to put people on the CU exective who will have some power over decisions but will not be Christians.
Are you trying for a straw man over and over?

No one is forcing them to accept anyone as president ... THEY would have to elect this president.

Are you trying for a straw man over and over?

No one is forcing them to accept anyone as president ... THEY would have to elect this president.

No, but they would have to accept someone from the guild on their CU executive concil. Who would have inflence over the selection of the nomination for the president. Also if the guild was unhappy with the president they could force them to stand down.

Bump

It's not about forcing them to adopt a particular member; it's about changing their legislation such that the ability for the body's membership to elect a muslim head should they wish to is not prohibited by written law.

There is a difference between not electing and preventing from ever being elected.

Actually it is. Part of belonging to the Guild means that the guild must be able to put on a representive of theres on the commite with full decision making powers and if the guild dont like the CU president, then they can force them to step down.

Most of the students are fascists?

I'm sorry but if a group recieves public funding that group must conform to the rules of the administrative body. It's the reason "faith-based" charity funded by the goverment (in the U.S. anyway) is horseshit. It's the reason churches with tax-exempt status are horseshit. If these Kookie Kristian Konservatives want to discriminate then they can raise their own damn money and stop picking the pocket of people who don't support their outdated religious beliefs.

Most of the students are fascists?

I'm sorry but if a group recieves public funding that group must conform to the rules of the administrative body. It's the reason "faith-based" charity funded by the goverment (in the U.S. anyway) is horseshit. It's the reason churches with tax-exempt status are horseshit. If these Kookie Kristian Konservatives want to discriminate then they can raise their own damn money and stop picking the pocket of people who don't support their outdated religious beliefs.

It is not discrimination

If you wanted to start a pro-choice movement, you can hardly be expected to accept members who actively are pro-life into your membership. After all, your group opposes their views.

It is not discrimination
.
How is it not? They are not allowing people to join because they are of a different religion.

How is it not? They are not allowing people to join because they are of a different religion.

It is a religious group

Would you call it discrimination if the Pope was not allowed to be Muslim

Would it be discrimination if they decided that the head of the pro choice alliance could not be someone of a pro-life persuasion

Would it be discrimination if the next Grand Mufti of Egypt was not allowed to be a Hindu

It is a religious group

Would you call it discrimination if the Pope was not allowed to be Muslim

Would it be discrimination if they decided that the head of the pro choice alliance could not be someone of a pro-life persuasion

Would it be discrimination if the next Grand Mufti of Egypt was not allowed to be a Hindu
Yes, all of those things are discrimination.

dis·crim·i·na·tion Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn) n.
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category.

Just because something is discrimination doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, illegal, or immoral.

Just because something is discrimination doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, illegal, or immoral.

I agree with that. But the assertion Psy Mong keeps making is that it is imoral and bad.

Would you call it discrimination if the Pope was not allowed to be Muslim



Em, yeah. If he wanted to become Muslim then he can. By definition, he would cease to be Pope. And Msulims wouldn't see a problem with someone converting.

Whats your point?

I agree with that. But the assertion Psy Mong keeps making is that it is imoral and bad.

No I don't.

I'm saying if the rules you adhere to say 'You cannot discriminate'... and you break that rule.... you suffer the consequences. What is so difficult to understand about that sentiment? :confused:

Thats rediculous. Then the society cannot exist becuse it needs university resoruces to exist on the campus. Else it wouldnt be a univeristy society.
Yup. That's what I'm saying. If they want to be a university society, they have to play ball. Play by the university's rules. Same goes for EVERY society, of course. If there's a "Muslim Union" then it can't exclude Muslims either.
Of course, most societies have a part of their constitution that states their goal, and if the president doesn't play by the rules (say a Muslim president of the CU decides to turn it into the MU, or vice versa) then they can do something about it.

No I don't.

I'm saying if the rules you adhere to say 'You cannot discriminate'... and you break that rule.... you suffer the consequences. What is so difficult to understand about that sentiment? :confused:

That the discrimination rule is silly and shouldnt apply in this case

You should only make rules about discrimination where it is logical to do so. It isnt in this case.

Em, yeah. If he wanted to become Muslim then he can. By definition, he would cease to be Pope. And Msulims wouldn't see a problem with someone converting.

Whats your point?

That calling discrimination bad in that sense is wrong. The fact that the Pope cannot be a muslim and remain Pope is not an example of evil biggoted discrimination. And its the same here. The CU not allowing non Christians to become voting members is not a bad form of discrimination, hence the discrimination rules should not apply.

That the discrimination rule is silly and shouldnt apply in this case

Tough. Bring it up with your MP then and watch their face when you say 'Laws preventing discrimination are silly'. ;)


You should only make rules about discrimination where it is logical to do so. It isnt in this case.
Are you saying that preventing someone from making the choice to join a group, is logical?

I want to be able to say 2+2=5 and not be disciplined for it. I know it is incorrect, but the very fact that I can say it, means I have the choice to.

That calling discrimination bad in that sense is wrong. The fact that the Pope cannot be a muslim and remain Pope is not an example of evil biggoted discrimination.
Stop using this as an example. Its a terrible analogy!

You can have a Pope that converts to Islam (then he would have rejected Christianity and therefore would not want to be Head of the Catholic Church- so the argument if moot.)

A more pertinent question would be... why the [insert expletive here] would a Muslim want to be president of a Christian Union?
How is that the pertinent question? No one is trying to force people to be members of the CU. They are trying to force the CU to accept any member. If someone were to try to force a Muslim into the CU then that will be the pertinent question.

Tough. Bring it up with your MP then and watch their face when you say 'Laws preventing discrimination are silly'. ;)


You know that on these forums we discuss the rightness and wrongness of rules. That is what I am discussing here. Does it make sense for the university to apply discrimination rules to the Christian group


Are you saying that preventing someone from making the choice to join a group, is logical?

They can choose to join the group, but to become a member they have to be a Christian. They can come to the meetings, listen to talks etc but if they want to be on the commitie or vote for it they should be a Christian. It is only sensable. It is a group of like minded people. Why should someone opposed to them be allowed to run the group.


I want to be able to say 2+2=5 and not be disciplined for it. I know it is incorrect, but the very fact that I can say it, means I have the choice to.

I don't see what this has got to do with it. You can say that but you would be factually wrong (unless you were to change what the "5" charachter meant).

They can choose to join the group, but to become a member they have to be a Christian.
That is self contradictory. Do you not see that?


I don't see what this has got to do with it. You can say that but you would be factually wrong (unless you were to change what the "5" charachter meant).

Freedom of choice my dear fellow, freedom of choice. ;)

I wonder if this group was the Socialist Union and they exclude membership from fascists because of the obvious disconnect, would anyone be supporting freezing their assets. Groups on university that have open membership are in the same danger that regions are in nationstates, especially when the groups are small. If I was a member of the Socialist Union, a group of fascists could come in with enough votes to take over membership and turn it into a Fascist Union, thus defeating the purpose. This effort is simply an effort to create a universty group of like-minded individuals. Given that the government of the UK in their understanding of seperation of Church and State and discrimination recognize and support charity groups that have exclusive membership, on what grounds should the university be different?

Stop using this as an example. Its a terrible analogy!

You can have a Pope that converts to Islam (then he would have rejected Christianity and therefore would not want to be Head of the Catholic Church- so the argument if moot.)

Exactly my point. The Pope cannot be a Muslim while he is Pope. He can convert, but then he would no longer be allowed to be Pope. So is that nasty discrimination of the Catholic Church?

I wonder if this group was the Socialist Union and they exclude membership from fascists because of the obvious disconnect, would anyone be supporting freezing their assets. Groups on university that have open membership are in the same danger that regions are in nationstates, especially when the groups are small. If I was a member of the Socialist Union, a group of fascists could come in with enough votes to take over membership and turn it into a Fascist Union, thus defeating the purpose. This effort is simply an effort to create a universty group of like-minded individuals. Given that the government of the UK in their understanding of seperation of Church and State and discrimination recognize and support charity groups that have exclusive membership, on what grounds should the university be different?

Exactly! Thank you! Someone else who understands what I have been trying to say!

Exactly my point. The Pope cannot be a Muslim while he is Pope. He can convert, but then he would no longer be allowed to be Pope. So is that nasty discrimination of the Catholic Church?

He wouldn't want to be Pope!
By rejecting Christianity, why in blazes would he remain as head of a religion he doesn't believe in! Think damn you, think!

-snip-
Brief point; Great Britain doesn't have separation of Church and State. The Crown is head of both.

