NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2458965_1,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2459101,00.html

CHRISTIANS on campuses across Britain are preparing to take legal action against university authorities, accusing them of driving their religious beliefs underground, The Times has learnt.

Christian unions claim that they are being singled out as a “soft target” by student associations because they refuse to allow non-Christians to address their meetings or sit on ruling committees

Opinions, thoughts and insites

I would say that this breaches the right of asscoasion and equality of treatment

It's fair, any non official union should have the right to choose who gets to attend and who doesn't.

It's fair, any non official union should have the right to choose who gets to attend and who doesn't.

I'm not sure what your saying here? That the Christian union is right in controling who adresses them and who sits on the exec council or the student union is right in not allowing them to attend using their buildings.

As a christian, this boils down to a conflict between what some of wir faith believe, and the legal requirements of the day.

Legal requirements trump beliefs - behave how you wish in your own home, but in someone else's you live by their rules. Universities and universities' properties are not churches.

I would say that this breaches the right of asscoasion and equality of treatment

I agree with you, people with traditional lifestyles deserve respect and recognition too.

I'm not sure what your saying here? That the Christian union is right in controling who adresses them and who sits on the exec council or the student union is right in not allowing them to attend using their buildings.

I'm arguing for the Christian union.

As a christian, this boils down to a conflict between what some of wir faith believe, and the legal requirements of the day.

Legal requirements trump beliefs - behave how you wish in your own home, but in someone else's you live by their rules. Universities and universities' properties are not churches.

No, but they should treat all socieites with equality, just because they are Christians does not mean that they should be not allowed to meet there. This is what is called the right to freedom of asscociasion

This essentially boils down to "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?" IMHO it's a big no. If the Christians don't like it, meet somewhere else.

Fried Tuna;11966276']This essentially boils down to "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?" IMHO it's a big no. If the Christians don't like it, meet somewhere else.

The universties are not required to provide meeting places for any of the socieities. If they banned the fencing, or the chess or the role playing society though, I think you'd see a problem. If they provide meeting places for one society they should for others unless there is a legimate reason otherwise (IE the group encourages viloence) which there isnt here.

Fried Tuna;11966276']This essentially boils down to "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?" IMHO it's a big no. If the Christians don't like it, meet somewhere else.

I think what it boils down to is: "Can the University discriminate against organizations based on the affiliation of those organizations?"

If the Committee for Latino concerns didn't allow WASPs to sit on their executive board, would that be sufficient grounds for discrimination against them by the university? What if the League of Women Voters barred men from holding leadership positions in their organization?

Anti-Christian discrimination?

That's a laugh.

So it couldn't possibly be because these groups exclude non-Christians, promote homophobia, and discriminiate against transgendered people! No, it must be because they're Christians, and the Man is keeping them down!

Why must people persist in thinking their hatred must be given a pass, while at the same time the ill feelings towards them must be stifled? A double standard, no?

No, but they should treat all socieites with equality, just because they are Christians does not mean that they should be not allowed to meet there. This is what is called the right to freedom of asscociasion

No, it most certainly isn't. Claiming this is same as claiming that I am allowed to hold a satanist meeting in your backyard because of "freedom of association". I don't know who dispenses the times for the places in question, but, since they are free, let me hazard a guess they are always booked full. In this case, some prioritizing is in order, and dropping out religious organizations that only allow in people of certain denomination in favor of some other activities that allow christians in addition to other people seems just reasonable.

The universties are not required to provide meeting places for any of the socieities. If they banned the fencing, or the chess or the role playing society though, I think you'd see a problem. If they provide meeting places for one society they should for others unless there is a legimate reason otherwise (IE the group encourages viloence) which there isnt here.

How about not having enough room for everyone? If you're christian, you can still join a chess club, which means that the school is potentially serving a higher proportion of it's students.

Fried Tuna;11966311']No, it most certainly isn't. Claiming this is same as claiming that I am allowed to hold a satanist meeting in your backyard because of "freedom of association". I don't know who dispenses the times for the places in question, but, since they are free, let me hazard a guess they are always booked full. In this case, some prioritizing is in order, and dropping out religious organizations that only allow in people of certain denomination in favor of some other activities that allow christians in addition to other people seems just reasonable.

1. Your comparison is flawed. My back garden would be my personal property, I am well within my rights to prevent you from using it. However the univierity is a public place
2. This is not about prioritisng, this is about banning. The Christian union has been BANNED, not depriotieisd, from using the rooms

No, but they should treat all socieites with equality, just because they are Christians does not mean that they should be not allowed to meet there. This is what is called the right to freedom of asscociasion

They can't meet because some of the beliefs espouced are, it's argued, homophobic (among other unpleasant attitudes) - which isn't allowed in the universities in the UK. As they rely on state funding, they need to conform to the laws of the state, and can't support groups that don't.

I think christians _are_ a soft target, and an occasional unpleasantness from a minority of us is far from the most important problem british universities face. But it is either conform with the state to get its support, or operate outside it and say what you like.

The unions should just be left alone. If I were them I would accede to the demands and allow non-Christians to address meetings. On the grounds that few non-Christians will want to.

Still, the universities are being quite anal about this.

Anti-Christian discrimination?

That's a laugh.

So it couldn't possibly be because these groups exclude non-Christians, promote homophobia, and discriminiate against transgendered people! No, it must be because they're Christians, and the Man is keeping them down!


Yeah, nice generalized assumptions there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group not allowing everybody to be a member, infact anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. It's their right, it's their choice. Even if they did discriminate against transgendered people etc..., theres this thing called freedom of speach that you get taught about when you are four, I guess you should learn about it.


Why must people persist in thinking their hatred must be given a pass, while at the same time the ill feelings towards them must be stifled? A double standard, no?

no

Anti-Christian discrimination?

That's a laugh.

So it couldn't possibly be because these groups exclude non-Christians, promote homophobia, and discriminiate against transgendered people! No, it must be because they're Christians, and the Man is keeping them down!

Why must people persist in thinking their hatred must be given a pass, while at the same time the ill feelings towards them must be stifled? A double standard, no?

Clearly you do not know much about Christianity or in particualr, how it is practised in the UK

In the UK, we do still believe in many cases, that homosexuality is sinful, however does not mean we are homophobic, as homophobic implies fear of homosexuals. We believe that, like all sin, we are not in a position to judge, which means we cannot condem people. Love sinners, hate sin.

If they provide meeting places for one society they should for others unless there is a legimate reason otherwise (IE the group encourages viloence) which there isnt here.

I see at least two legitimate reasons:

1. They promote homophobia.
2. They discriminate against transgendered people.

Besides, isn't it unChristian to do these things? Isn't excluding people unChristian?

I see at least two legitimate reasons:

1. They promote homophobia.
2. They discriminate against transgendered people.

Besides, isn't it unChristian to do these things? Isn't excluding people unChristian?

They don't.
Even if they did thats not a reason.

I see at least two legitimate reasons:

1. They promote homophobia.

Thats an assumption based upon a misunderstanding about the Christian belief about homosexuality. While Christians may believe its sinful, they also believe that people should not judge. Love sinners, hate sin.

And even if they did promote homophobia, freedom of speech allows for that to the point of enciting viloence


2. They discriminate against transgendered people.

I think the BGLT proberbly would discriminate against a Christian talking to them, even in the manner I described above. There is a thing called freedom of asscociation. We do not force mosques to allow Jews to preach in there sermons.

Fried Tuna;11966276']This essentially boils down to "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?" IMHO it's a big no. If the Christians don't like it, meet somewhere else.
How is it fair to not supply Christians the benefit of meeting, but other, non-religious groups the opportunity? It just isn't, and you can't argue that.

They Christian group should be treated equally as any other group.

I know a little bit more about this case, in one university it is because the wording of the constitution which refers to Men and Women, was seen as discriminating against homosexuals.

in the case of exeter they required a pledge that you believed in jesus before you could become a member and before you joined the commitee you had to affirm an evangelical doctrinal base that excludes a number of christians (orthodox was the example given, i'm sure their are others) from joining, the uni guild therefore changed their name to the Evangelical chrisitan union, it was when they tried to change it back that they were suspended from the guild.

How is it fair to not supply Christians the benefit of meeting, but other, non-religious groups the opportunity? It just isn't, and you can't argue that.

They Christian group should be treated equally as any other group.

THis isn't about religious groups, it's about the beliefs those religious groups apparently promote/abide by.

If those beliefs contradict those the state professes, the universities (which rely on state funding and therefore tend to tow the state's line on legalities) are well within their rights to ban the offending group.

Anti-Christian discrimination?

That's a laugh.

Yeah. Christians being discriminated against. How silly. It's not like that's ever happened...oh except it has, since the religion started and continues to happen to this day in a number of countries.

So it couldn't possibly be because these groups exclude non-Christians, promote homophobia, and discriminiate against transgendered people! No, it must be because they're Christians, and the Man is keeping them down!

Why must people persist in thinking their hatred must be given a pass, while at the same time the ill feelings towards them must be stifled? A double standard, no?

So you're going to discriminate against others because they have discriminatory views? There's plenty of double standards to go around, it seems.

THis isn't about religious groups, it's about the beliefs those religious groups apparently promote/abide by.

If those beliefs contradict those the state professes, the universities (which rely on state funding and therefore tend to tow the state's line on legalities) are well within their rights to ban the offending group.

Freedom of speech requires that you allow for all beliefs and thus all groups. The only execptions are where said group is promoting viloence and ideas linked to that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2458965_1,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2459101,00.html



Opinions, thoughts and insites

I would say that this breaches the right of asscoasion and equality of treatment

Now I'm not the one to start whining about my religion, but I will this time. How come, when Muslims complain about somethign of this nature, they are "ruining" Britian? Yet, when Christians do this, it's really an "injustice"?

I agree that both followers are being mistreated. But why are the Muslims "ruining" Britian when they come up with the same complaints?

Yeah, nice generalized assumptions there.

Oh, and it's not just people whining that they should be allowed to promote homophobia?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group not allowing everybody to be a member, infact anyone who thinks otherwise is insane.

This much of it is debateable, so I don't care so much about this detail.

It's their right, it's their choice. Even if they did discriminate against transgendered people etc..., theres this thing called freedom of speach that you get taught about when you are four, I guess you should learn about it.

No. You need to learn that freedom of speech only means you can say you think gays and transgendered people are icky, or vampires, or should be stoned, or whatever. This doesn't mean that you can expect a state-funded institution to allow you to make a club on their premises espousing this when the state-funded institution must follow laws which forbid it to promote homophobia and other discrimination.

Take it off the campus, and you should be just fine.

no

Well, I guess you can think what you want. After all, people have the right to be wrong.

Clearly you do not know much about Christianity or in particualr, how it is practised in the UK

I know that some Christians like to whine that they can't be anti-gay.

In the UK, we do still believe in many cases, that homosexuality is sinful,

It's that way here in the US too — in fact, perhaps worse, especially considering our own president supports such anti-gay discrimination. And when you live in the US and have a sane mind, you grow tired of it.

however does not mean we are homophobic, as homophobic implies fear of homosexuals. We believe that, like all sin, we are not in a position to judge, which means we cannot condem people. Love sinners, hate sin.

Well good for you that you can manage to not truly hate or fear gays. But plenty of personal experience tells me that you are not nearly a common species. I hear the argument all too often that homosexuality is "icky", as if that is a perfectly sane reason to actively campaign against something.

If these groups indeed do not practice and promote homophobia, then it shouldn't be a problem for them to allow gay people into their ranks, right? After all, it seems this is a major reason why the UK's universities will not allow these groups.

I should point out that a phobia can be both an irrational fear and an irrational hatred of something, and it is quite common for people who think homosexuality is a sin to hate gay people, at least to some degree.

Hm... and as a final note, perhaps one could argue that these groups of "Christians" rightfully should not be allowed to meet and call themselves a Christian group, because obviously these groups profess unChristian viewpoints and lifestyles. What kind of Christian would not accept non-Christians into their group, or gays, or transgendered people? Haven't they learned from the United Church of Christ (or whatever the church was called)?

Freedom of speech requires that you allow for all beliefs and thus all groups. The only execptions are where said group is promoting viloence and ideas linked to that.

I don't think you're allowed to discriminate against people based on their personal characteristics - sex, age, ethnicity. If _that_ category, personal characteristics that you can't control, is judged to include sexual orientation, then I think it could be argued that the christian groups are discriminating against gays etc.

I'm with Weserkyn: "Take it off the campus, and you should be just fine."

Sidebar - I was at uni till this year, and this is exactly the reason I avoided any christian university groups - the ones who go tend to be... very serious minded and focused in their faith, shall we say.

I don't think you're allowed to discriminate against people based on their personal characteristics - sex, age, ethnicity. If _that_ category, personal characteristics that you can't control, is judged to include sexual orientation, then I think it could be argued that the christian groups are discriminating against gays etc.

I'm with Weserkyn: "Take it off the campus, and you should be just fine."

While I would agree that if they're harassing homosexual persons they should be removed from campus, I would not agree that they should disallowed from using campus facilities just because they have unpleasant views about homosexual persons.

Sidebar - I was at uni till this year, and this is exactly the reason I avoided any christian university groups - the ones who go tend to be... very serious minded and focused in their faith, shall we say.

Perfectly understandable.

I just like to mingle with them occasionally and challenge their views, personally.

Nothing like what the Muslims are about to get now that the Special Branch is telling unis to monitor their every move and tell them if they see anything suspicious.

Plus since they hold homophobic views, they can piss off, basically. They can meet in church halls if they want, they needn't been on campus.

