NationStates Jolt Archive

There is no evidence that other religious groups don't have similar things in their constitution and were not singled out.
There are compulsory sections and clauses in the society constitution, often based on example model clauses written by the SU itself. You just insert them into your society's constitution to ensure compliance, and adapt the wording of your own clauses to ensure compliance also. The SU has the right to request changes before accepting the constitution, or request changes subsequently, should non-compliance issues come to light. Normally there is no problem adapting the wording, if you inadvertently left something out. The Christian society failed to do so, while other religious societies probably copied and pasted them and made the editorial changes requested without any fuss.

In addition, Student Unions provide complete fill-in-the-blanks constitutions! In the extreme case, a particularly lazy society committee can fill in the blanks on a generic constitution and submit that. No compliance issues guaranteed. Believe me, student bodies are sufficiently lazy that this is the preferred way of dealing with a folder full of paperwork. I bet half the religious societies at the university simply put their name at the top and signed at the bottom.

Not at all. It should be available to organizations that might want a charter on that campus.

Sorry, I think I misread you. I was just saying it was one of those thing unlikely to be found easily by googling or whatever.

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.
Student intranet and free copies on request at the Student Union office. Those are the usual requirements, and are sufficient to ensure all students have a copy on request.

Why would non-Christians want to be part of a Christian Union anyway, why not just set up a 'Muslim Union' or 'Atheist Union' or whatever religion they are.

I can't see what would be the point in joining a group based on Christian principles and customs when you disagree with Christian principles and customs anyway!

I can't see what would be the point in joining a group based on Christian principles and customs when you disagree with Christian principles and customs anyway!
You are absolutely correct. There is no point at all, and no-one ever does it.

However, SU rules state that the door must be left open.

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.

Why the hell would a gay person join that anyway? For that matter why would Muslims want to join a Christian Union?

Why the hell would a gay person join that anyway? For that matter why would Muslims want to join a Christian Union?

I personally know a gay person who is a member of the Christian Union at my Uni. I assume he has his reasons.

Why the hell would a gay person join that anyway? For that matter why would Muslims want to join a Christian Union?

Why would anyone want to be a member? However, it is their right to be Christians and to want to join the CU. If the CU discriminates on anything other than the basic idea that you must be Christian, then I disagree with their actions. I, however, don't think it's expecting too much to expect that a group that associates to promote an ideology have officers who ascribe to that ideology.

If the CU discriminates on anything other than the basic idea that you must be Christian, then I disagree with their actions.

It discriminates on the basis that you must be their sort of Christian.

It discriminates on the basis that you must be their sort of Christian.
In the finest tradition of all societies. :rolleyes:

(whisper it)

- "Is he one of ours?"
+ "Oh yes, splendid sort..."

You are absolutely correct. There is no point at all, and no-one ever does it.
Not so. Where better to be able to talk with Christians and discuss the precepts, implications and consequences of their ideas?

The Christian Union, like the Socialism Society, the Tiddlywinks club, the Scrumping Society, the Debating Union or the Winny the Pooh Sleepover Party (don't ask) is (ostensibly, anyway) for people with an interest in the body's subject; not necessarily just for fanatical devotees. You don't (or at least shouldn't) not join solely because you're not a Christian, you just don't join if you're not interested.

Well on idealogical grounds I do support the idea that a group can limit membership to people who actually follow their ideas.

However, the idea of muslims/hindus/sikhs getting a majority in the CU and taking over is just too funny so I'm going to have to support the University.

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 univerisityUh, freedom of association? BUGS is a private members club and can exercise its rights to restrict access to its services so long as they are not made available to the public.

In addition, the trustees of BUGS do not want to be personally sued for breaching their legal obligations to enforce the guild constitution (the guild is not incorporated so they are personally liable). Precedent does not excuse acts which are against the law.

The BUECU may still book rooms at the Vale accomodation sites and at the University itself. Or they could hold them at their local church or even in their own homes. They have plenty of places to meet.

It's obvious that those who are out to destroy the concept of liberalism have come out in droves to support the bigots in operation of the Student Guild.

Some wish to call the CU "bigots", which is fine, they are in fact "bigots"... I also want to inform those same individuals that by definition they too are "bigots", and anyone who supports the Guild in this matter are bigots BY the very definition of the word.... The difference being however, the CU is not operating in a capacity to support and encourage GOVERNMENTALLY FUNDED BIGOTRY, while the guild, and those who have defended the Guilds position in this matter, have done just that....

Uh, freedom of association? BUGS is a private members club and can exercise its rights to restrict access to its services so long as they are not made available to the public.

In addition, the trustees of BUGS do not want to be personally sued for breaching their legal obligations to enforce the guild constitution (the guild is not incorporated so they are personally liable). Precedent does not excuse acts which are against the law.

The BUECU may still book rooms at the Vale accomodation sites and at the University itself. Or they could hold them at their local church or even in their own homes. They have plenty of places to meet.