Back on topic, though, you don't throw anyone out of the Socialist society of a university because they're a Fascist. In fact, as long as they're willing to discuss things calmly, people of other Political inclinations are very welcome to such groups at our Uni. The only reason people are ejected is if they're being disruptive.

Brief point; Great Britain doesn't have separation of Church and State. The Crown is head of both.

Back on topic, though, you don't throw anyone out of the Socialist society of a university because they're a Fascist. In fact, as long as they're willing to discuss things calmly, people of other Political inclinations are very welcome to such groups at our Uni. The only reason people are ejected is if they're being disruptive.

Or at the very least, you leave and set up an alternative Socialist society.

That is self contradictory. Do you not see that?

Not at all. To be a member means to be allowed on the exective commitie and to vote on the commites membership. To join means to be a regular attender and to go on activities etc.


Freedom of choice my dear fellow, freedom of choice. ;)

You have the right to an opinion. And within that opinion a right to be wrong. I am not questioning your right to hold that incorrect opinion, merely your wisdom in doing so.

Not at all. To be a member means to be allowed on the exective commitie and to vote on the commites membership. To join means to be a regular attender and to go on activities etc.

So... I can join the society.... but not be a member of the society....

Ok....


You have the right to an opinion. And within that opinion a right to be wrong. I am not questioning your right to hold that incorrect opinion, merely your wisdom in doing so.
Then why would you question the the right to freely join something?

Brief point; Great Britain doesn't have separation of Church and State. The Crown is head of both.

Back on topic, though, you don't throw anyone out of the Socialist society of a university because they're a Fascist. In fact, as long as they're willing to discuss things calmly, people of other Political inclinations are very welcome to such groups at our Uni. The only reason people are ejected is if they're being disruptive.

Same in this case. However, I doubt fascists are permitted to head the Socialist Society. Muslims are currently free to attend meetings and discuss things calmy, etc.

So... I can join the society.... but not be a member of the society....

Ok....


Then why would you question the the right to freely join something?

You are playing a word game and comparing common use of the word to the jargon of the group. It's silly. Don't you have better points to make or are you just trying to wrap the poster around the axle?

He wouldn't want to be Pope!
By rejecting Christianity, why in blazes would he remain as head of a religion he doesn't believe in! Think damn you, think!

Thats not the point. The point is is it still nasty evil discrimination if he did try? Obviously not. Why? Because it is discrimination on the basis of the nature of the organisation.

I wonder if this group was the Socialist Union and they exclude membership from fascists because of the obvious disconnect, would anyone be supporting freezing their assets
Yup I would

You are playing a word game and comparing common use of the word to the jargon of the group. It's silly. Don't you have better points to make or are you just trying to wrap the poster around the axle?
No, it was confusing. I have never heard of being able to 'join' a group and still not be considered a 'member'.

Its discrimination. It doesn't matter whether or not 'you' think it is silly. It is discrimination based on religious grounds. its the law and if the society does not obey the law it gets punished. Simple.

Thats not the point. The point is is it still nasty evil discrimination if he did try? Obviously not. Why? Because it is discrimination on the basis of the nature of the organisation.
Look, again- Pick a different scenario. It would never happen you describe it. Stop trying to make it so.

No, it was confusing. I have never heard of being able to 'join' a group and still not be considered a 'member'.

Its discrimination. It doesn't matter whether or not 'you' think it is silly. It is discrimination based on religious grounds. its the law and if the society does not obey the law it gets punished. Simple.

Well, I found the explanation to be abudantly clear and you appear to understand it now so it appears we can get back on topic.

Um, the law allows it as pointed out in the legislation that was quoted earlier. I have yet to see any law posted here that shows that they are violating the law by forming a like-minded group so long as people are free to form their own like-minded groups. Do I have to allow basketball players to run my gymnastics group? Do I have to let fascists take over the socialism group?

Look, again- Pick a different scenario. It would never happen you describe it. Stop trying to make it so.

It appears you haven't actually come here to have a discussion but instead to simply draw the conversation off-topic again and again. The analogy was clear and it's an analogy because it isn't real. If it were real, it would be an example and not an analogy. It would never happen because things work the way AII is espousing.

Analogies needn't be real if they excercise the point and this does. This is a group that analyzes and focuses on a specific ideology. They got together for the purpose of analyzing and focusing on that ideology. Why is it discrimination to do so? How does ANYONE benefit by allowing the group to be run by a non-Christian?

Yup I would

Well, unfortunately it appears the government allows and supports the formation of groups of like-minded people. Your lack of concern for the rights of people to collect together and discuss and explore ideologies aside, the government supports their formation.

I'm curious should the NRA be considered discriminatory if they won't allow someone who is thinks all guns should be banned into their leadership? If so, would it possible for any charitable or action group to form for any purpose at all?

I'm curious should the NRA be considered discriminatory if they won't allow someone who is thinks all guns should be banned into their leadership? If so, would it possible for any charitable or action group to form for any purpose at all?

Does the NRA get funded by tax payers/govt money?

Well, unfortunately it appears the government allows and supports the formation of groups of like-minded people. Your lack of concern for the rights of people to collect together and discuss and explore ideologies aside, the government supports their formation.

I'm curious should the NRA be considered discriminatory if they won't allow someone who is thinks all guns should be banned into their leadership? If so, would it possible for any charitable or action group to form for any purpose at all?
Yes they could be concidered discriminatory BUT they are a private organization so they have every right to do as they wish. Same with all the other charitable action groups.

I seem to be able to understand the difference between private and public institutions

Does the NRA get funded by tax payers/govt money?

They are recognized by the government in the same way any organization of that type is. It's a little spurious because the US treats these kinds of groups differently than the UK. A better question is, is it discrimination? College campuses are banning the military from recruiting on campus as a result of discrimination. If having a group be focused on a specific purpose or ideology is illegal discrimination then shouldn't basically every group be removed from campus for discrimination. The basketball team should be disbanded because they won't let me come there and wrestle. Why all this discrimination against wrestlers, anyway?

Does the NRA get funded by tax payers/govt money?
Exactly if they are funded by the school ... or funded by the government they can set the requirments to recive funding

Same way the government can take a way things like state highway funding for non compliance in certian regulations.

Private organizations are self funded so they can do as they (or their funders) please

They are recognized by the government in the same way any organization of that type is. It's a little spurious because the US treats these kinds of groups differently than the UK. A better question is, is it discrimination? College campuses are banning the military from recruiting on campus as a result of discrimination. If having a group be focused on a specific purpose or ideology is illegal discrimination then shouldn't basically every group be removed from campus for discrimination. The basketball team should be disbanded because they won't let me come there and wrestle. Why all this discrimination against wrestlers, anyway?

If its spurious, why did you bring it up?
If a society is funded in part or at all, by tax payers money, and the society refuese to let taxpayers join.... that doesn't strike you as unfair? As discriminatory in the slightest?

Yes they could be concidered discriminatory BUT they are a private organization so they have every right to do as they wish. Same with all the other charitable action groups.

I seem to be able to understand the difference between private and public institutions

Again, such institutions work differently here than in the UK. See my question below because that's a more accurate measure of how universities handle discriminatory groups. Should a university be able to disallow the NRA from having a school chapter? What about professional fraternities and sororities? That's discrimination, isn't it? What about basically any action group, any charity, any foundation or basically any group of anyone, anywhere?

Again, such institutions work differently here than in the UK. See my question below because that's a more accurate measure of how universities handle discriminatory groups. Should a university be able to disallow the NRA from having a school chapter? What about professional fraternities and sororities? That's discrimination, isn't it? What about basically any action group, any charity, any foundation or basically any group of anyone, anywhere?

Not in the slightest... so long as it adhere's to the college guidelines (whatever they may be) and it does not receive taxpayers money and refuse taxpayers to join it.

It is not discrimination

If you wanted to start a pro-choice movement, you can hardly be expected to accept members who actively are pro-life into your membership. After all, your group opposes their views.

Yes they can be expected to accept members who disagree IF THEY ACCEPT PUBLIC FUNDS AND THERE IS SOME LAW PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION!

Can you even read?

The administrative agency has a rule prohibiting discrimination, this groups accepts funds from the admin agency, therefore this group cannot (while accepting said funds) discriminate. They are perfectly free to discriminate if and when they become a private group. Your argument is flawed as is your knowledge of the law.

If its spurious, why did you bring it up?
If a society is funded in part or at all, by tax payers money, and the society refuese to let taxpayers join.... that doesn't strike you as unfair? As discriminatory in the slightest?