I don't think you're allowed to discriminate against people based on their personal characteristics - sex, age, ethnicity. If _that_ category, personal characteristics that you can't control, is judged to include sexual orientation, then I think it could be argued that the christian groups are discriminating against gays etc.


Would the Afro-Carrabien society allow a white president?

This is freedom of assocoiation, people have a right to asscoicate peacefully

They don't.

"The dispute follows the associations’ decisions at four universities to ban the unions from official lists of societies or deny them access to facilities or privileges. Christian unions at Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and Birmingham universities are all taking legal advice after being accused of excluding non-Christians, promoting homophobia and even discriminating against those of transgender sexuality."

You were saying?

Even if they did thats not a reason.

In a state-funded institution, that's all the reason they need.

Thats an assumption based upon a misunderstanding about the Christian belief about homosexuality.

So no Christians hate homosexuals and promote homophobia? None at all?

"The dispute follows the associations’ decisions at four universities to ban the unions from official lists of societies or deny them access to facilities or privileges. Christian unions at Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and Birmingham universities are all taking legal advice after being accused of excluding non-Christians, promoting homophobia and even discriminating against those of transgender sexuality."

And even if they did promote homophobia, freedom of speech allows for that to the point of enciting viloence

Yes, freedom of speech. How can that be construed to mean a state-funded institution which cannot promote discrimination absolutely must support a group that does?

I think the BGLT proberbly would discriminate against a Christian talking to them, even in the manner I described above. There is a thing called freedom of asscociation. We do not force mosques to allow Jews to preach in there sermons.

And somehow this example doesn't apply to universities because mosques, unlike universities, are not state-funded institutions.

Yeah. Christians being discriminated against. How silly. It's not like that's ever happened...oh except it has, since the religion started and continues to happen to this day in a number of countries.

And it's happening in UK universities?

That is laughable.

So you're going to discriminate against others because they have discriminatory views? There's plenty of double standards to go around, it seems.

Take the issue up with Parliament if you don't like it, seeing as there are laws in place that say the universities cannot promote discrimination on their campuses.

Better yet, save everyone the trouble and just go off campus to have your quaint little club. Simple.

While I would agree that if they're harassing homosexual persons they should be removed from campus, I would not agree that they should disallowed from using campus facilities just because they have unpleasant views about homosexual persons.

The law in the UK disagrees with you though, I think!

"Since 1 December 2003, it has been unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their sexual orientation, whether they are bisexual, lesbian, gay or heterosexual"

Discrimination can be judged as:
"Direct discrimination - treating people less favourably than others because of their sexuality, religion or belief
Indirect discrimination - applying a provision, criterion or practice which disadvantages people of a particular sexual orientation or religion or belief
Harassment - unwanted conduct that violates people's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
Victimisation - treating people less favourably, for example because they have complained about unfair treatment."

It could be argued that the prayers, the underlying attitudes it's argued they represent, and exclusions from membership of the groups, all represent a breach of the anti-discrimination laws. As the universities here are essentially partners of the state, they don't have exemption from these anti-discrimination laws that, for example, churches do, so what else can they do?

Would the Afro-Carrabien society allow a white president?

This is freedom of assocoiation, people have a right to asscoicate peacefully

It's not a freedom of association or freedom of speech issue, it's an issue of organisations, the universities and student union, obeying the law regarding discrimination by cutting off affiliation and cessation of support for a group that, it's argued, contravenes these laws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3246916.stm

Nothing like what the Muslims are about to get now that the Special Branch is telling unis to monitor their every move and tell them if they see anything suspicious.

They are telling universities to moniter any encitement of viloence, muslim or whoever


Plus since they hold homophobic views, they can piss off, basically. They can meet in church halls if they want, they needn't been on campus.

They do not have homophobic views. I have already explained this.

Taking "legal action" is better than blowing up the university... you all know what im talking about

They are telling universities to moniter any encitement of viloence, muslim or whoever
And I believe they're telling people to watch out the most for 'Islamic Extremism'. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.
They do not have homophobic views. I have already explained this.
I have met people at the Christian Union of my college. They do hold homophobic views.

They do not have homophobic views. I have already explained this.

You know this for sure? You're willing to believe that the trend of people truly being homophobic towards gays simply doesn't apply to these people? Because it's more convenient for you or something?

"The dispute follows the associations’ decisions at four universities to ban the unions from official lists of societies or deny them access to facilities or privileges. Christian unions at Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and Birmingham universities are all taking legal advice after being accused of excluding non-Christians, promoting homophobia and even discriminating against those of transgender sexuality."

You were saying?.

Someone may accuse you of being a neo fascist anti semetic biggot

Of coruse you may not be one

Note the two words that began before your bolding. Accused of.


In a state-funded institution, that's all the reason they need.

The institution is only partly state funded. Students also pay to go there. It is a public place and thus to refuse them right to asscoasion is breaking the rules.


So no Christians hate homosexuals and promote homophobia? None at all?

"The dispute follows the associations’ decisions at four universities to ban the unions from official lists of societies or deny them access to facilities or privileges. Christian unions at Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and Birmingham universities are all taking legal advice after being accused of excluding non-Christians, promoting homophobia and even discriminating against those of transgender sexuality."


See the words "accused of" again


Yes, freedom of speech. How can that be construed to mean a state-funded institution which cannot promote discrimination absolutely must support a group that does?

It doesn not have to support a group, merely allow it equality with the other groups.


And somehow this example doesn't apply to universities because mosques, unlike universities, are not state-funded institutions

Under UK charity commision laws, furtherment of religion is one of the catagories that allows a mosque or a chruch or a synoguye or a temple to become a charity. Ergo Mosques are state funded, as are churches and synouges and temples.


Take the issue up with Parliament if you don't like it, seeing as there are laws in place that say the universities cannot promote discrimination on their campuses.

Better yet, save everyone the trouble and just go off campus to have your quaint little club. Simple.

If the hocky or the chess or the role playing society was kicked off campus for no reasonable reason, would you be so eager to get rid of them

You know this for sure? You're willing to believe that the trend of people truly being homophobic towards gays simply doesn't apply to these people? Because it's more convenient for you or something?

No, because it is the Christian view. Unless you can demonstrate that they are, I am right. Since what I am saying is the general Chrstian position in the UK, and certianly should be world wide.

Christians should be like God, loving sinners and hating sin.

I must make my leave. I will end by saying that laws in the UK (if they're anything like laws in the US) forbid institutions which are owned by the state and which receive funding from the state to promote discrimination, be it against gays or transgendered people. So the universities sorta don't have a choice but to disallow these groups to use their premises. You can either take it off campus or complain to Parliament about it. You decide for yourself which is less trouble.

And I believe they're telling people to watch out the most for 'Islamic Extremism'. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Maybe because that is the most prevelent example of the current crossing of the line of freedom of speech. The line is crossed when you encite viloence against people


I have met people at the Christian Union of my college. They do hold homophobic views.

I have already explained the Christian position on homosexuality, can you demonstrate how these peoples views differed?

To reiterate the Christian position, Homosexuality may be sinful, but Christians are called not to judge and condem but to love. Love sinners, hate sin.

No, because it is the Christian view. Unless you can demonstrate that they are, I am right. Since what I am saying is the general Chrstian position in the UK, and certianly should be world wide.

Christians should be like God, loving sinners and hating sin.

Not all uk christians believe homosexuality to be a sin; just saying it out loud, so the other countries don't get the wrong impression about all of us...

The usual Christian group bullshit.

"What?! You are penalizing us for not following rules and regulations we agreed to so we can form?! Discrimination!"

I believe the original posting said that the problem was... not allowing non- Christians to speak at the meetings or sit on Committees. I don't believe it said that these folks were not allowed to attend meetings.

Yes, Christians are against the gay lifestyle... and adultrey... and gluttony etc. We see these things as sin. Sin is what separates man from God.Ma n likes to sin and will justify his actions even when the Bible speaks against it. We see Jesus as the bridge between man and God. But, I am no more homophobic than I am adultaphobic. There is no fear of these sins just sadness.

I personally think the group should find a church that will let it meet.

And it's happening in UK universities?

That is laughable.

Then please take your hasty generalizations elsewhere. But thanks for the clarification.

Amazingly, it looked to me like there was indeed some discrimination against Christians, what with not allowing them to meet on campus because of their views. Guess I was wrong. Or not.

Really. Where you come up with the idea that because some people have discriminatory views, they should be denied privileges other groups are allowed, I have no idea.

Oh, right, the law. Hardly a source for good ethical practice, that. It's just one of many stupid laws.

Take the issue up with Parliament if you don't like it, seeing as there are laws in place that say the universities cannot promote discrimination on their campuses.

Better yet, save everyone the trouble and just go off campus to have your quaint little club. Simple.

I don't need to go off-campus, given that I'm not interested in having all-Christian meetings on campus. Hell, I'm not even interested in having all-Christian meetings off-campus.

The usual Christian group bullshit.

"What?! You are penalizing us for not following rules and regulations we agreed to so we can form?! Discrimination!"

And what if those rules are breaching the right to freedom of asscoaiaion

The law in the UK disagrees with you though, I think!

That it does. And the feeling is mutual. Primarily because I don't think discrimination against a discriminatory group is doing much to stop discrimination. It's just perpetuating it.

And what if those rules are breaching the right to freedom of asscoaiaion

Dude, said this before -

It's not a freedom of association or freedom of speech issue, it's an issue of organisations, the universities and student union, obeying the law regarding discrimination by cutting off affiliation and cessation of support for a group that, it's argued, contravenes these laws.

"Since 1 December 2003, it has been unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their sexual orientation, whether they are bisexual, lesbian, gay or heterosexual"

Discrimination can be judged as:
"Direct discrimination - treating people less favourably than others because of their sexuality, religion or belief
Indirect discrimination - applying a provision, criterion or practice which disadvantages people of a particular sexual orientation or religion or belief
Harassment - unwanted conduct that violates people's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
Victimisation - treating people less favourably, for example because they have complained about unfair treatment."

It's being argued (as I understand it) that the prayers, the underlying attitudes it's argued they represent, and exclusions from membership of the groups, etc., all represent a breach of the anti-discrimination laws. As the universities here are essentially partners of the state, they don't have exemption from these anti-discrimination laws that, for example, churches do, so what else can they do?

Dude, said this before -

It's not a freedom of association or freedom of speech issue, it's an issue of organisations, the universities and student union, obeying the law regarding discrimination by cutting off affiliation and cessation of support for a group that, it's argued, contravenes these laws.

"Since 1 December 2003, it has been unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their sexual orientation, whether they are bisexual, lesbian, gay or heterosexual"

It's being argued (as I understand it) that the prayers, the underlying attitudes it's argued they represent, and exclusions from membership of the groups, etc., all represent a breach of the anti-discrimination laws. As the universities here are essentially partners of the state, they don't have exemption from these anti-discrimination laws that, for example, churches do, so what else can they do?

Those laws apply to the WORKPLACE, IE you are not allowed to not offer a job to someone purely on the basis of their sexuality. The Christian union is not a workplace, its an asscociasion. And as long as it is peaceful there is no reason for banning it. As long as it does not encourage viloence against people it is a legitmate group

Maybe because that is the most prevelent example of the current crossing of the line of freedom of speech. The line is crossed when you encite viloence against people.
It's just going to create more problems of the same type.

"how can we sort out the fact that Muslims are pissed off with the public for prejudicing against them?"
"hmm, yes, we can monitor them and have them picked up by the Special Branch if they step vaguely out of line"
"Genius!"

That said, most unis have said that they're not going to comply with this directive for a bunch of pretty obvious reasons.
I have already explained the Christian position on homosexuality, can you demonstrate how these peoples views differed?
Sadly I don't carry around a dictophone around just to pick up hateful comments, no. But had they not made such comments, believe me, the NUS wouldn't have gone against them.
To reiterate the Christian position, Homosexuality may be sinful, but Christians are called not to judge and condem but to love. Love sinners, hate sin.
People pick what they want to believe from the Bible. Sadly, many believe that homosexuality is wrong and they need to harass homosexuals to get their point across.

Taking "legal action" is better than blowing up the university... you all know what im talking about

I see. And how many Muslims blow things up?

Oh wait, there's an insurgency in Iraq that consists of only about 2,000 so-called "Muslims" out of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims!

You can't have intelligent debates with the likes of you, however. This stuff has been said for 5 years now, and yet you still h this to be a legitimate excuse to hate Muslims. This is where "Seperatism" is a great idea.

It's quite simple really: if your little club discriminates, it doesn't get the backing of the university. If you want to be an official student organisation, you must be accessible to all students, not just the straight, white, Christian ones.

So, fuck the Christian unions who discriminate as long as they do. The universities should not condone their behaviour, "religious" or not. Religion is no excuse for anything.

Those laws apply to the WORKPLACE, IE you are not allowed to not offer a job to someone purely on the basis of their sexuality. The Christian union is not a workplace, its an asscociasion. And as long as it is peaceful there is no reason for banning it. As long as it does not encourage viloence against people it is a legitmate group

No, my friend, it also applies to our universities :) "People are protected against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. The Regulations cover both employment and study at the University."

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/policy/sexuality.shtml

In fact, it's now being spelt out that "Although people are protected from discrimination on the grounds of their religion or belief, it is still illegal for them to discriminate against someone else on the grounds of sexual orientation (even if, for example, their faith teaches that homosexuality is unacceptable"

ibid.

It's quite simple really: if your little club discriminates, it doesn't the backing of the university. If you want to be an official student organisation, you must be accessible to all students, not just the straight, white, Christian ones.