If it's a private club, I hope they are prepared for the criminal charges that could be levied upon them for FELONY theft of funds from the CU... Which I'm sure ammounts to enough money to have it's executives in prison for at least 5-10 years....

It discriminates on the basis that you must be their sort of Christian.

It's common for religious groups to establish a core set of beliefs (a creed) that all must adhere to in order to be part of the group, it's an unity of principle; sucg is common to all groups, religious or not, which may be based upon different criteria, though ultimately discriminates upon one basis or another, and I can gurantee that every Union within the Guild operates in a discrimintory fashion (based upon its own established criteria); what is sick about this case, is that the GUILD itself has become the one discriminating....

Uh, freedom of association? BUGS is a private members club and can exercise its rights to restrict access to its services so long as they are not made available to the public.

In addition, the trustees of BUGS do not want to be personally sued for breaching their legal obligations to enforce the guild constitution (the guild is not incorporated so they are personally liable). Precedent does not excuse acts which are against the law.

Being a private member club does not entitle you to remove peoples rights. Also if you believe that the CU is breaking the law by discriminating in this fashion, you must really hate all those churches, mosques, synoguges, temples and shrines everywhere all over the country. Guess what. Freedom of asscociation permits that kind of discrimination.

Being a private member club does not entitle you to remove peoples rights. Also if you believe that the CU is breaking the law by discriminating in this fashion, you must really hate all those churches, mosques, synoguges, temples and shrines everywhere all over the country. Guess what. Freedom of asscociation permits that kind of discrimination.Your point seems to contradict itself. A private members club does not have the ability to remove an individual's right. But it does have its own rights under freedom of assosciation. Which include denial of service so long as the service is only made available to members. For other examples you could look at all the gentleman's clubs that exist in the UK.

Your point seems to contradict itself. A private members club does not have the ability to remove an individual's right. But it does have its own rights under freedom of assosciation. Which include denial of service so long as the service is only made available to members. For other examples you could look at all the gentleman's clubs that exist in the UK.

A private members club does not have the right to force aplications for its membership to need to loose a human right to become a member. Basicly what BUGS is saying is "We control who is and isnt a member here" which is their right, however what is not their right is "to be a member here and use the university facilities you must give up the right to freedom of asscoation"

A private members club does not have the right to force aplications for its membership to need to loose a human right to become a member. Basicly what BUGS is saying is "We control who is and isnt a member here" which is their right, however what is not their right is "to be a member here and use the university facilities you must give up the right to freedom of asscoation"Are, you have a misunderstanding here. BUGS owns the facilities within the Guild building, not the university. The only thing that the Guild doesn't own is the building itself which it rents from the university, essentially for free (I think the rent is a jar of peppercorns per year - which hasn't been paid for years and nor has the university attempted to force BUGS to pay their rent). As such it is perfectly within BUGS' remit to dictate that any society recieving Guild money must abide by the Guild constitution. This does not stop the CU from gathering as a society outside the Guild.

Are, you have a misunderstanding here. BUGS owns the facilities within the Guild building, not the university. The only thing that the Guild doesn't own is the building itself which it rents from the university, essentially for free (I think the rent is a jar of peppercorns per year - which hasn't been paid for years and nor has the university attempted to force BUGS to pay their rent). As such it is perfectly within BUGS' remit to dictate that any society recieving Guild money must abide by the Guild constitution. This does not stop the CU from gathering as a society outside the Guild.

Your missing the point. The CU has been a member of the guild for over 70 years. And suddenly now, for some reason or another, BUGS can no longer accept them and have thus frozen their accounts. That is theft. The CU have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law and if the BUGS constitution requires the CU to change its policy to accpet non Christians into the membership and forcefully put a non Christian BUGS represntative on the CU exectuive then it is the BUGS constitution that is flawed. Since in the real world we let Churches, Mosques, Temples and Synoguges exist and choose their members according to their own rules. You wouldnt expect the socialist society to be forced to accept people of the ideological vain of Margret Thatcher in their executive. It is freedom of asscoation. BUGS do not have the right to remove that all of a sudden.

I've never defended the freeze of CU assets. I thought that was a very stupid idea, as did BUGS' solicitor. I'm only defending that it is within BUGS' rights to to dereckonise the CU.

I'm not a conservative, so precedent alone doesn't hold as an arguement for me.

BUGS was only trying to force the CU to not force their members to declare that they were Christians. This did not extend to getting them to put such members on the CU exec as that would be a matter for CU members and not BUGS. In reality this wouldn't amount to any non-Christians joining the society, and if they did then it is highly unlikely that they would make it to the exec. This is because the CU has a unique way of choosing new exec members (there needs to be approval from the current exec at some point (can't remember where though)).