Because I was making a comparison? I'm certain you've heard of them. The point is I don't think it's discriminatory to have a purpose and to require leadership that actually believes in that purpose.

No, it doesn't strike me as unfair provided everyone has equal access to those funds. One of the issues that I was corrected on by TCT is that religious services can be held on public halls that are rented to those organizations during off hours provided all religions have equal access to the property and pay for its use. There are many laws that consider the fact that there is an obvious need for groups to have people that abide by the focus of the group in the leadership of said group. Hell, is Bush descriminating when he only selects Republicans for his cabinet?

Not in the slightest... so long as it adhere's to the college guidelines (whatever they may be) and it does not receive taxpayers money and refuse taxpayers to join it.

Universities require groups not to discriminate. You jumped into the middle of a conversation, perhaps you should read all of it. He made the point that a fascist should be permitted to run a socialist group and I simply extended the point. You seem to have difficult understanding analogies. That's two analogies now. Seriously, do you know the purpose of analogies? How about addressing the point?

Yes they can be expected to accept members who disagree IF THEY ACCEPT PUBLIC FUNDS AND THERE IS SOME LAW PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION!

Can you even read?

The administrative agency has a rule prohibiting discrimination, this groups accepts funds from the admin agency, therefore this group cannot (while accepting said funds) discriminate. They are perfectly free to discriminate if and when they become a private group. Your argument is flawed as is your knowledge of the law.

The problem is that those rules made by the university group can in and of itself be descriminatory against religious organizations unless it is equally applied to all ideological organizations. The federal laws in England permit the foundation and federal charitable position of similar groups as evidenced by the law that was shown earlier.

If its spurious, why did you bring it up?
If a society is funded in part or at all, by tax payers money, and the society refuese to let taxpayers join.... that doesn't strike you as unfair? As discriminatory in the slightest?
You're forgetting why that tax payers'/ the university's money is funnelled into these societies. That money is spent to allow people to follow their enthusiasms while at university, and more importantly, so that the university can boast of all these different societies that it can offer to prospective students. In forcing societies to hand over their decision making processes to people who have no interest in, and who fundamentally disagree with, the society's aims and practisess, the society can no longer offer its members the ability to follow their enthusiasms, so they and the university + tax payer lose out.
And furthermore, by mentioning money you're trying to imply that non-members are losing out, which is not the case as I've mentioned already in the thread, as that money is available to almost anyone with an idea for a society.

You're forgetting why that tax payers'/ the university's money is funnelled into these societies. That money is spent to allow people to follow their enthusiasms while at university, and more importantly, so that the university can boast of all these different societies that it can offer to prospective students. In forcing societies to hand over their decision making processes to people who have no interest in, and who fundamentally disagree with, the society's aims and practisess, the society can no longer offer its members the ability to follow their enthusiasms, so they and the university + tax payer lose out.
And furthermore, by mentioning money you're trying to imply that non-members are losing out, which is not the case as I've mentioned already in the thread, as that money is available to almost anyone with an idea for a society.

Exactly. We have to find a balance between being anti-discrimination and just being silly. Forcing religious groups off-campus at a university or forcing them to allow people who disagree with their religion to run their group is simply making it so people are unable to follow their enthusiasms as a part of their university experience. It also discrimination against religious people in general.

Universities require groups not to discriminate. You jumped into the middle of a conversation, perhaps you should read all of it.
I was here from the start- page 2 to be precise.


He made the point that a fascist should be permitted to run a socialist group and I simply extended the point. You seem to have difficult understanding analogies. That's two analogies now. Seriously, do you know the purpose of analogies? How about addressing the point?

Make all the analogies you want- I am trying to keep away from them and still to the facts of the OP.

If the society breaks the colleges rules- it can expect to be disciplined. What is so hard to grasp?

However, I doubt fascists are permitted to head the Socialist Society.
I wouldn't see why not. If the electorate thinks the person best suited to head the society is a fascist then they're allowed to nominate and vote for them. The fact that they posess those views might work against them, but if they're suited for the job (ie, personal skills, artistic talent, contacts etc.), are willing to take it on and have enough support within the organisation, why should it be an issue?

I wouldn't see why not. If the electorate thinks the person best suited to head the society is a fascist then they're allowed to nominate and vote for them. The fact that they posess those views might work against them, but if they're suited for the job (ie, personal skills, artistic talent, contacts etc.), are willing to take it on and have enough support within the organisation, why should it be an issue?

Sssh. You and I both know that you just can't use democracy to get elected thses days. It has to be a campus wide conspiracy against religious groups followed by a de facto coup. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't see why not. If the electorate thinks the person best suited to head the society is a fascist then they're allowed to nominate and vote for them. The fact that they posess those views might work against them, but if they're suited for the job (ie, personal skills, artistic talent, contacts etc.), are willing to take it on and have enough support within the organisation, why should it be an issue?
It becomes an issue because the money the university provided to allow people to do whatever it is that socialists do has now been wasted, and they have to cross off one of the entries in their prospectus, and socialist will feel discriminated against because they can no longer practice their socialist thang.

I was here from the start- page 2 to be precise.

In a discussion between UT and myself? Hmmm... I didn't notice. Perhaps you should actually read those post. I refuse to believe you are having this much difficulty deriving the content of posts despite your claims.

Make all the analogies you want- I am trying to keep away from them and still to the facts of the OP.

If the society breaks the colleges rules- it can expect to be disciplined. What is so hard to grasp?

And here I thought we were discussing whether the college's rules were right. I'm not sure what's so hard to follow here. The OP doesn't agree with the practices of the COLLEGE. If you don't wish to discuss it, then read the article and move on.

The college is practicing descrimination against religious groups. I imagine this will become a federal issue and the law will land on the side of the religious group.

I think the CU should take thier members and do the equivalent of a region grab. Go to other clubs that are opposite w/ them (say a wiccan group) and take them over, voting in thier own people and changing the rules.

If the Univ. student union complains, the CU can rightly claim hypocrisy.

And here I thought we were discussing whether the college's rules were right. I'm not sure what's so hard to follow here. The OP doesn't agree with the practices of the COLLEGE. If you don't wish to discuss it, then read the article and move on.
The college says :Right everyone, play fair or you get your money suspended.




The college is practicing descrimination against religious groups. I imagine this will become a federal issue and the law will land on the side of the religious group.

You might call it discrimination against religious groups, they say otherwise (ie that they are only being equal to all)- and apparently the law agrees.

I wouldn't see why not. If the electorate thinks the person best suited to head the society is a fascist then they're allowed to nominate and vote for them. The fact that they posess those views might work against them, but if they're suited for the job (ie, personal skills, artistic talent, contacts etc.), are willing to take it on and have enough support within the organisation, why should it be an issue?

I already pointed out because then it could work just like regions where I could organize a bunch of atheists and essentially take over the group and prevent it from achieving its purpose. Essentially such practices make it impossible for certain organizations to follow their ideologies.

Im actually reading a simliar case for one of my classes. A state in America tried to force the boy scouts of america to allow a gay man act as assistant scout master- based on the fact that a NJ law prohibits discrimination. However the US supreme court ruled that an organization has an "associative right"- they can choose to associate or not associate with someone on nearly any basis as long as theyre trying to express a viewpoint on an issue that if certain types of people joined, thier message would be hindered. Of course this is in the US and not england, however I'm sure they could find someting similar, Im personally in support of the Christian Union.

The college says :Right everyone, play fair or you get your money suspended.

Except the also suspended private money, for one thing. For a second thing, if the college is guilty of discrimination then what difference does it make what they say? We know that the organization mentioned in the article is claiming they are within the bounds of the law. Of course, they're claiming that. However, the law doesn't seem to agree with them. Again, I suspect you're not actually looking to have any discussion at all which is why you keep trying to simplify things to the point of absurdity.

You might call it discrimination against religious groups, they say otherwise (ie that they are only being equal to all)- and apparently the law agrees.

Which law? I haven't seen one posted that says the law can prevent religions from organizing on campus? This ruling by the group in the article has the effect of preventing just that.

It becomes an issue because the money the university provided to allow people to do whatever it is that socialists do has now been wasted, and they have to cross off one of the entries in their prospectus, and socialist will feel discriminated against because they can no longer practice their socialist thang.
What to you mean? A Fascist figurehead doesn't mean the organisation isn't a socialist one. If he wants to stay the head, he needs to fairly represent the group; otherwise, he gets booted out by the committee. But he can do that while still remaining a Fascist himself, which is why people voted for him in the first place.