So, fuck the Christian unions who discriminate as long as they do. The universities should not condone their behaviour, "religious" or not. Religion is no excuse for anything.

Three words "Freedom of asscociation"

Chruches have the right to only allow christians to adress them in services and vote on issues in their elders meetings. Mosques have the right to only allow Muslims to adress them in their Friday prayers.

Freedom of asscoaison demands that you allow people to asscoiate as long as they do so peacably.

No, my friend, it also applies to our universities :) "People are protected against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. The Regulations cover both employment and study at the University."

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/policy/sexuality.shtml

Again, you misunderstand

What that means is that univiersities cannot discriminate a person from studying at their university on the grounds of their sexuality.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2458965_1,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2459101,00.html



Opinions, thoughts and insites

I would say that this breaches the right of asscoasion and equality of treatment

Did you actually read it? No-one is breaching anyones rights of association or equality of treatment. Quite the opposite, they are simply removing funding because the funding is for all university students, and by requiring that members of the association swear belief in Jesus Christ means they are excluding some students.

As a christian, this boils down to a conflict between what some of wir faith believe, and the legal requirements of the day.

Legal requirements trump beliefs - behave how you wish in your own home, but in someone else's you live by their rules. Universities and universities' properties are not churches.

The way the referenced unions have treated the Christian groups has got nothing to do with legal action.

As you may have guessed from some of my posts, I have no problem with homosexuality or any other sexuality and I believe sexuality is defined by nature.

However, a religious group is entitled to their beliefs. I'm not going to go to my union to complain about Muslim students suggesting Jesus is "only a prophet", nor am I going to complain about a Christian group (or any other religious group for that matter) claiming that being homosexual is a sin, as long as no hate campaigns are started. I would complain if I saw a group of students loudly praying for the souls of homosexuals in a public place, however, if they are meeting]specific place set aside for Christian activities[/b], and praying for the souls of homosexuals whilst they are there, then that'e their right as part of their religious beliefs. If I went to such a meeting, knowing nothing about Christianity, I would have every right to be offended, but not to complain, as it was a Christian meeting in a Christian space - to complaign about such things means that, by the logic of the reference students unions, all religions should be banned because they can all potentially offend.

In short, religious groups have the right to practice their beliefs, however offensive they may be (so long as they do not harm others), in their own spaces. Christians have a right to pray for homosexuals, Muslims have a right to claim Jesus is a mere prophet, and Atheists have the right to claim that no God exists.

Three words "Freedom of asscociation"

Chruches have the right to only allow christians to adress them in services and vote on issues in their elders meetings. Mosques have the right to only allow Muslims to adress them in their Friday prayers.

Freedom of asscoaison demands that you allow people to asscoiate as long as they do so peacably.
Association. :p
Bolded for emphasis...

It's just going to create more problems of the same type.

"how can we sort out the fact that Muslims are pissed off with the public for prejudicing against them?"
"hmm, yes, we can monitor them and have them picked up by the Special Branch if they step vaguely out of line"
"Genius!"

1. The public may be prejudiced against them, but that is the publics right. As long as they do not encite viloence against them, they are free to feel animosity towards them. They shouldnt, it isnt a good thing to do but they are free to do it
2. The univieristies have the right to make sure that viloence is not being encited


Sadly I don't carry around a dictophone around just to pick up hateful comments, no. But had they not made such comments, believe me, the NUS wouldn't have gone against them.

I'm not asking for a dictated conversation, just a summery of their views

Did you actually read it? No-one is breaching anyones rights of association or equality of treatment. Quite the opposite, they are simply removing funding because the funding is for all university students, and by requiring that members of the association swear belief in Jesus Christ means they are excluding some students.

People who are Muslim have to swear their belief in Allah and in Mohammed being the last prophet of Allah. To "join" a religion, you have to believe in the beliefs of that religion. Otherwise the unions should bann all religious groups.

Three words "Freedom of asscociation"

Freedom of association is freedom of association. It is not "freedom to demand free access to university locales" or "freedom to demand money from universities." Freedom of association simply means they are allowed to associate - which they haven't been banned from at all. They just won't be getting freebies and money from the unis anymore since they are not open to all students.

Chruches have the right to only allow christians to adress them in services and vote on issues in their elders meetings. Mosques have the right to only allow Muslims to adress them in their Friday prayers.

A university is not a church or a mosque. So this part is as irrelevant as your futile and ignorant appeals to freedom of association, which has not been restricted at all. It will just not be facilitated any more, and guess what again? There is no "freedom to have one's association facilitated."

Freedom of asscoaison demands that you allow people to asscoiate as long as they do so peacably.

Again: they can assemble. They just won't get money from the uni for it any more, since they are not open to all students.

Did you actually read it? No-one is breaching anyones rights of association or equality of treatment. Quite the opposite, they are simply removing funding because the funding is for all university students, and by requiring that members of the association swear belief in Jesus Christ means they are excluding some students.

Which is discriminating against them, treating their group diffrently.

Groups have a right to select who they associate with. The Christian union is for all the univieristies Christians. In the same way the hockey society is open to all the universities hockey players, in the same way the chess club is open to all the universities chess players

Again, you misunderstand

What that means is that univiersities cannot discriminate a person from studying at their university on the grounds of their sexuality.

No, it applies to all aspects of university life:

"With regard to students, this policy applies to (but is not limited to) admissions, to teaching, learning and research provision, to scholarships, grants and other awards under the University’s control, to student support, to University accommodation and other facilities, to health and safety, to personal conduct and to student complaints and disciplinary procedures"

ibid.

Which is discriminating against them, treating their group diffrently.

Groups have a right to select who they associate with. The Christian union is for all the univieristies Christians. In the same way the hockey society is open to all the universities hockey players, in the same way the chess club is open to all the universities chess players
And there are homosexuals who happen to be Christian, surprise, surprise.

Freedom of association is freedom of association. It is not "freedom to demand free access to university locales" or "freedom to demand money from universities." Freedom of association simply means they are allow to associate - which they haven't been banned from at all. They just won't be getting freebies and money from the unis anymore since they are not open to all students.

They are open to all the universities Christians. In the same way the football club is open to all the football players and the afro-carrabiean societity open to all the afro-carabiens at the university.


A university is not a church or a mosque. So this part is as irrelevant as your futile and ignorant appeals to freedom of association, which has not been restricted at all. It will just not be facilitated any more, and guess what again? There is no "freedom to have one's association facilitated."

There is however freedom of asscoiasion. The univerity does not have the right to ban the Christian society and not others without proper cause, which has not been demonstrated.

And there are homosexuals who happen to be Christian, surprise, surprise.

I've already explained the Christian position on homosexuality

To briefly summerise - love sinners, hate sinn

Here's a quote:

At Heriot-Watt, Edinburgh, the union has been told it cannot join the students’ union because its core beliefs discriminate against non-Christians and those of other faiths.

Virtually every bloody faith's beliefs discriminates against other faiths! You don't go around banning stuff just cus you don't believe in it! The fact that only Christians have been subject to this actions is evidence of two things:

1. It is blatant discrimination, whatever the next few replies may be

and

2. Christians in the UK, due to their generally peaceful attitude (were there any riots in response to the "Jerry Springer - The Opera" programmme? Not that I know of) have been since as a "soft target" for a long time. The unions have played on that, and now Christians have finally started to stand up for their beliefs and rights.

No, it applies to all aspects of university life:

"With regard to students, this policy applies to (but is not limited to) admissions, to teaching, learning and research provision, to scholarships, grants and other awards under the University’s control, to student support, to University accommodation and other facilities, to health and safety, to personal conduct and to student complaints and disciplinary procedures"

ibid.

The Christian union is not a facility. It is a group of people.

I've already explained the Christian position on homosexuality

To briefly summerise - love sinners, hate sinn
So why not let Christian homosexuals into the Christian groups? It's not like the people in those groups would have never committed a sin in their lives.

In short, religious groups have the right to practice their beliefs, however offensive they may be (so long as they do not harm others), in their own spaces. Christians have a right to pray for homosexuals, Muslims have a right to claim Jesus is a mere prophet, and Atheists have the right to claim that no God exists.

The argument is that they are harming others, though. I think they are - not much, and frankly it's making a lot out of not very much, but the universities are right and the christian groups are wrong on this one - the university is not obliged to provide space and facilities for a group if that group breaks the rules for being-allowed-to-be-a-university-group.

If those groups can't abide by the rules, they can't expect provision to be made for them.

They are open to all the universities Christians.

Which means they are not open to non-Christians.

In the same way the football club is open to all the football players

Those are open to people who don't play football.

and the afro-carrabiean societity open to all the afro-carabiens at the university.

Those are open to people who are not afro-Caribbean. If they aren't, they should have their funding and freebies withdrawn as well.

There is however freedom of asscoiasion. The univerity does not have the right to ban the Christian society and not others without proper cause, which has not been demonstrated.

They haven't banned them. They have withdrawn their funds and taken their freebies away. Again: freedom of association is irrelevant because nobody has been banned from associating. There is no such thing as "freedom to have one's association facilitated."

Really, you seem to have no idea what freedom of association means, let alone how to spell it.

Well good for you that you can manage to not truly hate or fear gays. But plenty of personal experience tells me that you are not nearly a common species. I hear the argument all too often that homosexuality is "icky", as if that is a perfectly sane reason to actively campaign against something.

Well, homosexual activity, according to the Christian belief system, is a sin. Simply being homosexual isn't a sin, it just means that they have a heavier cross to bear, so to speak.

If these groups indeed do not practice and promote homophobia, then it shouldn't be a problem for them to allow gay people into their ranks, right? After all, it seems this is a major reason why the UK's universities will not allow these groups.

If they are openly practicing homosexuality, then no, they really don't have to. Just like they shouldn't let people in that openly engage in sodomy or anything else anti-Christian willfully and without regret.

I should point out that a phobia can be both an irrational fear and an irrational hatred of something, and it is quite common for people who think homosexuality is a sin to hate gay people, at least to some degree.

Not really, but people will interpret disapproval as hatred to further their own personal agenda.

Hm... and as a final note, perhaps one could argue that these groups of "Christians" rightfully should not be allowed to meet and call themselves a Christian group, because obviously these groups profess unChristian viewpoints and lifestyles. What kind of Christian would not accept non-Christians into their group, or gays, or transgendered people? Haven't they learned from the United Church of Christ (or whatever the church was called)?

You do bring up a good point here: the various Christian denominations hold such varying doctrinal viewpoints (some to the point of no longer being Christian) that it's almost impossible to secularly define "Christian" anymore.

And, if it's a Christian Club, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to invite anti-Christians or people who openly practice things that go against Christianity, would it?

The Christian union is not a facility. It is a group of people.

... it is a formal group affiliated with and supported by the university. The university has rules for the groups that affiliate with it. If the groups do not meet or otherwise break these criteria, they are not to be affiliated with the university.

The rules apply to these groups, friend, and the groups are breaking the rules. Either don't break the rules and get the support, or go somewhere else to be a group, outside the restrictions the university applies to all its various parts, including official student groups.

The argument is that they are harming others, though. I think they are - not much, and frankly it's making a lot out of not very much, but the universities are right and the christian groups are wrong on this one - the university is not obliged to provide space and facilities for a group if that group breaks the rules for being-allowed-to-be-a-university-group.

If those groups can't abide by the rules, they can't expect provision to be made for them.

And the universites are not within there right to withhold funding for a group for a reason that is not legal. The universties do not have the right to withdraw funding from this group as they are not breaking any legitmate rules

That said, most unis have said that they're not going to comply with this directive for a bunch of pretty obvious reasons.
There are still ways the government could monitor campus extremism. Such as forcing the universities to cooperate with the authorities. Or recruiting a network of students as informants who could provide information to the authorities.

As for the topic at hand, I think it's a bit hypocritical for them to exclude christian groups when most universities seem to be more than happy to support islamic student groups. Lets face it, those will hardly be bastions of tolerance. Yes, the christian groups aren't perfect but surely it's better to see student groups operating that try and steer students away from things like binge drinking and rampant unprotected sex?

So why not let Christian homosexuals into the Christian groups? It's not like the people in those groups would have never committed a sin in their lives.

You'd be correct in the fact that they have also sinned, as everyone has. However, it's a matter of their (refering to "Christian homosexuals") continual engagement in homosexuality, knowing full well it is forbidden, and not caring.

And the universites are not within there right to withhold funding for a group for a reason that is not legal. The universties do not have the right to withdraw funding from this group as they are not breaking any legitmate rules

Yes, they are breaking legitimate rules, according to the laws I've referenced above. Which do apply to official student groups, similarly referenced.

I know no one wants to hear this, but....Leviticus 18: 22 says"You shall not lie with a male as a woman. It is an abomination." "... God gave them upto vile passions .For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise the menleaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful..." Romans 1:26-27

A lot of people are fooling themselves if they think God will allow us to sin and get a way with it. He feels equally as strong about other unrepented sins.

I wonder which UK university Neo Sanderstead attends. I mean, he must attend a UK university since he knows so much about the rules of membership for all these societies, although if I recall my university days correctly things must have changed greatly. Unless of course Neo Sanderstead doesn't actually attend a UK university and is talking out of his arse.

A lot of people are fooling themselves if they think God will allow us to sin and get a way with it. He feels equally as strong about other unrepented sins.

A lot of people are fooling themselves if they think those of us who don't believe in god actually care.

Which means they are not open to non-Christians.

You cannot become a chruch member without being a Christian. You may go to a chruch but thats very diffrent. Being a member means voting on the decons etc


Those are open to people who don't play football.

If you dont play football you cant be on any of the teams.