The whole exercise was pretty academic and pointless except for the fact that whilst BUGS did not enforce the constitution they could be sued for not carrying out their legal obligation to uphold the constitution (which hadn't happened so far, but there are some real arseholes out there). The whole reason for the enforcement was that it was an arse covering exercise.

I've never defended the freeze of CU assets. I thought that was a very stupid idea, as did BUGS' solicitor. I'm only defending that it is within BUGS' rights to to dereckonise the CU.

And I'm telling you that they dont have that right on the grounds they are claiming


BUGS was only trying to force the CU to not force their members to declare that they were Christians. This did not extend to getting them to put such members on the CU exec as that would be a matter for CU members and not BUGS. In reality this wouldn't amount to any non-Christians joining the society, and if they did then it is highly unlikely that they would make it to the exec. This is because the CU has a unique way of choosing new exec members (there needs to be approval from the current exec at some point (can't remember where though)).

There is nothing wrong with a Christian Union making part of its membeship creed be that the people have to be Christians. And one of the BUGS regulations that the CU would have to abide by is having a representive of BUGS on their exectuive, who would most likely restrict many of their activities and outreach programs.

Anyway the whole concept is ludicrous. The fact that a Christian union has to accept non Chrisitans as members is extremely foolish. Its like asking for the vegitarian society to provide a carnivores altenative at a fund raising lunch

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.
If they're getting public money, then they can't discriminate. Besides, I don't think it's anything to worry about. Atheists, Muslims and others aren't going to want to join a Christian group anyway.

If you apply this rule to its logical conclusion, you are proposing that a Muslim should be able to become Pope.
Do you think that the cardinals would ever elect a Muslim Pope?

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.
Silly Eutrusca. I note stuff like this down from many posters all the time. I'm almost an expert at it. One of the ways of doing it involves not declaring that you're doing it. That way you have the element of surprise. Nobody expects surprise!

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? :(
The entire argument is silly. I think this is one of those situations where the ECU doesn't need to impose these rules; the system is self-regulating.

I rather suspect that this is a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the CU, but I could be wrong.
Why would anyone want to do that?

It would be like booting someone out of the Rock Society because they listened to Pop music. Sure, it's weird that anyone else would want to be a member, but if they do, they have every right.

If they're getting public money, then they can't discriminate.

We've already discussed this. Firstly the seperation of Church and state is an American tradition, not a British one. Secondly, we have already seen an example of where the state is giving money to religious groups that are allowed to discriminate membership (see the Charity commission discussion much earlier in the thread. And thirdly, its ludicrous to force these kinds of rules on groups anyway. Its like forcing a socialist group to praise Margret Thatcher.


Do you think that the cardinals would ever elect a Muslim Pope?

No. But you couldnt cry "discrimination" at the fact that they didnt. The same is true here.

If they're getting public money, then they can't discriminate. Besides, I don't think it's anything to worry about. Atheists, Muslims and others aren't going to want to join a Christian group anyway.

In the UK, that is untrue. There is public recognition and support of religious charity groups on a national level.

Do you think that the cardinals would ever elect a Muslim Pope?

If enough Muslims were permitted to vote, quite possibly. Currently in the organization in question, non-Christians are not allowed to vote on their Christian leadership. However, if that rule changed it's certainly possible for someone to do the equivalent of invading here on NS. And for why they would do it, because they can. Just ask the invaders on NS.

There is nothing wrong with a Christian Union making part of its membeship creed be that the people have to be Christians. And one of the BUGS regulations that the CU would have to abide by is having a representive of BUGS on their exectuive, who would most likely restrict many of their activities and outreach programs.

Anyway the whole concept is ludicrous. The fact that a Christian union has to accept non Chrisitans as members is extremely foolish. Its like asking for the vegitarian society to provide a carnivores altenative at a fund raising lunchYou seem to be suggesting that the CU is recieving public money in another post. They are not. BUGS is NOT part of the university, is it separate and distinct. It receives money from the university, but it is still separate and distinct from the university and a private institution, much in the same way BAE systems is separate and distinct from the government. As such the CU society is receiving private money from BUGS, which we have also agreed is a private members club. Ergo, if the CU wishes to be a recipient of BUGS funds then it must abide by BUGS rules.

All student are already members of BUGS. Why would BUGS require that a society have a representative of itself on a society made up of its members? It makes no sense. Can you provide me with a source, as don't know the BUGS constitution inside and out.

Finally, the whole point of the societies is not to provide a focal point for members of an already existing group, but to provide a meeting point for those who are interested in that group, but are not yet members. Such as the LGBT association of BUGS does not exclude those who do not self define as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Nor does the Students with Disabilities association exclude those who do not self define as being disabled. Neither the LGBT nor the SWD have bee overrun by homophobes or eugenicists respectively. What makes the CU so special that if it allowed non-christian members that it would imediately be overrun by people who dislike christianity? I'm fairly sure that the LGBT and SWD represent parts of society that have faced much more persecution in recent history than the CU does.