Slipping out of the analogy, the best representative for the Christian Union to the rest of the university does not necessarily have to be a Christian. What you want is someone who is well organised, can manage the union and deal with its events, finances, supplies and so on and communicate the feelings and sentiments of the group well with the outside world. Supposing a previous President of the University Student Union, a fabulous orator, meticulous organiser and really nice, popular and thoughful guy, though professed agnostic, was nominated to run for the position of Chairperson, would you immediately pass him over?

Im actually reading a simliar case for one of my classes. A state in America tried to force the boy scouts of america to allow a gay man act as assistant scout master- based on the fact that a NJ law prohibits discrimination. However the US supreme court ruled that an organization has an "associative right"- they can choose to associate or not associate with someone on nearly any basis as long as theyre trying to express a viewpoint on an issue that if certain types of people joined, thier message would be hindered. Of course this is in the US and not england, however I'm sure they could find someting similar, Im personally in support of the Christian Union.

Shhhh... you can't have a right to associate. That would be ridiculous because it would actually allow religious people some rights. Can't have that, now can we?

The college says :Right everyone, play fair or you get your money suspended.





You might call it discrimination against religious groups, they say otherwise (ie that they are only being equal to all)- and apparently the law agrees.

Stop being a troll... anyways the law hasnt agreed with them yet, as no court procedings have been filed...

Shhhh... you can't have a right to associate. That would be ridiculous because it would actually allow religious people some rights. Can't have that, now can we?
I thought you didn't want to be associated with other Christians? =P

Except the also suspended private money, for one thing. For a second thing, if the college is guilty of discrimination then what difference does it make what they say? We know that the organization mentioned in the article is claiming they are within the bounds of the law. Of course, they're claiming that. However, the law doesn't seem to agree with them. Again, I suspect you're not actually looking to have any discussion at all which is why you keep trying to simplify things to the point of absurdity.
You're right. I have made my points (trawl back over the past dozen pages to see them if you like) and you're right, I'm not going to bother repeating my beliefs anymore.



Which law? I haven't seen one posted that says the law can prevent religions from organizing on campus? This ruling by the group in the article has the effect of preventing just that.
No, I meant breaking laws (whether it be University or state) as regards who can and cannot join based on their religion.

The private money should be unfrozen, I'll grant you. But the public money? Not in my opinion.

What to you mean? A Fascist figurehead doesn't mean the organisation isn't a socialist one. If he wants to stay the head, he needs to fairly represent the group; otherwise, he gets booted out by the committee. But he can do that while still remaining a Fascist himself, which is why people voted for him in the first place.

Yes, but the whole frigging point of this discussion is that the rules the university propose would allow the fascists to stack the elctorate with any body they wanted, regardless of their views on socialism. So you end up with the socialist potentially forced out of their own society.

What to you mean? A Fascist figurehead doesn't mean the organisation isn't a socialist one. If he wants to stay the head, he needs to fairly represent the group; otherwise, he gets booted out by the committee. But he can do that while still remaining a Fascist himself, which is why people voted for him in the first place.

Not if he brings enough of his friends over to support him. You might ask why would anyone do that? The answer is simple, why do they do it on NationStates? Because they can. My region doesn't roleplay and makes not plays for other regions or anything like that, yet we get invaded all the time. People like destroying things. It's not uncommon. And what better way to destroy a group you view to have a 'competitive' ideology.

Slipping out of the analogy, the best representative for the Christian Union to the rest of the university does not necessarily have to be a Christian. What you want is someone who is well organised, can manage the union and deal with its events, finances, supplies and so on and communicate well with the outside world. Supposing a previous President of the University Student Union, a fabulous orator, meticulous organiser and really nice, popular and thoughful guy, though professed agnostic, was nominated to run for the position of Chairperson, would you immediately pass him over?

I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't be a part of this group. However, should this group be allowed to pass him over and choose someone who is all of those things and Christian? Yep.

Stop being a troll... anyways the law hasnt agreed with them yet, as no court procedings have been filed...

How am I trolling? :confused:

Shhhh... you can't have a right to associate. That would be ridiculous because it would actually allow religious people some rights. Can't have that, now can we?

Just not with public money. ;)

i think I've said all I can/should say at this point :) Twas fun :p

You're right. I have made my points (trawl back over the past dozen pages to see them if you like) and you're right, I'm not going to bother repeating my beliefs anymore.

Yeah? Those wonderful points about how you pretent to not understand that certain groups allow people to 'join' without full 'membership'? That point that took up a couple of pages? Or maybe the wonderful point about how you didn't like an analogy because it doesn't help your argument?

No, I meant breaking laws (whether it be University or state) as regards who can and cannot join based on their religion.

The private money should be unfrozen, I'll grant you. But the public money? Not in my opinion.

They didn't break any governmental laws. That's why it's the CU that wants to go to court.

How am I trolling? :confused:



Just not with public money. ;)

Just look at your signature under your name, that shows you admit it. Furthermore most of your comments are inane and ive seen you at other boards doing similiarly. I suppose you could just be an ignorant idiot unwilling to compromise any of his views despite strong evidence in support of a different opinion(hwich you mostly ignore).

Yeah? Those wonderful points about how you pretent to not understand that certain groups allow people to 'join' without full 'membership'? That point that took up a couple of pages? Or maybe the wonderful point about how you didn't like an analogy because it doesn't help your argument?


No. That took up- 2 posts. And I still have never heard of such nonsense of joining a group but not being called a member. I join a gym- I am a member of the gym. I join a Church, I am a member of the Church.

If it was semantics on behalf of the CU Constitution... then that is different. I assumed now that is what it was.

(And the Muslim/Pope analogy was flawed from the outset)

Just not with public money. ;)

i think I've said all I can/should say at this point :) Twas fun :p

False. Again, show a law that says that universities can ban religions from associating on campus? A law has already been presented that public money and recognition is afforded charity groups even religious ones. Even in the US, non-profit groups, even religious ones, get the benefit of not paying taxes which is, in effect, a grant in the amount of the taxes.

Just look at your signature under your name, that shows you admit it.
Eh? That is something funny TSI said... how is that trolling? :confused:

Furthermore most of your comments are inane and ive seen you at other boards doing similiarly. I suppose you could just be an ignorant idiot unwilling to compromise any of his views despite strong evidence in support of a different opinion(hwich you mostly ignore).

Ok.... :confused: Just giving my opinion mate. I don't take disagreements personally- I enjoy the banter :p
*looks bewildered*

I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't be a part of this group. However, should this group be allowed to pass him over and choose someone who is all of those things and Christian? Yep.
The group should, I agree, but I reckon it should be a decision made by the group itself, not by some piece of inflexible legislation.

And I guess the reason I don't see things like the whole "crashing" thing is that I'm fortunate enough to live in a university where there is still a code of honour. If the CICCU were to be actively invaded by the Godless Heathens society here, people'd get fined for it and the Student Union would get things set back into place.

No. That took up- 2 posts. And I still have never heard of such nonsense of joining a group but not being called a member. I join a gym- I am a member of the gym. I join a Church, I am a member of the Church.

If it was semantics on behalf of the CU Constitution... then that is different. I assumed now that is what it was.

(And the Muslim/Pope analogy was flawed from the outset)
No, it wasn't. It makes the point that people of like mindsets have the freedom to associate and that to force them to have to allow leadership that is not a part of that mindset is patently ridiculous, as ridiculous as a Muslim Pope (which also happens to be an analogous comparison). You don't like the analogy. I wouldn't in your shoes either. It hurts your point.

False. Again, show a law that says that universities can ban religions from associating on campus?
Oh, I had no problem with any group gathering or associating on university grounds. What I had a problem with was the exclusion of some people from the organisation based on their religion. Particularly so, if said organisation is funded (even in part) by my money.

A law has already been presented that public money and recognition is afforded charity groups even religious ones.

True. But do you think that such a law when applied like it was by this group, would or could possibly come into conflict with anti-discrimination laws? :confused:

The group should, I agree, but I reckon it should be a decision made by the group itself, not by some piece of inflexible legislation.

And I guess the reason I don't see things like the whole "crashing" thing is that I'm fortunate enough to live in a university where there is still a code of honour. If the CICCU were to be actively invaded by the Godless Heathens society here, people'd get fined for it and the Student Union would get things set back into place.

That's the point. They are selected by the electorate, but the electorate is limited to the people who believe in the purpose of the organization. Thus the reason for the legislation. It not only effects the leadership but the electorate as well. It prevents a Christian organization that got together as Christians from slowly or quickly becoming an atheist organization, in effect taking away the Christians' right to associate.