Those are open to people who are not afro-Caribbean. If they aren't, they should have their funding and freebies withdrawn as well.

Those people are meeting together not to be racist but to meet with people of a similar background and heritage.

The Ex-pat society is another one.


They haven't banned them. They have withdrawn their funds and taken their freebies away. Again: freedom of association is irrelevant because nobody has been banned from associating. There is no such thing as "freedom to have one's association facilitated."

Really, you seem to have no idea what freedom of association means, let alone how to spell it.

1. Spelling is irrelevent. The human brain can understand a word as long as the last and first letters are the same. Don't mock spelling as part of an argument, it isnt one

2. Taking away their right to asscoiate on campus without due cause IS breaking their right to asscoiate. They will not let them use the universities facilities despite the fact that they can and will pay to use them (they do not pay as much because they are a society, thats what the benefits of bein a society means)

The argument is that they are harming others, though. I think they are - not much, and frankly it's making a lot out of not very much, but the universities are right and the christian groups are wrong on this one - the university is not obliged to provide space and facilities for a group if that group breaks the rules for being-allowed-to-be-a-university-group.

If those groups can't abide by the rules, they can't expect provision to be made for them.

If "the rules" state that you can't practice the beliefs of your religion, every religion should be subject to the same treatment that the Christian groups have received. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

Yes, they are breaking legitimate rules, according to the laws I've referenced above. Which do apply to official student groups, similarly referenced.

No they do not. They refer to facilities. IE You cannot prevent a person going to the cafiteria, getting a place in halls of residence, using the liberary, going to the university thertre or concert hall on the basis of their sexuality. Those are facilities, not groups.

1. Spelling is irrelevent. The human brain can understand a word as long as the last and first letters are the same. Don't mock spelling as part of an argument, it isnt one


That's completely untrue. Maybe you shouldn't believe every bit of rubbish you read on the internet.

People keep going on about rules, but the only "rule" the groups seem to have "broken" is that they have practiced their beliefs in spaces set aside for such acitivity. Treating them the way they have been treated, without doing the same to other groups, is clearly discrimination.

That's completely untrue. Maybe you shouldn't believe every bit of rubbish you read on the internet.

Fnnuy, I can do it. I dont see why aobnydy esle cnat

Which other groups?

Which other groups?

There are other religions...

Fnnuy, I can do it. I dont see why aobnydy esle cnat

But you are incapable of using words of more than a couple of syllables, and since you can't spell to begin with your words would be complete nonsense. You obviously haven't been to a UK university.

1. The public may be prejudiced against them, but that is the publics right. As long as they do not encite viloence against them, they are free to feel animosity towards them. They shouldnt, it isnt a good thing to do but they are free to do it
And they can expect the same in return, then.
2. The univieristies have the right to make sure that viloence is not being encited
True. And at least most of them have said that they won't agree to the directive.
I'm not asking for a dictated conversation, just a summery of their views
"[Homosexuals are] sinful bastards - we'd be better off without them".

There are other religions...

So where's the evidence that they are precluding non-believers from joining their student associations? I'm an atheist, I addressed both the Jewish and Muslim associations when I was at University.

You cannot become a chruch member without being a Christian. You may go to a chruch but thats very diffrent. Being a member means voting on the decons etc

Again: this is not a Church. Stop dealing in the irrelevant.

If you dont play football you cant be on any of the teams.

But you are allowed to join the student football club and you are allowed to try out for the team like everyone else, even if you haven't played it a single time before.

Those people are meeting together not to be racist but to meet with people of a similar background and heritage.

Again: irrelevant. If they exclude based on race, they are racist, not matter what they meet for.

The Ex-pat society is another one.

Again, those are open to all students. If not, they should have their freebies and funding withdrawn as well.

1. Spelling is irrelevent. The human brain can understand a word as long as the last and first letters are the same. Don't mock spelling as part of an argument, it isnt one

If you are not going to respect me enough as an interlocutor to make sure your language is correct, I will not respect you as an interlocutor.

2. Taking away their right to asscoiate on campus without due cause IS breaking their right to asscoiate. They will not let them use the universities facilities despite the fact that they can and will pay to use them (they do not pay as much because they are a society, thats what the benefits of bein a society means)

Again: they have not been banned from associating. They can associate whenever they want. The University is in no way obligated to offer them either free locales or money, or even locales should they wish to pay for them if they are in violation of the university's anti-discrimination statues, which these groups are. Again: stop dealing in the irrelevant, i.e. "freedom of association."

Kradlumania: Hon...I'm not fooling myself about you. That's the reason sin is a sad thing. You may not believe in God now but someday you will.

And they can expect the same in return, then.

Indeed. Neither side should do it, but its not something you can legislate against


True. And at least most of them have said that they won't agree to the directive.

As long as the directive is universally applied (IE not just focusing on Islam) it is fine


"[Homosexuals are] sinful bastards - we'd be better off without them".

Next time you see them, ask them in what way God sees homosexuals as any more sinful than anyone else. Everyone is sinful and everyone needs Jesus

No they do not. They refer to facilities. IE You cannot prevent a person going to the cafiteria, getting a place in halls of residence, using the liberary, going to the university thertre or concert hall on the basis of their sexuality. Those are facilities, not groups.

I'm as tired of this as I guess you are.

Primarily, facilities would apply to the rooms, refreshments, notice board space, university intranet system and fora offered for groups, web access etc etc that the 'group of people' use as part of being a formal group within and supported by the university. So, use of them by a body, a group, that discriminates is not allowed under university rules.

As a secondary point, the regulations also state that they are not limited to the activies etc listed, that they are not an exclusive list, but rather seem to be a series of examples that should be taken as being indicative of university policy. Your objections assume the opposite.

People keep going on about rules, but the only "rule" the groups seem to have "broken" is that they have practiced their beliefs in spaces set aside for such acitivity. Treating them the way they have been treated, without doing the same to other groups, is clearly discrimination.

Interestingly, making your post bold in no way makes what it says any more valid. The fact is these groups want access to university perks and university spaces, but they also want to exclude students from the group. That's a no-no if you indeed do want those perks and spaces. Religion is not an excuse for discriminatory policies.

So where's the evidence that they are precluding non-believers from joining their student associations? I'm an atheist, I addressed both the Jewish and Muslim associations when I was at University.

I misunderstood your question. There really is no evidence.

Indeed. Neither side should do it, but its not something you can legislate against
Yes...
As long as the directive is universally applied (IE not just focusing on Islam) it is fine
The wording of the document focuses on Muslims over anyone else. Most unis are going against it because of that, and because they don't agree with spying on students.
Next time you see them, ask them in what way God sees homosexuals as any more sinful than anyone else. Everyone is sinful and everyone needs Jesus
And they'll reply with the same quotes that Phelps dispenses on a daily basis.

Again: this is not a Church. Stop dealing in the irrelevant.

Churches, like univiersites, are treeted with finacial benefits and speical mesures. Furtherment of religion under UK Charitiy Commision law is a legitmate charitable enterprise, hence they get charity recognition. In the same way univierities are granted certian tax exemt and other special reconitions by the Chrarity commision


But you are allowed to join the student football club and you are allowed to try out for the team like everyone else, even if you haven't played it a single time before.

Your not allowed to join up if you use the teams resources (IE food etc) and do not try out and refuse to play a game of football at all.


Again: irrelevant. If they exclude based on race, they are racist, not matter what they meet for.

You are being rediculous. People are allowed to associate in that manner outside the university as long as they are being peaceful. The same should be true in the universtiy.


If you are not going to respect me enough as an interlocutor to make sure your language is correct, I will not respect you as an interlocutor.

I dont care what you think of me, you will however listen to the arguments. The arguments I make are independent of me as a person. You read and respect and discuss them, not their presentation


Again: they have not been banned from associating. They can associate whenever they want. The University is in no way obligated to offer them either free locales or money, or even locales should they wish to pay for them if they are in violation of the university's anti-discrimination statues, which these groups are. Again: stop dealing in the irrelevant, i.e. "freedom of association."

The university provides facilities to associate to all kinds of groups. It cannot deny those rights to any one set of people unless they are breaking the law in some fashion, and the Christian union is not

You may not believe in God now but someday you will.

Sorry, but you are an atheist as well. You dismissed tonnes of gods when you chose to believe in the one that you believe in. We just dismiss one more god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the other ones, you will understand why we dismiss yours.

But do have fun praying to your sky wizard. It's as useful as dancing for rain.

Yeah, nice generalized assumptions there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group not allowing everybody to be a member, infact anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. It's their right, it's their choice. Even if they did discriminate against transgendered people etc..., theres this thing called freedom of speach that you get taught about when you are four, I guess you should learn about it.

Interesting.

So, would you have a problem if, tomorrow, prominent groups on college campuses throughout the world began excluding Christians on the basis of their religious beliefs?

There is, after all, absolutely nothing wrong with a group not allowing everybody to be a member.

Interestingly, making your post bold in no way makes what it says any more valid. The fact is these groups want access to university perks and university spaces, but they also want to exclude students from the group. That's a no-no if you indeed do want those perks and spaces. Religion is not an excuse for discriminatory policies.

People have a right to choose who they associate with. Chruches are allowed to discriminate their membership on the basis of religion. Anyone can visit the church and come to the services, but to be a member you must be a Christian, and being a member means to vote on decons and other issues

Again: they have not been banned from associating. They can associate whenever they want. The University is in no way obligated to offer them either free locales or money, or even locales should they wish to pay for them if they are in violation of the university's anti-discrimination statues, which these groups are. Again: stop dealing in the irrelevant, i.e. "freedom of association."

I wasn't aware that they could actually take money from the university, therefore the taxpayers. Frankly, no student organization should be recieving university funds. At my High School, you can form a club for whatever you want, as long as there's a teacher willing to be your advisor. Then, you're basically on your own, raising your own money, et al.

So why not let Christian homosexuals into the Christian groups? It's not like the people in those groups would have never committed a sin in their lives.

Looking at my university's Christian Union's constitution, there is nothing stopping homosexual Christians joining the CU.
And of the few meetings I've attended, I've never come across any homophobia. Though I've heard of some old stories of harassment, I've never come across any.

It is true though that the constitution does make explicit mention of accepting a Doctrinal basis i.e. that I "desire to declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour, my Lord, and my God." Having said this, my college group is not very stringent on this. I was never made to accept the Doctrinal basis; I doubt others who have been invited along to the college groups have been made to accept the Doctrinal basis before they can come. In fact, the invitations I keep getting come from probably the nicest and most non-offensive person in the college, who wouldn't dream of imposing anything on anyone. Hehe, I couldn't imagine him even hurting a bug :p
A brief glance at the university Jewish and Islamic societies, there are no such doctrinal limits on membership. The homepage of the Islamic Society makes clear that its membership includes many non-Muslims.

The CU holds a series of Friday talks in my college covering a range of topics that are open to everyone to come along to, and I've heard of a few atheists making an effort to go along and heckle, especially when the topic of the talk is controversial. These though have been isolated occurrences; other atheists I know try to come up with more imaginative ways of disrupting them... like having their own very loud lunch nearby (the CU gives away free lunch), or asking really, really stubborn questions whenever given the opportunity.
However, the CU is an object of much hatred within my university because of its evangelical actions. Heck, other Christian groups tend to disassociate with them; even I'm a bit wary, knowing the attitudes of some students. I can possibly understand why the CU may want to ensure that it is not hijacked by people who have an extremely negative attitude towards it.

Interesting.

So, would you have a problem if, tomorrow, prominent groups on college campuses throughout the world began excluding Christians on the basis of their religious beliefs?

There is, after all, absolutely nothing wrong with a group not allowing everybody to be a member.

The discrimination is based on the nature of the group

For instance, it is silly not to expect a Christian group to not discriminate against non-Christian membership, after all it is a Chrsitian group. It is also silly not to expect Christian groups to allow homosexuals to be members as they believe homosexuality is sinful and to be a Christian is to attempt not to sin. It is also silly to expect a Muslim society to accept a Hindu president or keynote speeker or for there to be a bbq at the vegitarian society.

However for a hockey group to discriminate against Shieks is silly as there is nothing in a shieks nature or hockey's nature to disallow them from playing hockey

People have a right to choose who they associate with. Chruches are allowed to discriminate their membership on the basis of religion. Anyone can visit the church and come to the services, but to be a member you must be a Christian, and being a member means to vote on decons and other issues

As has been pointed out, a university is not a church. And my points in my last post still stand: the groups use the facilities of the uni - that's what the support is; and the regulations give examples, not a definitive list, in order to provide describtion of the uni's policy.

Which uni did you go to, btw? QMUC and university of Glasgow here :)

Chruchs looks so much like crutchs. What kind of christian can't even spell church?
Anyone know what a shiek is? Is that a Sheik or a Sikh?

As has been pointed out, a university is not a church. And my points in my last post still stand: the groups use the facilities of the uni - that's what the support is; and the regulations give examples, not a definitive list, in order to provide describtion of the uni's policy.

Which uni did you go to, btw? QMUC and Glasgow university of Glasgow here :)

I go to the University of Kent at Canterbury. Here our CU choose not to be a member of the SU for avoiding this kind of issue.

The point does not stand. Universities are not allowed to prevent people using the facilities on the basis of their sexuality. However Christian unions are allowed to discriminate on their membership because the Christian union is not a facilitiy.

People have a right to choose who they associate with. Chruches are allowed to discriminate their membership on the basis of religion. Anyone can visit the church and come to the services, but to be a member you must be a Christian, and being a member means to vote on decons and other issues

I suppose I personally find it a bit curious, to say the least.

It seems to me that Christians speak loudest about their rights to exclude others when they are in the majority... yet, when push comes to shove and Christians are in a minority, there seems to be a problem when Christians are excluded from some groups. It then becomes "unjust discrimination" or a "persecution" of sorts.

I asked this same question to another poster, and I will ask you: with what you have said, could you stand by and say "that's quite okay" if prominent groups on college campuses were to say, "We don't want to allow Christians to join our groups?"

Churches, like univiersites, are treeted with finacial benefits and speical mesures. Furtherment of religion under UK Charitiy Commision law is a legitmate charitable enterprise, hence they get charity recognition. In the same way univierities are granted certian tax exemt and other special reconitions by the Chrarity commision

Again: this is not a Church, nor is it charity. Cut out the irrelevancies, as they are making me less prone to reading your posts.

Your not allowed to join up if you use the teams resources (IE food etc) and do not try out and refuse to play a game of football at all.

Actually, you are. You just have to pay whatever fee they ask for, or assist the group in other ways.

You are being rediculous. People are allowed to associate in that manner outside the university as long as they are being peaceful. The same should be true in the universtiy.

Actually, they're not - they are subject to anti-discrimination laws as well, but the rest of society is irrelevant (again! seriously, your irrelevancies are getting so tiring) as it is not subject to university statutes. The university and these clubs are. And again, and again, and again, and again: they have not been banned from associating. They have just gotten their perks and uni money withdrawn.

I dont care what you think of me, you will however listen to the arguments. The arguments I make are independent of me as a person. You read and respect and discuss them, not their presentation

Not when the presentation is so flawed, and the "arguments," (and in the case of yours I use that term very loosely) are so irrelevant and poorly construed.

The university provides facilities to associate to all kinds of groups. It cannot deny those rights to any one set of people unless they are breaking the law in some fashion, and the Christian union is not

They can deny those rights if the groups are in violation of University anti-discrimination statutes, which these groups are.

However for a hockey group to discriminate against Shieks is silly as there is nothing in a shieks nature or hockey's nature to disallow them from playing hockey
I think it isn't particularly in a 'shieks''nature to play hockey ;)

What is your first language?

What is your first language?

Me? English.

What is your first language?

English. Its almost 2 oclock here though and I'm lax about spelling online

It's almost 2 o'clock here too, and I've been in the pub all night. I can't believe UK universities let in people who are illiterate nowadays

I go to the University of Kent at Canterbury. Here our CU choose not to be a member of the SU for avoiding this kind of issue.

The point does not stand. Universities are not allowed to prevent people using the facilities on the basis of their sexuality. However Christian unions are allowed to discriminate on their membership because the Christian union is not a facilitiy.

Thanks for the uni info :)

As for the rest... whatever, man. It's late and you're arguing black is white. Enjoy the remainder of your night!

Dear Fassigen: I dismissed the other gods as false ones: I assume you dismiss my God as false. I have no problem with that. One of us is right and the other wrong. If you are right, no problem. I have led as peaceful and as loving a life as I could. If I am right,however, I would like to think that tonight in this one brief moment, I tried to connect with you.

People have a right to choose who they associate with. Chruches are allowed to discriminate their membership on the basis of religion. Anyone can visit the church and come to the services, but to be a member you must be a Christian, and being a member means to vote on decons and other issues

I've no patience for such irrelevancies, so please do not address me lest you decide to abandon them.

Again: this is not a Church, nor is it charity. Cut out the irrelevancies, as they are making me less prone to reading your posts.

They both recieve the same kind of financial benefits from the state. Ergo they are comparable


Actually, you are. You just have to pay whatever fee they ask for, or assist the group in other ways.

If you refuse to assist the group or do anything to contribute they will remove you.


Actually, they're not - they are subject to anti-discrimination laws as well, but the rest of society is irrelevant (again! seriously, your irrelevancies are getting so tiring) as it is not subject to university statutes. The university and these clubs are. And again, and again, and again, and again: they have not been banned from associating. They have just gotten their perks and uni money withdrawn.

People in the real world outside of univerity are allowed to assciote peacably in any manner and in any discriminatary way they choose. What they are not allowed to do is provide a service in an illgeally discriminatary fashion.


They can deny those rights if the groups are in violation of University anti-discrimination statutes, which these groups are.

And if the university anti-discrimination statutes are out of line with government anti-discrimination statutes?

It's almost 2 o'clock here too, and I've been in the pub all night. I can't believe UK universities let in people who are illiterate nowadays

I am not illierate. I simply do not consider online forum discussions places where I need to be very precise with my spelling

Please refrain from insulting me.

They both recieve the same kind of financial benefits from the state. Ergo they are comparable

They're not, which is the point you so valiantly miss.

Dear Fassigen: I dismissed the other gods as false ones: I assume you dismiss my God as false. I have no problem with that. One of us is right and the other wrong. If you are right, no problem. I have led as peaceful and as loving a life as I could. If I am right,however, I would like to think that tonight in this one brief moment, I tried to connect with you.

You're as bound to be right as the shaman that rubs his juju-bag and asks the great spirit to grant him magical powers. You can then see why I don't entertain that possibility all too much...

Please refrain from insulting the rest of us by not bothering to spell correctly (and you are so far beyond imprecise spelling that to claim you are simply not being precise is laughable). Even when you are obviously trying to spell correctly you make glaring schoolboy errors.

You don't understand the university society regulations and continuing to argue your point is making you look a fool.

The discrimination is based on the nature of the group

For instance, it is silly not to expect a Christian group to not discriminate against non-Christian membership, after all it is a Chrsitian group. It is also silly not to expect Christian groups to allow homosexuals to be members as they believe homosexuality is sinful and to be a Christian is to attempt not to sin. It is also silly to expect a Muslim society to accept a Hindu president or keynote speeker or for there to be a bbq at the vegitarian society.

However for a hockey group to discriminate against Shieks is silly as there is nothing in a shieks nature or hockey's nature to disallow them from playing hockey
There is a difference between expecting a Muslim college society to accept a Hindu president or keynote speaker and simply expecting that college society to accept Hindu members. No one is arguing the former, but the latter would hold as true for Muslims as it does for Christians.

The problem comes when "membership" in a campus group involves necessarily belonging to a particular group. I argue that it is not necessary to be "female" to belong to a College Feminists Group, nor "homosexual" to belong to a College Gay and Lesbian Group, nor ought one be required to be a "Christian" to belong to a college Christian group.

Groups of people that cannot allow members belonging to that particular identification are discriminatory by nature and Universities, by virtue of the fact that they own the facilities and the leasing of those facilities is a priviledge, not a right, have the right to decide what groups can use their facilities and which groups may not.

Just because a certain property is open to the public does not make it public property. University facilities are ultimately private property and every argument that has been made regarding why a Christian Group ought to be allowed to discriminate against Non-Christian members can be extended to the University's right to discriminate against Christian groups that won't allow non-Christian membership.

I am not illierate.
Sorry, but the irony makes me chuckle.

Fassigen: I understand. But please consider that just because there are counterfeits in no way negates what may be truth. Thanks for talking.

There is a difference between expecting a Muslim college society to accept a Hindu president or keynote speaker and simply expecting that college society to accept Hindu members. No one is arguing the former, but the latter would hold as true for Muslims as it does for Christians.

The problem comes when "membership" in a campus group involves necessarily belonging to a particular group. I argue that it is not necessary to be "female" to belong to a College Feminists Group, nor "homosexual" to belong to a College Gay and Lesbian Group, nor ought one be required to be a "Christian" to belong to a college Christian group.

Groups of people that cannot allow members belonging to that particular identification are discriminatory by nature and Universities, by virtue of the fact that they own the facilities and the leasing of those facilities is a priviledge, not a right, have the right to decide what groups can use their facilities and which groups may not.

Just because a certain property is open to the public does not make it public property. University facilities are ultimately private property and every argument that has been made regarding why a Christian Group ought to be allowed to discriminate against Non-Christian members can be extended to the University's right to discriminate against Christian groups that won't allow non-Christian membership.

1. The students pay to go to the university and the government pay to fund the univeristy - it is not entirely private

2. The nature of the union expects discrimination on the grounds of belief. Its the same as the socialist society expecting that people who go there would, to one extent or other be socialists.

3. Being a member means having the ability to vote on who is on the executive. Its rather like saying people who are not UK citizens should have the right to vote in UK elections.

4. What they are demanding in the SU constitution is that a non Christian must sit on the CU exec. Thats not fair.

Please refrain from insulting the rest of us by not bothering to spell correctly (and you are so far beyond imprecise spelling that to claim you are simply not being precise is laughable). Even when you are obviously trying to spell correctly you make glaring schoolboy errors.

1. It is quater past two in the morning. I am not going to be spelling correctly
2. I have spent all day writing an essay about the realist, liberalist and construcitvist ideas of what affects foriegin policy most. I am fed up of trying to spell correctly all the time
3. I do not consider an online discussion forum to be somewhere where my spelling needs to be precise.


You don't understand the university society regulations and continuing to argue your point is making you look a fool.

I am at the university, I do understand them very well. My point is that they are flawed.

Fassigen: I understand. But please consider that just because there are counterfeits in no way negates what may be truth. Thanks for talking.

It does when the truth claimed is so ridiculous.

*SNIP*

These points were made by me. I accidentally opened another window of someone who was using this computer on their account previously which I had left open

Look, the thing is that as long as these groups want to have full access to student union security clearance, university facilities, student lists, advertising in the official union publication, ect, they will need to be a registered student asscociation. As long as they are a student asscociation of the university, they are subject to the anti-discrimination laws that apply to the university. If they don't wan't heretics, queers, brown people and such, then they can pack up their show and set up off campus.. you know, like a church. The condition of having access to all of the fresh young nieve minds and excellent facilities of the university is that they must be open to ALL students. Thats it.

Fassigen: I agree that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Gotta go. Telegram sometimes and we can talk more.

1. The students pay to go to the university and the government pay to fund the univeristy - it is not entirely private
I don't agree. The fact that an educational institution receives tuition from students does not make it public. Neither does the reception of government funds - I might be mistaken as far as the education system in the UK goes, but from what I am aware the government does not own the university, but merely gives funds to it.


2. The nature of the union expects discrimination on the grounds of belief. Its the same as the socialist society expecting that people who go there would, to one extent or other be socialists.
A socialist group would have no right to exclude non-socialists from such a meeting. One would assume that one participating in a socialist group would have an interest in socialism, perhaps, but such is an individual concern. The socialist society would have no right to restrict membership merely to socialism.

If the nature of a union expects discrimination, however, perhaps I might suggest that the union in question examine its nature? Student unions which discriminate by virtue of their nature tend not to be acceptable on any campus. A college campus has a right not to allow White-only unions (or Black-only unions, for that matter). It has a right not to allow Male-only unions (as well as Female-only unions - that would not be right either!). A college has a right to not allow Christian-only unions... but on the same grounds, it ought to not allow Muslim-only, Atheist-only, Hindu-only, Thelemite-only, or whatever-only unions either.


3. Being a member means having the ability to vote on who is on the executive. Its rather like saying people who are not UK citizens should have the right to vote in UK elections.
No, it's not like that at all.

Your argument is more akin to saying that only those of a UK heritage ought to be able to be UK citizens. That someone wishes to be a member in a group means that they have an interest in that group, and, most likely, an interest in seeing that group do well, regardless of whether they personally "identify" with what that group supposedly represents.

Personally, however, I think much of the fear comes from belief that these "outsiders" want to infiltrate these groups to destroy them from within. I hope that such fears are not the case, as such thinking is quite paranoid, to say the least.


4. What they are demanding in the SU constitution is that a non Christian must sit on the CU exec. Thats not fair.

It doesn't seem to me that they are demanding that at all. Rather, they are demanding that the POSSIBILITY be left open, which is quite different. In a Christian SU, Christians are certainly going to outnumber non-Christians. Executives are elected. If students don't believe a certain non-Christian member who wishes to be an executive has the SU's best interests at heart, they simply won't elect him or her. That is quite different than barring an individual outright, which is what this particular SU wants to do.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Us non-Christians really have far better things to do than plot ways to come together in order to overthrow Christian organizations. It really isn't particularly interesting for the broad majority of us to conspire and scheme and find new ways to lead Christian groups astray. As for those whom are into doing such things... well, Christians more than outnumber them, and I think you have very little to fear. :)

But with that said, Christian groups ought to be expected to adhere to the same policies as everyone else, and NO ONE ought to be allowed to discriminate.

Look, the thing is that as long as these groups want to have full access to student union security clearance, university facilities, student lists, advertising in the official union publication, ect, they will need to be a registered student asscociation. As long as they are a student asscociation of the university, they are subject to the anti-discrimination laws that apply to the university. If they don't wan't heretics, queers, brown people and such, then they can pack up their show and set up off campus.. you know, like a church. The condition of having access to all of the fresh young nieve minds and excellent facilities of the university is that they must be open to ALL students. Thats it.

The Chess club is open to all students who want to play chess

The Hockey club is open to all students who want to play hockey

The Christian union is open to all students who want to be or are Christians

Its a logical discrimination, one that is made and accepted in the real world. Universities have no reason to make a change like this, it is completly arbitary.

I am not illierate. I simply do not consider online forum discussions places where I need to be very precise with my spelling

Please refrain from insulting me.

My advice: Just ignore Kradlumania. Or link to a website for pedantic people.