No, it wasn't. It makes the point that people of like mindsets have the freedom to associate and that to force them to have to allow leadership that is not a part of that mindset is patently ridiculous, as ridiculous as a Muslim Pope (which also happens to be an analogous comparison). You don't like the analogy. I wouldn't in your shoes either. It hurts your point.

Ok.
From my point of view the Pope/Muslim thing:

The Pope becomes Muslim.
The Pope (now Muslim) ceases to believe in Jesus Christ as Son of God, does not wish to remain in the Church, especially at its head. (Why would he? He's now Muslim)
The Pope, not believing in Christianity, leaves.
No Muslim Pope.

That was my view as to why the analogy was flawed. From his perspective- not the organisations.

We done with this side track now?:(

Oh, I had no problem with any group gathering or associating on university grounds. What I had a problem with was the exclusion of some people from the organisation based on their religion. Particularly so, if said organisation is funded (even in part) by my money.

And in doing so, you effectively take the right to association away from religious groups, while allowing it for any other like-minded ideology. That's the real discrimination.

True. But do you think that such a law when applied like it was by this group, would or could possibly come into conflict with anti-discrimination laws? :confused:

Nope. Anti-discrimination laws are meant to give people equal footing, not take it away. There is a recognized right to association and this action effectively takes it away on the grounds of religion being what you want to associate about. Anti-discrimination is about not abridging the rights of people. As long as all people have equal access to the public funds and people have an equal ability to join a group, then there is no discrimination. However, as has been pointed out several times, how is an atheist injured by not being permitted to run a group for Christians? Freedom to associate.

Ok.
From my point of view the Pope/Muslim thing:

The Pope becomes Muslim.
The Pope (now Muslim) ceases to believe in Jesus Christ as Son of God, does not wish to remain in the Church, especially at its head. (Why would he? He's now Muslim)

Simple. Let's say he believes that in remaining as the head of the Church, he can destroy Christianity from within. Your argument relies on the flawed assumption that because you wouldn't stay, no one would.

The Pope, not believing in Christianity, leaves.

An assumption that was not a part of the analogy. It is possible for him to not leave, which is the point of the analogy.

No Muslim Pope.

That was my view as to why the analogy was flawed. From his perspective- not the organisations.

We done with this side track now?:(
No, you still don't seem to understand. I say 'seem' because I believe you're actually being deceptive and that you got the point of the analogy when it was first posted, which is that the organization is inherently damaged by being running by someone that disagrees with the purpose of the organization.

And in doing so, you effectively take the right to association away from religious groups, while allowing it for any other like-minded ideology. That's the real discrimination.
But how? By removing their public funding, it doesn't mean the cannot exist- they could still get private funding. :confused:



Nope. Anti-discrimination laws are meant to give people equal footing, not take it away. There is a recognized right to association and this action effectively takes it away on the grounds of religion being what you want to associate about. Anti-discrimination is about not abridging the rights of people. As long as all people have equal access to the public funds and people have an equal ability to join a group, then there is no discrimination. However, as has been pointed out several times, how is an atheist injured by not being permitted to run a group for Christians? Freedom to associate.

Bolded: But isn't that the point? People don't have the equal ability to join. Some are told 'No' becuase they don't fit the religious profile.

Rest: I see it as the ultimate 'level playing field'. No promotion nor discrimination of one or another group. Students probably couldn't give too figs anyway. If the don't want to join then they won't.

I just personally feel, it shouldn't be engrained that 'You can't join here because you are not of the same religion'. I should still have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to join- not be dictated to and told I can't.

Simple. Let's say he believes that in remaining as the head of the Church, he can destroy Christianity from within. Your argument relies on the flawed assumption that because you wouldn't stay, no one would.
Fair enough. Yes I would assume that a Muslim would not want to remain in Christianity. Possibly flawed I admit- but then it comes down to the individual.



An assumption that was not a part of the analogy. It is possible for him to not leave, which is the point of the analogy.

Granted. I'm with you now on this road. I never went down this path because I diverged above.


No, you still don't seem to understand. I say 'seem' because I believe you're actually being deceptive and that you got the point of the analogy when it was first posted, which is that the organization is inherently damaged by being running by someone that disagrees with the purpose of the organization.
Fair enoguh. We just took it from two differing perspectives thats all. I went with 'I don't believe in this- I'm going to leave now'. You took it as 'I'm going to take it down for some reason'. Grand.

Bolded: Hah! you give my simple mind too much credit! I don't want to deceive anyone- that would not make me feel better about argueing a point :p

That's the point. They are selected by the electorate, but the electorate is limited to the people who believe in the purpose of the organization. Thus the reason for the legislation. It not only effects the leadership but the electorate as well. It prevents a Christian organization that got together as Christians from slowly or quickly becoming an atheist organization, in effect taking away the Christians' right to associate.
Ahh... I see it now. Here's what I was about to post;
So just how is the electorate decided? Do they have little hand-out cards that say "Yes, I do believe Jesus died for my sins, and I have accepted his salvation, so I am therefore eligible to vote in the upcoming elections"?

It really wouldn't be hard for anyone to associate themselves with the Christian organisation. You've seen that yourself with the likes of Neoconservativism. Short of actually legislating what does and does not make a Christian and undergoing emotional checks to determine the conviction of someone's beliefs, the organisation is going to have an incredibly hard time preventing people that wish to subvert its aims from doing so.
Obviously, therefore, legislating the electorate is impossible. The only choice is to restrict the availability of the candidates.

To be honest, though, I still think that the CU should be allowed to vote in a non-Christian chair if they wanted to. I know a lot of my college's CU members would be quite happy to throw their web-office at me if I wanted to do it for them, and it seems strange that the official constitution would explicitly prevent people from doing likewise for other committee positions.

Perhaps, merely, not advertising the elections other than in Sunday worship meetings would suffice in that respect?

But how? By removing their public funding, it doesn't mean the cannot exist- they could still get private funding. :confused:

But you are denying them funding that other organizations get simply on the basis of the folks being religious. I know, I had a little difficulty with this at first, too, but you can't deny people rights that you give other organizations simply because they are religious.


Bolded: But isn't that the point? People don't have the equal ability to join. Some are told 'No' becuase they don't fit the religious profile.

Rest: I see it as the ultimate 'level playing field'. No promotion nor discrimination of one or another group. Students probably couldn't give too figs anyway. If the don't want to join then they won't.

They have the ability to engage in the activities of the group, but they don't have the ability to change the focus of the group and this is why voting and leadership are restricted to professed followers of the faith on which the group is based and for which the group was formed.

I just personally feel, it shouldn't be engrained that 'You can't join here because you are not of the same religion'. I should still have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to join- not be dictated to and told I can't.

Okay, and by doing so you would effectively take away the right to associate. Regardless of whether you see this, you are discriminating.

But how? By removing their public funding, it doesn't mean the cannot exist- they could still get private funding. :confused:

So they're only partially discriminated against? Well that's Ok then. Anyway, one of the conditions imposed by the university was that they would no longer be able to hold meetings on or, make other use of, university property, hence the part about gathering on university grounds.


Bolded: But isn't that the point? People don't have the equal ability to join. Some are told 'No' becuase they don't fit the religious profile.

Well they have an equal ability to join a group of like minded people, as Jocabia put it. If they aren't christians, then their right is still not enfinged by not allowing them full membership of a christian group.
Secondly, I still think you're getting bogged down by this whole joined/full member thing. They are entitled to take a full part in the activities of the society, they just don't get a say in determining the direction the society takes.

Fair enough. Yes I would assume that a Muslim would not want to remain in Christianity. Possibly flawed I admit- but then it comes down to the individual.



Granted. I'm with you now on this road. I never went down this path because I diverged above.


Fair enoguh. We just took it from two differing perspectives thats all. I went with 'I don't believe in this- I'm going to leave now'. You took it as 'I'm going to take it down for some reason'. Grand.

Bolded: Hah! you give my simple mind too much credit! I don't want to deceive anyone- that would not make me feel better about argueing a point :p

Perhaps, I did give you too much credit and I know saying that sounds like an insult. Maybe I should change it to I gave you credit for something you weren't doing. Fair? He wrote an analogy and listed his assumptions, one of which that for whatever reason the Muslim actually wants to be Pope. I figured you took that assumption in. I accept that you weren't being deceptive and I apologize for the assertion.

Yup its a bitch having to treat people fairly

Yup, it's a bitch that the Guild seems to want to operate in a discriminatory basis.