Look, the thing is that as long as these groups want to have full access to student union security clearance, university facilities, student lists, advertising in the official union publication, ect, they will need to be a registered student asscociation. As long as they are a student asscociation of the university, they are subject to the anti-discrimination laws that apply to the university. If they don't wan't heretics, queers, brown people and such, then they can pack up their show and set up off campus.. you know, like a church. The condition of having access to all of the fresh young nieve minds and excellent facilities of the university is that they must be open to ALL students. Thats it.

Which is precisely why it's discrimination against Christians, as other groups arenot being treated the same way for their controversial beliefs.

Its a logical discrimination, one that is made and accepted in the real world. Universities have no reason to make a change like this, it is completly arbitary.
Universities have a right to recognize and not to recognize whomever they want. They have a right to refuse recognition to Male-only groups and White-only groups as well, or any other exclusionist group.

No one is saying that Christians can't meet up and do whatever they want. The University just refuses to acknowledge them. All of the arguments that have been made regarding the right of the Christian Student Union to discriminate against others can be made on behalf of the University's choice to discriminate against recognizing the Christian Student Union.

Secular institutions have a right not to provide space and official recognition to religious groups, particularly discriminatory ones.

Which is precisely why it's discrimination against Christians, as other groups arenot being treated the same way for their controversial beliefs.

I'm not denying this as discrimination in anyway, shape, or form, but please acknowledge that what's happening to the followers of different religions can also be classified as discrimination.

Look, the thing is that as long as these groups want to have full access to student union security clearance, university facilities, student lists, advertising in the official union publication, ect, they will need to be a registered student asscociation. As long as they are a student asscociation of the university, they are subject to the anti-discrimination laws that apply to the university. If they don't wan't heretics, queers, brown people and such, then they can pack up their show and set up off campus.. you know, like a church. The condition of having access to all of the fresh young nieve minds and excellent facilities of the university is that they must be open to ALL students. Thats it.

That's true. I remember being given a booklet about all the rules and stuff when I started university, although I doubt most people did more than flick through it. Everyone who enrols MUST agree to obey these rules.
The Chess club is open to all students who want to play chess

The Hockey club is open to all students who want to play hockey

The Christian union is open to all students who want to be or are Christians



I been to my uni's Chinese club twice with a friend, but I guess I'm not allowed to again seeing as I don't really want to change my nationality and I'm not of Chinese descent. :(

Secular institutions have a right not to provide space and official recognition to religious groups, particularly discriminatory ones.

It depends on whether they are public or private universities.

If it's a public university, they may not have that right depending on the government's law; in the US, public universities don't have that power because of the 1st Amendment and because they receive government money, which means they have to follow the laws set by the government.

Which is precisely why it's discrimination against Christians, as other groups arenot being treated the same way for their controversial beliefs.
Hmm... are the other groups really saying that people that do not agree 100% with what a particular group is about cannot be members?

I think one might be surprised to learn that other groups would be more curious as to why someone whom disagreed with their principles would WANT to be a member of the group rather than outright barring them from membership in their constitution, as such tend to be a more rational approach...

It depends on whether they are public or private universities.

If it's a public university, they may not have that right depending on the government's law; in the US, public universities don't have that power because of the 1st Amendment and because they receive government money, which means they have to follow the laws set by the government.
In the US, a public university certainly does not have to grant official recognition to a discriminatory group simply because it is based on a particular religion. That does not violate the 1st Amendment in the slightest - a lack of recognition does not equal an impediment to religious worship or freedom of association. In fact, if I am not mistaken, a public institution has no obligation to provide a gathering place for any religious group.

Hmm... are the other groups really saying that people that do not agree 100% with what a particular group is about cannot be members?

I think one might be surprised to learn that other groups would be more curious as to why someone whom disagreed with their principles would WANT to be a member of the group rather than outright barring them from membership in their constitution, as such tend to be a more rational approach...

I think one might be surprised to discover that one is not making much sense. The Christian groups didn't say you had to 100% agree - they said you had to believe their beliefs, and not believe in doing the things they considered to be a sin. I very much doubt a Muslim group would let me join if I kep insisting that Jesus is God and Mohammed is a psychopath, or if I stuck pictures of that famous turban bomb pic all over my face.

I been to my uni's Chinese club twice with a friend, but I guess I'm not allowed to again seeing as I don't really want to change my nationality and I'm not of Chinese descent. :(

It is not that you cannot go to the club. Its that you cannot become a member and vote on the issues that that club puts forward

As a christian, this boils down to a conflict between what some of wir faith believe, and the legal requirements of the day.

Legal requirements trump beliefs - behave how you wish in your own home, but in someone else's you live by their rules. Universities and universities' properties are not churches.



Separation of church and state doesn't work that way. It was meant to stop the government from starting a religion of there own and forcing everyone to attend it only. Mans laws do not trump Gods Laws.

Fried Tuna;11966276']This essentially boils down to "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?" IMHO it's a big no. If the Christians don't like it, meet somewhere else.


If the christians are students of the school they should have the same rights as any onther student.

The Chess club is open to all students who want to play chess

The Hockey club is open to all students who want to play hockey

The Christian union is open to all students who want to be or are Christians

Its a logical discrimination, one that is made and accepted in the real world. Universities have no reason to make a change like this, it is completly arbitary.
Wrong.
The chess club is open to all students who pay the membership fee.
The Hockey club is open to all students who pay the membership fee.
The christian union is open to all students who pay the membership fee.

At my university, I am a member of the Taiwan students asscociation, the malaysian students asscociation, The Chinese students association, the chinese students society, the chinese chess association, the gamers club, the buddhist association, one of the christian associations, a handful of political associations, and a few others.

I am not chinese, or from Taiwan, or buddhist, or christian, nor can I play chinese chess, nor do I subscribe to any of the political alignments to which I recieve the newsletter from.

I just happen to be interested in meeting people, and learning to speak chinese.

I think one might be surprised to discover that one is not making much sense. The Christian groups didn't say you had to 100% agree - they said you had to believe their beliefs, and not believe in doing the things they considered to be a sin. I very much doubt a Muslim group would let me join if I kep insisting that Jesus is God and Mohammed is a psychopath, or if I stuck pictures of that famous turban bomb pic all over my face.
There is a difference there.

The examples you gave, regarding calling Mohammad a psychopath or waving a turban bomb pic in their faces are quite inflammatory in nature. It is much akin to entering a person's house and slapping them hard in the face as a greeting. It does not mean that the Muslim group would have a right to reject a person from joining that group simply for believing Jesus is God... although why would such a person want to join in the first place?

Now a person who is homosexual or, in their personal life, does that which is disagreeable to members of the Christian group does not do so meaning to be inflammatory. If they wish to join the group with the intent to cause problems, the group in question has a right to eject them. It does not mean, however, that the group has a right to reject a person based on who the person is OUTSIDE the group, unless perhaps there is valid concern that the person might only want to join to cause problems in the first place.

This is a key distinction.

Which is precisely why it's discrimination against Christians, as other groups arenot being treated the same way for their controversial beliefs.
They must be. If they are not, the university is liable. It doesn't matter if you have a political society, a religious one, a cooking class, or a social club. If you want official status as a university student association you MUST be open to all students (as it is all students who pay their union fees which allow you to exist). If you do not want access to the university or any of it's resources, then you do not have to register as an official student association, and do not have to abide by university rules. You may do whatever you please in your off-campus club.

If the christians are students of the school they should have the same rights as any onther student.
Yes, they should...

...But students don't have a right to form discriminatory groups using college facilities.

Students don't have a right to form discriminatory groups using college facilities.


Not all christians are the same, I am christian and transgendered too. I don't judge other people and expect the same from others where I am concerned. Now that you know my secret how will you treat me?

Universities have a right to recognize and not to recognize whomever they want. They have a right to refuse recognition to Male-only groups and White-only groups as well, or any other exclusionist group.

No one is saying that Christians can't meet up and do whatever they want. The University just refuses to acknowledge them. All of the arguments that have been made regarding the right of the Christian Student Union to discriminate against others can be made on behalf of the University's choice to discriminate against recognizing the Christian Student Union.

Secular institutions have a right not to provide space and official recognition to religious groups, particularly discriminatory ones.

Well actually, an exclusive mens-club could become a student association if they wanted access to all of the benefits of doing so. However, if they did, they would have to be open to all students who were interested (regardless of gender). Perhaps only men would be interested, nevertheless, women MUST be able to join if they want to be a student association.

It is not that you cannot go to the club. Its that you cannot become a member and vote on the issues that that club puts forward
But you can. It is the rules. Perhaps you will not be popular in the elections, perhaps not. But you are guaranteed the right to be a member, and thus run for the board, as long as the chinese society wants to be affiliated with the university.

It is not that you cannot go to the club. Its that you cannot become a member and vote on the issues that that club puts forward

That's okay, as long as I can still use their pool tables. :)


It's not right though, not letting a person become a member of a club because of their religious beliefs. I doubt many non-christians would want to join but some might, philosophy students for instance. They like to talk about the existence of a God and stuff.

I think one might be surprised to discover that one is not making much sense. The Christian groups didn't say you had to 100% agree - they said you had to believe their beliefs, and not believe in doing the things they considered to be a sin. I very much doubt a Muslim group would let me join if I kep insisting that Jesus is God and Mohammed is a psychopath, or if I stuck pictures of that famous turban bomb pic all over my face.
Ah, but they would, because they are legally obliged to. Maybe they wouldn't be the friendliest crowd, but you would definitely be entitled to membership. Unless the muslim society decided they didn't want university affiliation anymore.

Not all christians are the same, I am christian and transgendered too. I don't judge other people and expect the same from others where I am concerned. Now that you know my secret how will you treat me?
I certainly don't judge you, and only hope that such a path in life has made you happy and has helped you feel whole. Such is all that truly matters. :)

And on those grounds, I certainly would not want to see you discriminated against in a group such as this Student Union... which is why I am arguing against the discrimination!

Fried Tuna;11966276']This essentially boils down to "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?" IMHO it's a big no. If the Christians don't like it, meet somewhere else.

Then the same SHOULD apply to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion.

I believe the point this thread (or rather whoever started this thread) is trying to make is, that it's only being applied to Christians, but Muslims and anybody else can do whatever they want and not allow whomever they do not wish to allow.

It's NOT a matter of "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?", but rather a matter of "Universities ARE providing meeting places for all religions EXCEPT Christianity."

IMO, they should either do it for ALL religions or do it for NONE, not pick and choose ("OK, you Muslims can meet here, but not you Christians!").

Well actually, an exclusive mens-club could become a student association if they wanted access to all of the benefits of doing so. However, if they did, they would have to be open to all students who were interested (regardless of gender). Perhaps only men would be interested, nevertheless, women MUST be able to join if they want to be a student association.
My point exactly. :)

That's okay, as long as I can still use their pool tables. :)


It's not right though, not letting a person become a member of a club because of their religious beliefs. I doubt many non-christians would want to join but some might, philosophy students for instance. They like to talk about the existence of a God and stuff.
Right. I am an atheist, and I am a member of both a buddhist and a christian student association. They could not ban me from joining if they wanted to. However, all of the religious societies want people regardless of their religion. This is for 3 reasons.
1)The more members they have, the more funding they get.
2)The whole point of religion is to convert others, and share your wonderful gift, so nonbelievers are welcome.
3) They are not exclusivist fucks.

Not all christians are the same, I am christian and transgendered too. I don't judge other people and expect the same from others where I am concerned. Now that you know my secret how will you treat me?
Right, if students could decide who could and could not become members based upon their individual association constitutions (as opposed to university policy), then what is stopping all of the associations from amending their constitutions to disinclude transgendered students "because we don't want that kind of person in our club". Student societies are supposed to be about socialising and meeting people, not isolating yourselves into homogenous groups.

And what if those rules are breaching the right to freedom of asscoaiaion

They they arn't allowed to use university facilities or exercise any abilities provided to them as a sanctioned group. They don't want to follow the rules, they can fuck off. There is no "violation of freedom of association," that's horse shit.

So basically, to wrap up, the christians in UK are upset because they have to follow the rules everyone else does. When you register an official university students association, you must have membership open to any and all students who wish to join.

To be honest, though, I do not believe this is the reason the christians are having a tanty. I think it has less to do with religion, and more to do with their inability to form exclusivist cliques for the social elite. "Oh, no he's not OUR kind of student". Scumbags.

So basically, to wrap up, the christians in UK are upset because they have to follow the rules everyone else does. When you register an official university students association, you must have membership open to any and all students who wish to join.

To be honest, though, I do not believe this is the reason the christians are having a tanty. I think it has less to do with religion, and more to do with their inability to form exclusivist cliques for the social elite. "Oh, no he's not OUR kind of student". Scumbags.

In all fairness to Christians, I don't agree on this point. I was quite a staunch Roman Catholic not too long ago, and do know something regarding where these people are coming from on this issue. Many truly do believe themselves to, "Love the sinner and hate the sin." A great deal of the problem comes down to the fact that many Christians do not accept that the very "sin" they hate is something that the "sinner" in question considers a part of who they are as a person. Thus, it is reasonable that the "sinner" who is loved perceives the "hate" as being directed towards themselves, regardless of whether that is the actual intent.

And, from the paradigm from which these Christians operate, they are correct. If "sin" is the result of a fundamental corruption in human nature as the result of original sin, it would seem to follow that there can be no "identity" between the sin and the sinner. Christians, in making their arguments, unfortunately, often overlook the fact that those of us outside of Christianity see the world from a much different paradigm than they do. Their reasoning is more consistent than most would give them credit, but ultimately the greatest flaws of their arguments come from the fact that they argue from a fundamentally different set of axioms and have a tendency towards trying to rationalize why other world views are wrong rather than simply try to see the world as others do.

It is my belief that many Christians cannot see why people who are not Christians might have an interest in participating in a Christian group. I think, in part, it actually springs from that "persecuted" mentality many Christians seem to have, believing that those who wish to take part in such a group without conforming to it or being Christian are somehow there to infiltrate it and subvert it into a non-Christian group. This may in part be a case of projection... there certainly have been groups of Christians that have infiltrated other groups in order to turn them towards a more "Christian" agenda, and thus perhaps there is a sort of fear that others would do the same.

I do not think it's a matter of Christians wanting to create an elitist group so much as a nagging fear on their part that others will do unto them as they have done unto others.

It's not right though, not letting a person become a member of a club because of their religious beliefs. I doubt many non-christians would want to join but some might, philosophy students for instance. They like to talk about the existence of a God and stuff.

Its ok and indeed encouraged for them to come to the meetings, its just that they cannot vote on the exec or adress the meetings

So basically, to wrap up, the christians in UK are upset because they have to follow the rules everyone else does. When you register an official university students association, you must have membership open to any and all students who wish to join.

To be honest, though, I do not believe this is the reason the christians are having a tanty. I think it has less to do with religion, and more to do with their inability to form exclusivist cliques for the social elite. "Oh, no he's not OUR kind of student". Scumbags.

1. In the real world (you know, outside university) people are allowed to form these kinds of groups. It is not a social elite thing, the Christian union wants to have people from all over come to their meetings, but in the same way that a church has the right to discriminate membership on the grounds of religion, so too does a CU. After all, it is a Christian union. Its rather silly to expect them not to

2. The SU provides services for all groups on campus, and they have not provided a legitimate reason why they are not providing a service for the Christian union. They are required to treet all groups the same in this regard, and unless the CU is somehow breaking the law (IE enciting viloence) then there is no grounds for them to not be given the same rights as the hockey society

The universties are not required to provide meeting places for any of the socieities. If they banned the fencing, or the chess or the role playing society though, I think you'd see a problem. If they provide meeting places for one society they should for others unless there is a legimate reason otherwise (IE the group encourages viloence) which there isnt here.

I think the reason they're listing is that the Christian Union is itself descriminating in that they're not allowing people of other religions to attend. If you want to pull hairs, that's racism. However, I doubt it would be considered that way, because the organization in question is for Christians.

My guess is that there was some kind of complaint- perhaps, someone who wasn't Christian but was interested in their customs and was denied entry because of their religion or lack thereof. I would also bet that the other religious organizations haven't done this or they would be facing the same predicament. If they are, then there's no unequal treatment at all, is there? After all, chess is secular (and therefore can be taught in a school with no controversy whatsoever), but a religion is not; it blurs church and state and frequently acts exclusive to people of other religions, which is, of course, the problem here.

2. The SU provides services for all groups on campus, and they have not provided a legitimate reason why they are not providing a service for the Christian union. They are required to treet all groups the same in this regard, and unless the CU is somehow breaking the law (IE enciting viloence) then there is no grounds for them to not be given the same rights as the hockey society

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is, if they're descriminating against other students on the grounds of religion, which is, I suppose, how this is being interpretted.

Anti-Christian discrimination?

That's a laugh.

So it couldn't possibly be because these groups exclude non-Christians, promote homophobia, and discriminiate against transgendered people! No, it must be because they're Christians, and the Man is keeping them down!

Why must people persist in thinking their hatred must be given a pass, while at the same time the ill feelings towards them must be stifled? A double standard, no?

Yeah, nice generalized assumptions there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group not allowing everybody to be a member, infact anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. It's their right, it's their choice. Even if they did discriminate against transgendered people etc..., theres this thing called freedom of speach that you get taught about when you are four, I guess you should learn about it.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this- unless you're talking about the right to descriminate, in which case the hypocracy is mindboggling. It is "descrimination" against them that they're complaining about, is it not? Also, though you have the right to deny entry to your organization, you do not retain that right when that organization is being funded by the government. Otherwise, that's institutionalized segregation. Even if the university is not receiving government funding, they still have the right to chose their own policy, which, in this case appears to be "If you are to recieve universoty funding for your organization, then your organization must allow entry to university students." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is, if they're descriminating against other students on the grounds of religion, which is, I suppose, how this is being interpretted.

It asn't discriminating against other students though really. You've got to look at it from a wider perspective. The University supports these societies so that they can advertiseit in the prospectuses that students can get involved in whatever their hobbies and such happen to be etc. The only way they can do that is having one society for each hobby. If you allow other people to come in and sit on the commitee of the societies they're not interested in then before you know it you don't have e.g. a Christian Union and you're discriminating against Christians unless you fund another brand new christian society, which again can be taken over by outsiders and so on.

The other issues about their views being unpalatable to the university authorities is another kettle of fish altogether. I'd say it's almost impossible to draw a line between what is and what isn't acceptable in that respect.

1. Your comparison is flawed. My back garden would be my personal property, I am well within my rights to prevent you from using it. However the univierity is a public place
2. This is not about prioritisng, this is about banning. The Christian union has been BANNED, not depriotieisd, from using the rooms

Precisely. Th university is a public place. It is recieving public funding. Organizations recieving public funding are legally obligated to refuse that funding to a private religion (or religious organization). If that religious organization were to allow in everyone, then more than just the religion itself is benefitting from the money, and, though it blurrs the line between church and state, it is more or less acceptable. However, when that organization outright bans people of other religions, the university would be giving public money to an exclusive religious organization that not only does not benefit the university, but outright banned some students on the ground of their religion. That's institutionalized segragation, and it opens up all sorts of nasty doors.

Yeah, nice generalized assumptions there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group not allowing everybody to be a member, infact anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. It's their right, it's their choice. Even if they did discriminate against transgendered people etc..., theres this thing called freedom of speach that you get taught about when you are four, I guess you should learn about it.They could then just perform their freedom of speech outside the university as an entirely private grouping.

If you allow other people to come in and sit on the commitee of the societies they're not interested in then before you know it you don't have e.g. a Christian Union and you're discriminating against Christians unless you fund another brand new christian society, which again can be taken over by outsiders and so on.

They're not going to come in if they're not interested. Even if they do for, say, sabatage, they would still ahve to be elected to the board. Why would they elect someone who isn't interested. Now we'll say a large sabatage effort is underway. There would have to be enough sabateurs to flood the electoral system. Think of the liklihood. That has never happened- even at universities where there are riots against a specific religion; it has never happened to them. And besides, that not what happened here. They just banned them, because they wanted their organization to be Christian only. That's not a perk to students. I, myself, would be somewhat scared to go to a University where I knew the school was giving its precious funding to religiously exclusive organizations. I have a feeling I wouldn't be too welcomed there.

Then the same SHOULD apply to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion.

I believe the point this thread (or rather whoever started this thread) is trying to make is, that it's only being applied to Christians, but Muslims and anybody else can do whatever they want and not allow whomever they do not wish to allow.

It's NOT a matter of "Are universities required to provide meeting places for religious organizations?", but rather a matter of "Universities ARE providing meeting places for all religions EXCEPT Christianity."

IMO, they should either do it for ALL religions or do it for NONE, not pick and choose ("OK, you Muslims can meet here, but not you Christians!").

The issue is that the CU is accused of being exclusive in its membership.

My uni's Christian Union says that its basis of membership shall be: "I desire to declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour, my Lord and my God..." Furthermore, they must accept the Basis of Faith, including visiting speakers who preach and teach (this last point is fair enough I think - you want to ensure a speaker's not going to lead the flock astray when preaching and teaching, eh?). There are regular talks open to all members of the university.
There is no membership fee.

-The Catholic society states that its membership "shall consist of all Catholic members of the University". Also, on its website, "Catholic students and those who regularly attend Mass... are automatically members." However, since it is tied inextricably to the university Catholic chaplaincy (i.e. the church, founded by papal indult), this is expected. Anyone else is welcome to various activities though. No membership fee.
-The Orthodox society states on its website that "you don't need to be Orthodox or even a member of the University to take part in our activities."
-The Sikh society's constitution does define what a Sikh is (in an exclusive sense); however, it does not say anywhere that non-Sikhs are not allowed to join. There is also a membership fee.
-The Jewish society does not have a Doctrinal basis for its members to accept, not like the Christian Union. However, it does charge a subscription fee
-The Islamic society similarly boasts that it has members "many of whom are non-Muslim". No "formal procedure for joining... and there is no membership fee."
-The Hindu Cultural society (closest thing I can find to a Hindu religious society), by its constitution "shall not refuse an application for membership on the grounds of race, sex, sexuality, religion or political views." It is unique in this respect amongst the other societies; but then again it is a 'cultural' one.

So yes, that accusation is true, and the CU is distinct in the exclusive nature of its membership.
I think that change should be on this basis alone, not on 'accusations' of homophobia or other discrimination, none of which I have come across within the CU. And nowhere in its constitution does it bar entry based on sin, homosexuality and the like.
However, given the amount of ire it excites in the general student populace for its evangelical approach, it can be argued that it seeks to protect itself against unwarranted intrusion into its membership.

aargh. sounds like my university. the union are trying to be more controling. banning coke and such. any ucd heads here? would you agree there are too many socialist on the union?

Its ok and indeed encouraged for them to come to the meetings, its just that they cannot vote on the exec or adress the meetings

Actually you're wrong, any student can become a member of one of these clubs and go to the meetings and vote or whatever they do. That's the way it is, these clubs have to be open to ALL students or they won't get university funding. This Christian club will either have to stop discriminating against those of a different religion or they will have to stop using university facilities. It's as simple as that.

I think the reason they're listing is that the Christian Union is itself descriminating in that they're not allowing people of other religions to attend. If you want to pull hairs, that's racism. However, I doubt it would be considered that way, because the organization in question is for Christians.

My guess is that there was some kind of complaint- perhaps, someone who wasn't Christian but was interested in their customs and was denied entry because of their religion or lack thereof. I would also bet that the other religious organizations haven't done this or they would be facing the same predicament. If they are, then there's no unequal treatment at all, is there? After all, chess is secular (and therefore can be taught in a school with no controversy whatsoever), but a religion is not; it blurs church and state and frequently acts exclusive to people of other religions, which is, of course, the problem here.

1. Christiantiy is not being "taught" in the university, its merely the Christian union wishing to be treeted the same way as any other university club or society and to be allowed to use the faclities on campus to meet

2. It isnt about preventing people from other religions attending. The CU welcomes non religious or other religious people comming. What they object to is non-Christians being allowed to vote on the CU exectuive or adressing the meetings. That does seem reasonable.

Actually you're wrong, any student can become a member of one of these clubs and go to the meetings and vote or whatever they do. That's the way it is, these clubs have to be open to ALL students or they won't get university funding. This Christian club will either have to stop discriminating against those of a different religion or they will have to stop using university facilities. It's as simple as that.

It is a Christian club. By definition it discriminates its membership on the grounds of people being a Christian. Its no diffrent than a chess society being about people who play chess. Its akin to going to a Karate club and demanding they teach Judo. By defininon of its nature it is discriminatory. All students can come to the meetings, but only members can vote on the exec or become members of the exec and only Christians can adress the meetings.

It is a Christian club. By definition it discriminates its membership on the grounds of people being a Christian. Its no diffrent than a chess society being about people who play chess. Its akin to going to a Karate club and demanding they teach Judo. By defininon of its nature it is discriminatory. All students can come to the meetings, but only members can vote on the exec or become members of the exec and only Christians can adress the meetings.

The university isn't require to provide for societies, they do it because they choose to and if you don't follow their rules then they can kick you. It's as simple as that.

When I was at university I was part of the canoe club and then one day the AU decided that it couldn't afford to pay for sports that the university didn't compete in and all of a sudden I could no longer play canoe polo on the unis dime. We didn't start complaining about an anti-canoe polo bias, we were mature enough to accept that it was their money and, therefore, their rules. We sorted ourself out and organised our own venue and funding. Just as these christians should do.

Precisely. The university is a public place. It is recieving public funding. Organizations recieving public funding are legally obligated to refuse that funding to a private religion (or religious organization).

1. Under UK law, the furtherment of religion is under the charity commisions accepted treaticiy of chartity, IE a mosque/church/synogyge etc can be considered a charity just because it is a mosque/church/synogue

2. Sports socieities are allowed funding, entertainment socieites are allowed funding, even the pole dancing society is allowed funding. Why are religious institutions not so.


If that religious organization were to allow in everyone, then more than just the religion itself is benefitting from the money, and, though it blurrs the line between church and state, it is more or less acceptable. However, when that organization outright bans people of other religions, the university would be giving public money to an exclusive religious organization that not only does not benefit the university, but outright banned some students on the ground of their religion. That's institutionalized segragation, and it opens up all sorts of nasty doors

3. A CU only allowing Christian members is no more segregation than an Islamic soiceity only allowing Islamic members, or a judo society only training people in judo and not wu-shu. The CU does not 'ban' people of other religions, it merely does not allow them to become members. People of other religions are encouraged to come to the meetings etc, but its reasonable to expect that only Christians be allowed to adress the meetings or to be on the exec. That is like expecting that there should be a Christian Ayatolliah in Iran.

The university isn't require to provide for societies, they do it because they choose to and if you don't follow their rules then they can kick you. It's as simple as that.