Okay, and by doing so you would effectively take away the right to associate. Regardless of whether you see this, you are discriminating.

Again, how? They are not banned and their meetings broken up. They would still be allowed to assemble as a private group- thereby making whatever rules they feel like.

There is a University near me which for years, didn't allow Catholics into it because they did not follow the 'right' faith (Protestantism). The fact that I am being dicatated too that I cannot join this organisation- instead of being able to choose whether I want to join it or not- discriminates against me.

Surely, saying all can join if they want- is the ultimate equality. :confused:

Yup, oh how unfair it is not to be able to discriminate on the grounds of religious affiliation.

Anyone who advocates that a CHRISTIAN student group should be forced to allow non-christians in as members, affirms my belief that the majority of the human race is functionally incompitent.

Ahh... I see it now. Here's what I was about to post;

Obviously, therefore, legislating the electorate is impossible. The only choice is to restrict the availability of the candidates.

To be honest, though, I still think that the CU should be allowed to vote in a non-Christian chair if they wanted to. I know a lot of my college's CU members would be quite happy to throw their web-office at me if I wanted to do it for them, and it seems strange that the official constitution would explicitly prevent people from doing likewise for other committee positions.

Perhaps, merely, not advertising the elections other than in Sunday worship meetings would suffice in that respect?

They are actually required to sign a document similar to what you proposed according the the article. Yes, it can be violated, but if there is a problem the restriction as posted in the charter allows them action. Without that restriction there is nothing to prevent them from taking the group in whatever direction they like.

Perhaps, I did give you too much credit and I know saying that sounds like an insult. Maybe I should change it to I gave you credit for something you weren't doing. Fair? He wrote an analogy and listed his assumptions, one of which that for whatever reason the Muslim actually wants to be Pope. I figured you took that assumption in. I accept that you weren't being deceptive and I apologize for the assertion.

Meh, no bother.

I took it to be the guy converts, has a change of heart and wants to follow his own beliefs; that the Pope wants to be Muslim; not that a Muslim wants to be Pope. I saw a difference, there probably wasn't one :)

Nevermind.

Why should they get public funds to discriminate?

Public DONATIONS... Keep on confirming my previous statement.

Again, how? They are not banned and their meetings broken up. They would still be allowed to assemble as a private group- thereby making whatever rules they feel like.

Not on campus they can't. They are also denied funding that is afforded every other philosophy simply because their philosophy mentions God.

There is a University near me which for years, didn't not allow Catholics into it because they did not follow the 'right' faith (Protestantism). The fact that I am being dicatated too that I cannot join this organisation- instead of being able to choose whether I want to join it or not- discriminates against me.

Surely, saying all can join if they want- is the ultimate equality. :confused:

Allowing everyone to join is not the ultimate equality. If every group was required to allow everyone to join of any mindset or belief then effectively groups would cease to exist and there would be no way to protect or advocate the needs and wants of the minority. Given that Christians are the majority in both the UK and the US this would be more damaging to other religious groups, but the fact remains, it essentially denies the freedom to associate.

Surely, saying all can join if they want- is the ultimate equality. :confused:
And that is the problem with absolutes. If you give people the freedom to punch anyone they want, then you take away people's freedom to walk down the street without being punched. Sometimes you have to go for the less harmful option, which in this case I feel lies with restricting voting rights, but not partcipation, to people who disagree with the aims and pratices of the society.

Public DONATIONS... Keep on confirming my previous statement.

No need to insult. We're trying to move away from being insulting and move to a better understanding of the various ideologies expressed in this thread. Please help us do so.

Its so nice to finally see other people agreeing with what I've been trying to say. Thank you Jocabia and Yossarian Lives

Its so nice to finally see other people agreeing with what I've been trying to say. Thank you Jocabia and Yossarian Lives

Happy to help. I suspect you'll like me less, however, the first time we get into a seperation of Church and State debate, but it's glad we're on the same side now.

To better state my liberal beliefs on this issue...

Advocating that particular religious student groups (or other groups for that matter) must allow non-members of that religion into their group, is effectively stating that those religious groups may, themselves, no longer have a recognized "group" in the first place. I could care less what the particular religious group was, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Wiccan, etc... Affirming a stance where non-members of that religion are appointing executives over that particular religious group, and forcing that religious group to include people not within that religion (and therefore creating an effect where that religious group is in fact being barred from allowance to have a "group" in the first place) crosses the line from actual liberalism, and enters absolute absurdity. It's no longer "liberal" in any real sense of the word.

The concept here should be an open market of groups and ideas in public forum. And that the students should be allowed to form groups, and that all of these groups be given equal access to facilities, regardless of the ideologies of each particular group.

Again, how? They are not banned and their meetings broken up. They would still be allowed to assemble as a private group- thereby making whatever rules they feel like.

There is a University near me which for years, didn't allow Catholics into it because they did not follow the 'right' faith (Protestantism). The fact that I am being dicatated too that I cannot join this organisation- instead of being able to choose whether I want to join it or not- discriminates against me.

Surely, saying all can join if they want- is the ultimate equality. :confused:

In light of your analogy, you should see this well then. Effectively these Christians are denied access to forming a student group based upon their own likeness of faith. Denied, in fact, access to a group of their own peers... We're talking of a particular group within the Student Union, not the entirety of the university itself.... IOW, we have a Student Guild here operating on discrimintory levels of similtude to the university you allude to... Espousing that unless groups adhere to this "Absolute Equity" concept, they are barred public forum of the Guild chambers and services...

Equality is a good thing, equal access to guild facilities by all groups is equality... Enforcing that all groups follow some idea of absolute equality, within their "group" is not "equality", because it denies the students right to associate (in public) with their own peers. "Absolute Equality" is a misnomer, because Absolute Equality is always discriminatory, and thus advocates unequal treatment, based upon how inclusive or exclusive a group is... Groups have a right to be inclusive or exclusive based upon the ideology of the group... I see nothing wrong with a Christian Student Union limiting membership and voting power to Christians, or a Muslim Student Union limiting such to Muslims; but I see plenty wrong with telling these groups that they must be inclusive of people outside of their beliefs (and thus ceasing to be allowed a "group" in the first place), or face denial of equal access to public facilities....

Enforced Absolute Equality is an oxymoron, because it is impossible for such to ever give all equal treatment, rather seeks power to deny equal access to some based upon creed.

The same argument can be levied to the "taxpayer" arguments... They are being no more "equal" than the others, because their effect is to state that one set of taxpayers have the right to deny another set of taxpayers access to lands or facilities supported by their tax-money.

No its not a ridiculous rule. By that logic, it is ok for White Supremicist groups to exculde blacks from their membership becuase it goes against their 'religion'.
The very fact that it is accepted as being 'ok' to exclude people from a group is the point- not on whether they would want to join such a group or not.

Its the principle of the law which is a stake here- not the "Sure, why would they want to anyway?" argument.
Apparently these white supremacist groups would be perfectly okay with blacks coming to their meetings then? Somehow I doubt it.

I'd say a university is certainly the last place that should have such an arrogant and intolerant organization like this "Christian Union"! :mad:
If they continue like this, they should be disbanded immediately! :sniper:

To better state my liberal beliefs on this issue...

Advocating that particular religious student groups (or other groups for that matter) must allow non-members of that religion into their group, is effectively stating that those religious groups may, themselves, no longer have a recognized "group" in the first place. I could care less what the particular religious group was, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Wiccan, etc... Affirming a stance where non-members of that religion are appointing executives over that particular religious group, and forcing that religious group to include people not within that religion (and therefore creating an effect where that religious group is in fact being barred from allowance to have a "group" in the first place) crosses the line from actual liberalism, and enters absolute absurdity. It's no longer "liberal" in any real sense of the word.

The concept here should be an open market of groups and ideas in public forum. And that the students should be allowed to form groups, and that all of these groups be given equal access to facilities, regardless of the ideologies of each particular group.

Indeed. Thank you for explaining much better than I did what I've been trying to say.

Any thoughts on this. I personally think it is ludicrous to say that a Christian union must not be allowed to restrict its membership on the basis of faith. Just a quick point also, membership does not refer to comming to meetings. Membership means ability to vote on exectuives etc.

Big fat meh, the CU at my uni have been threatened with being thrown out of the the Guild too, though for attacking another Guild society (the LGBT Society).

Apparently similar things have happened at other uni's. Personally, I don't care, I have a few friends who are active in the CU, but I don't care if the whole UCCF slips off the face off the earth.

Okay, this problem doesn't really have anything to do with religion. Just because a religious group is affected does not make this a religious fight.
If they are going to accept school funds then they have to let everyone in. But if they just turn down the school funds then they can limit the type of people entering.
The school has every right to demand that, if the union doesn't return the funds. I'm siding with the school. Give the money back or let everyone join who wants it.
Legally the CU has no leg to stand on.

It's pretty cut-and-dried. The school can't charge student fees and then discriminate in how those fees are used. The same logic should apply to student facilities that are generally available to student organizations. For the first time, ever, I'm even going to support this opinion with someone else's. In this case, it's the US Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1189).

The Supreme Court, while approving of such fees, also demands that those disbursing the fees use “viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle” for redistribution. The following explains that principle and links to an important precedent, which explains the principle further:

The University must provide some protection to its students' First Amendment interests, however. The proper measure, and the principal standard of protection for objecting students, we conclude, is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of funding support. Viewpoint neutrality was the obligation to which we gave substance in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995). There the University of Virginia feared that any association with a student newspaper advancing religious viewpoints would violate the Establishment Clause. We rejected the argument, holding that the school's adherence to a rule of viewpoint neutrality in administering its student fee program would prevent "any mistaken impression that the student newspapers speak for the University." … When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others. There is symmetry then in our holding here (in Southworth) and in Rosenberger: Viewpoint neutrality is the justification for requiring the student to pay the fee in the first instance and for ensuring the integrity of the program's operation once the funds have been collected. We conclude that the University of Wisconsin may sustain the extracurricular dimensions of its programs by using mandatory student fees with viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle.

Okay, this problem doesn't really have anything to do with religion.

The problem has everything to do with religion, given that the main point here is that a group based upon a religion is not allowed to base itself as part of said religion, and has its funding and access to facilities available to any other group revoked, unless it no longer operates as a religious group in the first place.


Just because a religious group is affected does not make this a religious fight.

Correct, this is not merely a religious fight, this is a fight against discrimination; in this case discrimination being carried out by a tax funded organization (the student guild) upon a particular group of students. And therefore is tantamount to governmental discrimination upon citizens.


If they are going to accept school funds then they have to let everyone in.

Absurd notion, and alien to any concept of protecting the rights of people.... Bigotry being masqueraded as "equality"... I've already made the point that such an absolute concept of "equality" is nothing but a lie for appearance sake.... With no truth, no point, nor any "equality" in it in the first place.


But if they just turn down the school funds then they can limit the type of people entering.

No, the guild is insisting that the CU allow all faiths in, and for the guild to impose an executive from their own ranks upon the institution. It's access to facilities, not funds.... Legal precedent had already estalished that public facilities must be given for equal access by all organizations. The Guild, in the case, does not have a legal leg to stand upon; and I forsee the Guild being taken to court, and loosing. Which would be a great win for true equality.


The school has every right to demand that, if the union doesn't return the funds. I'm siding with the school. Give the money back or let everyone join who wants it.

You appearantly did not actually read the article. The Guild FROZE the CU's accounts (composed of public donations from individuals and churches). Keep repeating your lies to make you feel better, and make you think you are anything but supporting the discrimination that you are.


Legally the CU has no leg to stand on.

You appearantly have not payed attention to 200 years of estalished precedent regarding equal access to publicly funded facilities. Any facilities supported by tax dollars of the populace, must provide equal access to all groups as a public forum, or be considered a limited forum, and give access to NONE... There is no grey area that allows the Guild to bar the CU from the facilities, while allowing access to "others". It is all or nothing, already heard by the Supreme Court in a 9 to nothing decision in 2001 over such a case originating in N.Y.

Any thoughts on this. I personally think it is ludicrous to say that a Christian union must not be allowed to restrict its membership on the basis of faith. Just a quick point also, membership does not refer to comming to meetings. Membership means ability to vote on exectuives etc.
PCness gone on another rampage.

It's pretty cut-and-dried. The school can't charge student fees and then discriminate in how those fees are used. The same logic should apply to student facilities that are generally available to student organizations. For the first time, ever, I'm even going to support this opinion with someone else's. In this case, it's the US Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1189).

The Supreme Court, while approving of such fees, also demands that those disbursing the fees use “viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle” for redistribution. The following explains that principle and links to an important precedent, which explains the principle further:

Um, you realize this is England we're talking about, yeah?

I can't remember if this was said or not. But part of Birmingham SU rules is that if you wish to sign up to group then need to self define as being in part of that group. This is the prevent society committees from being able to reject applications from people they don't like, but instead using the reason that that person isn't actually part group. The final say whether or not a student is part of a certain group is up to the student and no one else. The same way in which the UK gov allows citzens to self define their race/ethnicity.

This prevents incidents such as the US gov refusing to reconise some native americans as being native americans (for a tribe to exist there has to be documented evidence before 1908 - which in this case was distroyed by someone a US official to prevent reparations to the tribe from being paid).

The excuses given by the CU for their continued contravening of Guild rules are quite simply bigoted. Especially when no other society in the Guild suffers from this problem that the CU stated (being taken over by outsiders). None of the other relgious or national societies have ever complained about such a problem.

I can't remember if this was said or not. But part of Birmingham SU rules is that if you wish to sign up to group then need to self define as being in part of that group. This is the prevent society committees from being able to reject applications from people they don't like, but instead using the reason that that person isn't actually part group. The final say whether or not a student is part of a certain group is up to the student and no one else. The same way in which the UK gov allows citzens to self define their race/ethnicity.

This prevents incidents such as the US gov refusing to reconise some native americans as being native americans (for a tribe to exist there has to be documented evidence before 1908 - which in this case was distroyed by someone a US official to prevent reparations to the tribe from being paid).

The excuses given by the CU for their continued contravening of Guild rules are quite simply bigoted. Especially when no other society in the Guild suffers from this problem that the CU stated (being taken over by outsiders). None of the other relgious or national societies have ever complained about such a problem.

Given what I have heard about various Christian Unions up and down the country I think the Guild was just looking for an excuse to be rid of them.

In light of your analogy, you should see this well then. Effectively these Christians are denied access to forming a student group based upon their own likeness of faith. Denied, in fact, access to a group of their own peers... We're talking of a particular group within the Student Union, not the entirety of the university itself.... IOW, we have a Student Guild here operating on discrimintory levels of similtude to the university you allude to... Espousing that unless groups adhere to this "Absolute Equity" concept, they are barred public forum of the Guild chambers and services...

<snip>

Christians are not being denied access to the Guild. Including the BUECU there are NINE Christian societies in the Guild. All the others conform to guild rules, and do not suffer from the problems that the BUECU claims it will if it has to conform to the rules. Compare this to there being only one Muslim society. The Christians have a lot of freedom to do as they wish, just not limit membership. The BUECU is just a bigoted society that can't cope with other people.

Given what I have heard about various Christian Unions up and down the country I think the Guild was just looking for an excuse to be rid of them.True. Especially as the current President by his very nature comes into conflict with some evangelical views. And that the BUECU has been breaking the rules ever since they were part of the guild (at least 50 years ago).

The BUECU is just a bigoted society that can't cope with other people.

We have already proven this wrong. The BUECU is denying MEMBERSHIP (important distintion to attending meetings which has been made earlier) to non Christians which is fair. To force them to accept it is to deny them the right to freedom of asscoation which has allready been discussed in the thread.

Personally I think Freedom of association would run the other way. But since whilst the BUECU is part of Birmingham University Guild of Students private members club is has to abide by the BUGS constitution, which it is legally obliged to uphold. The BUECU voluntarily applied to be part of BUGS, if it doesn't like BUGS policy it is welcome to attempt to change it or leave. I believe the law is on BUGS side here. If the BUECU wasn't part of BUGS then BUGS couldn't tell BUECU what to do.

The way Student Unions work, if you accept their funding, you must file a constitution over which they exercise editorial rights, and must insert any mandatory clauses demanded. I have been on the committees of several university student societies and filed plenty of paperwork. This is simply the way things are done. Don't like it, don't accept Student Union money or use its facilities.

hahahahahahaha!

What a great article. :) It reaffirms my faith in separation of church and state. If only all establishments were so vigilant.

Personally I think Freedom of association would run the other way. But since whilst the BUECU is part of Birmingham University Guild of Students private members club is has to abide by the BUGS constitution, which it is legally obliged to uphold. The BUECU voluntarily applied to be part of BUGS, if it doesn't like BUGS policy it is welcome to attempt to change it or leave. I believe the law is on BUGS side here. If the BUECU wasn't part of BUGS then BUGS couldn't tell BUECU what to do.

Except that now what they are doing is to force the BUECU out of the University since they can now deny them anywhere to hold their meetings. The law has been on the side of the BUECU for the past 70 years and there has been no change recently to mean that they now cannot be part of the univerisity

The way Student Unions work, if you accept their funding, you must file a constitution over which they exercise editorial rights, and must insert any mandatory clauses demanded. I have been on the committees of several university student societies and filed plenty of paperwork. This is simply the way things are done. Don't like it, don't accept Student Union money or use its facilities.

Even if the SU constitution violates your right to freedom of asscoiation?

The way Student Unions work, if you accept their funding, you must file a constitution over which they exercise editorial rights, and must insert any mandatory clauses demanded. I have been on the committees of several university student societies and filed plenty of paperwork. This is simply the way things are done. Don't like it, don't accept Student Union money or use its facilities.
Bingo. I've been in charge of a couple of student groups, and that's how it worked for us. If you want the Student Union's money then you have to abide by their rules. If you want to play by your own rules, don't ask them for money.

Same went for using school property for meetings, etc. If you don't want to play by the rules the school sets out, then meet somewhere else.

Seems perfectly fair to me. When I'm in somebody else's house I abide by their rules, even if I don't always agree with those rules.

Even if the SU constitution violates your right to freedom of asscoiation?

Its not doing that, its denying them the right to use University resources.

Even if the SU constitution violates your right to freedom of asscoiation?
It's just like visiting somebody else's home.

You don't have the right to come up to me on the street and force me to remove my shoes. But if I come into your home, and you have a no-shoes-in-the-house rule, then I am obliged to remove my shoes while in your house. I should do this even if I think it's a stupid rule, or an unfair rule. I should do it even if my religion tells me that it is sinful to take off one's shoes...if I feel too strongly about taking off my shoes, then I should not go into your house. I should not expect you to change your house rules to match up with my personal beliefs. If you CHOOSE to accomodate me then that is very kind of you, but if you choose not to then I don't have any right to bitch. Your house, your rules.

Except that now what they are doing is to force the BUECU out of the University since they can now deny them anywhere to hold their meetings.

Nope, they are denying them University areas as places to hold their meetings.

Even if the SU constitution violates your right to freedom of asscoiation?
Yes. Your freedoms are moderated on private property.

Yes. Your freedoms are moderated on private property.
And thank heavens for that. Otherwise, the Jehovah's Witnesses could sue me like ten times over...I've violated their "right" to assemble on my property more times than I can count!

Yes. Your freedoms are moderated on private property.

In public institutions, the moderation has to be within certain guidelines. This moderation denies the freedom to associate for no compelling reason.

In public institutions, the moderation has to be within certain guidelines. This moderation denies the freedom to associate for no compelling reason.
Not really. They can be a Christian student society anywhere they like, except on Student Union property, unless they meet the SU's membership requirements.

Not really. They can be a Christian student society anywhere they like, except on Student Union property, unless they meet the SU's membership requirements.

They cannot be banned from freedom of association simply because they are religious. They are not barring anyone from membership so long as they are a self-prescribed member of the group of people that are assembling. It's no different than a gay rights group requesting that everyone that becomes a member sign a document that states they support gay rights. To be a member of the group their charter requires one to self-identify themselves as a member of the group. How is that unfair? It's not.

And if the SU's rules are descriminatory, they are the ones in the wrong, not the Christian organization. They are denying them rights to the campus that every other organization enjoys because they don't adhere to descriminatory rules that are biased against religious association.

They are denying them rights to the campus that every other organization enjoys because they don't adhere to descriminatory rules that are biased against religious association.

Funny how none of the other religious groups have had this problem.

*snip*
The rules are the rules: religion, race and nationality cannot be used as a membership filter. For example the national societies (eg a Norwegian Society) are forbidden from automatically denying membership to non-Norwegian passport holders. It sounds strange at first, why should a Norwegian students' society accept non-Norwegian members? Similarly the LGBT society cannot forbid straight people from joining - indeed not only is it an SU rule, but I doubt they of all people would deny others membership of an oganisation based on their sexuality.

Thus the policy encourages openness, and discourages exclusive, closed societies. To use Student Union facilities and receive Student Union funding, all societies must open membership to all students at the university in question. Where it can be proven that a specific individual's motivation for joining a society is to disrupt its activities, that is a separate matter and there are separate procedures. But the blanket rule covering all societies is that there can be no blanket membership criterion.

So to sum up, to use SU facilities and receive its funding, you must submit a written constitution guaranteeing that your society will be run in accordance with the SU's completely open doors equality policy. No arguments, no exceptions.

Funny how none of the other religious groups have had this problem.

Actually, we have no evidence either way on this, but it's a good point. There is no evidence that other religious groups don't have similar things in their constitution and were not singled out. I did look at the guild site and found nothing that posted any rules for being able to use the facilities. I have contacted them requesting those rules.

The rules are the rules: religion, race and nationality cannot be used as a membership filter. For example the national societies (eg a Norwegian Society) are forbidden from automatically denying membership to non-Norwegian passport holders. It sounds strange at first, why should a Norwegian students' society accept non-Norwegian members? Similarly the LGBT society cannot forbid straight people from joining - indeed not only is it an SU rule, but I doubt they of all people would deny others membership of an oganisation based on their sexuality.

Thus the policy encourages openness, and discourages exclusive, closed societies. To use Student Union facilities and receive Student Union funding, all societies must open membership to all students at the university in question. Where it can be proven that a specific individual's motivation for joining a society is to disrupt its activities, that is a separate matter and there are separate procedures. But the blanket rule covering all societies is that there can be no blanket membership criterion.

So to sum up, to use SU facilities and receive its funding, you must submit a written constitution guaranteeing that your society will be run in accordance with the SU's completely open doors equality policy. No arguments, no exceptions.

Race is a poor example, because religion is about ideologies. Also, it should be noted that when I looked into this further the major complaint was not about wishing to have all officers be self-avowed Christians, but because it specifically used the terms men and women in the Constitution which they thought was insensitive to the transgendered and transexuals.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2008732,00.html

I think that's a seperate issue altogether. I do see the defense of a ideological organization requiring you to believe in that ideology before running the organization, but I don't see how excluding LGBTs is a factor in such a thing.

By the way, both of these organizations have been coexisting for decades. I'm curious what has changed.

Actually, we have no evidence either way on this, but it's a good point. There is no evidence that other religious groups don't have similar things in their constitution and were not singled out. I did look at the guild site and found nothing that posted any rules for being able to use the facilities. I have contacted them requesting those rules.

Well my Student Union has a similar charter, and there are a variety of religiously based societies, and only the Christian Union (the one that is a member of the UCCF) has run a foul of the rules and been threatened with expulsion form the Guild, not for the first time. Talking to friends from other uni's reveal similarly that if a relgious society falls foul of the rules it is the Christian Union (the member of the UCCF).

Now, I keep on mentioning the UCCF after each mention of the Christian Union since there are a variety of other Christian Societies that don't run a foul of the rules, for some reason, those crazy Christian Unionists just have to create situations where they can go "Look! Look! We're being persecuted!"

Also, it is hardly surprising that the Uni haven't put up rules for setting up societies is it? If it is on the Web at all it will probably be only accessable to Students and Staff since I cannot imagine anyone else having to refer to the rules.

Well my Student Union has a similar charter, and there are a variety of religiously based societies, and only the Christian Union (the one that is a member of the UCCF) has run a foul of the rules and been threatened with expulsion form the Guild, not for the first time. Talking to friends from other uni's reveal similarly that if a relgious society falls foul of the rules it is the Christian Union (the member of the UCCF).

Now, I keep on mentioning the UCCF after each mention of the Christian Union since there are a variety of other Christian Societies that don't run a foul of the rules, for some reason, those crazy Christian Unionists just have to create situations where they can go "Look! Look! We're being persecuted!"

Also, it is hardly surprising that the Uni haven't put up rules for setting up societies is it? If it is on the Web at all it will probably be only accessable to Students and Staff since I cannot imagine anyone else having to refer to the rules.

Not at all. It should be available to organizations that might want a charter on that campus. Like I said, I sent an email requesting a copy as if I were interested in forming an organization there and wanted to meet the guidelines. I'll be interested to see them.

However, upon viewing other articles, it does seem that this has little to do with requiring people of a given religion as officers, and much more to do with language that excludes people based on things that are not ideological.