The universtiy is not indeed required to provide for societeis at all. However if it chooses to for some of the societies it must provide legitmate grounds for why it will not for others. A CU being discriminatory against non christians in its membership is not acceptable grounds. Its as simple as that


When I was at university I was part of the canoe club and then one day the AU decided that it couldn't afford to pay for sports that the university didn't compete in and all of a sudden I could no longer play canoe polo on the unis dime. We didn't start complaining about an anti-canoe polo bias, we were mature enough to accept that it was their money and, therefore, their rules. We sorted ourself out and organised our own venue and funding. Just as these christians should do

The CU can pay for its membership, and does. The point is there is no reason why they should be treated any diffrently from any other society. If they pay their fees and do not break the law (IE the national law) then they should be able to meet up.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is, if they're descriminating against other students on the grounds of religion, which is, I suppose, how this is being interpretted.

Its a Christian society. By definition it discriminates. In the same way that by definition, a Judo society discriminates in that it does not pracitse Karate.

The universtiy is not indeed required to provide for societeis at all. However if it chooses to for some of the societies it must provide legitmate grounds for why it will not for others. A CU being discriminatory against non christians in its membership is not acceptable grounds. Its as simple as that



The CU can pay for its membership, and does. The point is there is no reason why they should be treated any diffrently from any other society. If they pay their fees and do not break the law (IE the national law) then they should be able to meet up.

Dicrimination based on religion is illegal in the UK so they are breaking national law. Not only is the uni right to suspend them but any student wishing to be a member and being denied due to their religion could sue them and guess what? They'd win.

Its a Christian society. By definition it discriminates. In the same way that by definition, a Judo society discriminates in that it does not pracitse Karate.

This is a bad analogy. A judo society doesn't prevent people who practice karate from joining, it simply teaches judo.

The christian society could allow people who practice judaism to join and still teach christianity.

1. In the real world (you know, outside university) people are allowed to form these kinds of groups. It is not a social elite thing, the Christian union wants to have people from all over come to their meetings, but in the same way that a church has the right to discriminate membership on the grounds of religion, so too does a CU. After all, it is a Christian union. Its rather silly to expect them not to

Then they can expect to not be allowed to be a recognized university group and expect to not be allowed access to all privileges there of.

Then they can expect to not be allowed to be a recognized university group and expect to not be allowed access to all privileges there of.

Why not. The university provides funds to the judo group, the chess club, the hockey society etc. Just because it is religious it is somehow diffrent and singled out. The judo group does not teach Kendo, is that discrimination?

Dicrimination based on religion is illegal in the UK so they are breaking national law. Not only is the uni right to suspend them but any student wishing to be a member and being denied due to their religion could sue them and guess what? They'd win.

They are a CHRISTIAN UNION. They are no more breaking national law than a Church is breaking national law by demanding that its pastor is a Christian! The government recognises Chruches, Mosques and Synoguges as charities, there is no reason why the SU should not recognise the CU as a society

This is a bad analogy. A judo society doesn't prevent people who practice karate from joining, it simply teaches judo.

The christian society could allow people who practice judaism to join and still teach christianity.

Is it right that non Christians could vote on the exectuive members of the CU. To put it another way should the conservative party decide who is in the Labour governments cabernit? Of course not.

They are a CHRISTIAN UNION. They are no more breaking national law than a Church is breaking national law by demanding that its pastor is a Christian! The government recognises Chruches, Mosques and Synoguges as charities, there is no reason why the SU should not recognise the CU as a society

That the government recognises the churches as charities is another debate.

I'll say it again discrimination based on religious belief is illegal in the UK therefore these societies are breaking the law. Could an employer refuse an applicant because they were christian? Or a bank refuse to give an account because the person was Jewish? Of course not, so why should the christian society be any different?

Is it right that non Christians could vote on the exectuive members of the CU. To put it another way should the conservative party decide who is in the Labour governments cabernit? Of course not.

These societies exsist for the use of the whole student body and not just a select few. I assume from your position on this that you believe that students should be able to set up a white society and ban black members?

aargh. sounds like my university. the union are trying to be more controling. banning coke and such.
They're supposedly representing you, so go and talk to them about your concerns - you might also find that it's not them that's the problem, it's their SSLO at the top (if you have those at uni, that is) making all of the decisions instead of them.
any ucd heads here? would you agree there are too many socialist on the union?
Aye, well as a socialist myself I know what you mean - a lot of Respect party members are extreme left essentially for the sake of it.

"The proletariat needs no coke!"
"Maybe the proletariat would like to talk about something decent in this nation conference instead of banning coke, you fools..."
"OMG fascist!"

Is essentially how it goes at the National Conference. Pain in the arse, really.



But no, I don't think there are too many socialists, I think that there are too many posers, to be frank.

Am I the only one who read this and thought: "k, so?" I don't care about fundies having their club shut down. It can only be a good thing.

That the government recognises the churches as charities is another debate.

I'll say it again discrimination based on religious belief is illegal in the UK therefore these societies are breaking the law. Could an employer refuse an applicant because they were christian? Or a bank refuse to give an account because the person was Jewish? Of course not, so why should the christian society be any different?

Because it is a society, not a job or a service.

A job cannot objectively be demonstrated to be done better by a Christian or a Jew or a Seihk or a Zoroastrain. A jobs membership is based upon who does the job best.

The Christian society is not offering a job or providing a service. It is a society. A group of people who are like minded who meet up to enjoy each others company and practise their religion. To say that it is discrimination for them not to allow non-Christians to become members is like saying it is discrimination for a bank not to employ someone whose expertiese is in carpintary. They may be an excelent carpinter but the job is that of a fiancial planner

These societies exsist for the use of the whole student body and not just a select few. I assume from your position on this that you believe that students should be able to set up a white society and ban black members?

The group is availble for all Christians, in the same way the judo group is for all those who either want to or already do practise judo.

Because it is a society, not a job or a service.

A job cannot objectively be demonstrated to be done better by a Christian or a Jew or a Seihk or a Zoroastrain. A jobs membership is based upon who does the job best.

The Christian society is not offering a job or providing a service. It is a society. A group of people who are like minded who meet up to enjoy each others company and practise their religion. To say that it is discrimination for them not to allow non-Christians to become members is like saying it is discrimination for a bank not to employ someone whose expertiese is in carpintary. They may be an excelent carpinter but the job is that of a fiancial planner

So only christians are capable of discussing chritianity?

The group is availble for all Christians, in the same way the judo group is for all those who either want to or already do practise judo.

Answer the question. Should students be able to set up a white society and bar blacks from joining?

Answer the question. Should students be able to set up a white society and bar blacks from joining?

There are groups like that. The cypriot society does not allow (logically) non-cypriots to be members (IE vote on the exec)

So only christians are capable of discussing chritianity?

Non Christians are welcome to come to the meetings etc, what they cannot do is be on the exec or vote on the exec or adress the meetings. Its like David Cameron adressing the Labour party conference.

It is a Christian club. By definition it discriminates its membership on the grounds of people being a Christian. Its no diffrent than a chess society being about people who play chess.

No. People who are interested in learning about Christianity (whatever their religion) should be allowed to become a member of the university Christian club. Just as any person who is interested in playing chess (whatever their religion) should be allowed to become a member of the chess club.

Its akin to going to a Karate club and demanding they teach Judo.

:confused:

No. That is akin to the university going to the Christian club and demanding they teach Hinduism instead. That hasn't happened, has it?

Don't bother using analogies. Just don't. Or at least think them through first.

By defininon of its nature it is discriminatory. All students can come to the meetings, but only members can vote on the exec or become members of the exec and only Christians can adress the meetings.

That's discriminating based on religion, that is. Do you know that that is bad? :eek:

if so called 'christians' are being discriminated against on the basis of their belief anywhere, dollars to doughnuts, they have only their own chauvanism and discrimination against dam near everything else to blame.

evil is as evil does, however otherwise innocently intended.
something so called christianity makes rather a central focus of pretending speculated upon, nontangable and possibly mythical personalities,
take somehow precidence over.

which is precisely what has made it a liability, rather the a bennifit it claims, and undoutedly many of its fallowers wish, for it to be.

=^^=
.../\...

Answer the question. Should students be able to set up a white society and bar blacks from joining?There are groups like that. The cypriot society does not allow (logically) non-cypriots to be members (IE vote on the exec)

You didn't answer the question properly. Do you think that it is acceptable to discriminate because of race? Or is it just religious discrimination that you agree with?

You didn't answer the question properly. Do you think that it is acceptable to discriminate because of race? Or is it just religious discrimination that you agree with?

He won't answer the question. There is no answer he can give that will support his position and not portray him as a bigot in one sense or another.

He won't answer the question. There is no answer he can give that will support his position and not portray him as a bigot in one sense or another.

I know. I'm not just going to let him dodge the question though, I want to see him squirm. :p

I know. I'm not just going to let him dodge the question though, I want to see him squirm. :p

*chuckles*

That the government recognises the churches as charities is another debate.

I'll say it again discrimination based on religious belief is illegal in the UK therefore these societies are breaking the law. Could an employer refuse an applicant because they were christian? Or a bank refuse to give an account because the person was Jewish? Of course not, so why should the christian society be any different?

It is illegeal in respects to employment, it is not like the sex or race dicrimation laws that apply to all areas.

In December 2003, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (“the Religion or Belief Regulations”) came into force. These prohibit discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief.

This area of the law is applicable not only to the normal employer/employee context, but also to office holders, police, barristers and advocates, partnerships, trade organisations, qualifying bodies, providers of vocational training, employment agencies and higher education institutions.

However, the Religion or Belief Regulations do not apply to housing, education in its entirety, criminal justice or the supply of goods or services.

http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/rights_religion.html

It is illegeal in respects to employment, it is not like the sex or race dicrimation laws that apply to all areas.

In December 2003, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (“the Religion or Belief Regulations”) came into force. These prohibit discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief.

This area of the law is applicable not only to the normal employer/employee context, but also to office holders, police, barristers and advocates, partnerships, trade organisations, qualifying bodies, providers of vocational training, employment agencies and higher education institutions.

However, the Religion or Belief Regulations do not apply to housing, education in its entirety, criminal justice or the supply of goods or services.



I point you to the bolded words.

*sigh* The Christian Union doesn't have a leg to stand on. Students Unions, at least the Birmingham SU, was completely within its rights. Freedom of association does not extend to the property of a private members club. The CU recieved equal treatment as there are other christian societies within the SU which are accepted and which do follow the SU rules.

Though if some of the quotes from the newspaper article are true then it would seem that those Christians were discriminated againist.

I am personally in favour of allowing non christians to join the CU as it allows discussion and gives the christians a chance to make their case and convert people.

I am not sure why the thread earlier was going on about sexuality as I didn't think the CUs in question had in their constitutions a clause excluding everyone who is not hetrosexual. I thought the issue was them requiring that people be christian to join.

Also as someone pointed out earlier one of the CU in question was forced to change its name to include 'evangical (not sure of spelling)' because it was also excluding other christian divisions while claiming to be a christian union (to me that name sounds like it should include all divisions).

I point you to the bolded words.

Ok, I read up on the law directly (link below) as I had quoted a secondary source and wanted to check the exact definition. Being a typical law it is a bit confusing. It lists Educational establishments that it applies to and this does not include higher education/universities. I can't find which heading they fall under. It is not against the law for the CU to discriminate in terms of their membership but I get confused when trying to find out if the university/student union cannot support (or can refuse to support) them.

For now I will be cautious and take your stance that the university/student union cannot support an organisation (CU in this case) that discriminates in terms of religion while the CU itself (in terms of membership) qualifies for one of the exceptions in the law.

Link to the UKs equality law which includes discrimination by religion/belief:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/072/2005072.pdf

I certainly don't judge you, and only hope that such a path in life has made you happy and has helped you feel whole. Such is all that truly matters. :)

And on those grounds, I certainly would not want to see you discriminated against in a group such as this Student Union... which is why I am arguing against the discrimination!

I understand where you are coming from and thank you for your understanding of my issues. I just wanted people to know that not every
Christian is as closed minded as some. I have been confronted by other
people that claim to be christian who say that I can not be christian because of my issues. My answer to them is that my relationship with the Lord is between me and the Lord exclusively. I also remind them that we are not to be judges, lest we be judged by the Lord ourselves.

No. People who are interested in learning about Christianity (whatever their religion) should be allowed to become a member of the university Christian club. Just as any person who is interested in playing chess (whatever their religion) should be allowed to become a member of the chess club.

They should be allowed to come along, to come to the meetings etc, but they do not need to become a member to learn about Christianity.


:confused:

No. That is akin to the university going to the Christian club and demanding they teach Hinduism instead. That hasn't happened, has it?

Don't bother using analogies. Just don't. Or at least think them through first.

They are demanding that the CU cater for other religions. So that is what they are demanding


That's discriminating based on religion, that is. Do you know that that is bad? :eek:

Mosques do not allow Jews to take sermons. That is discrimination on the grounds of religion also.

Just throwing the word "Discriminaition" around doesnt make something bad. Look at the context its in. Is it discrimination that a bank would not hire someone whose degree was in carpintery and instead chose to hire someone whose degree was in business and fianace? Yes. But is it valid? Yes.

You didn't answer the question properly. Do you think that it is acceptable to discriminate because of race? Or is it just religious discrimination that you agree with?

I accept that you can make socieites that are about the meeting together of people of the same race, thats perfectly fine, as its the nature of the society. A cypriot society logically only wants cypriots in its membership. Because they are people who have the same heritiage and want to share in that. Obviously a workplace or a service provider cannot discriminate like that, because it is a diffrent situation

I am personally in favour of allowing non christians to join the CU as it allows discussion and gives the christians a chance to make their case and convert people.


Non Christians are quite welcome, indeed encoruaged to come to the CU meetings, but they can't vote on the exec and they can't adress the CU meetings, that does seem fair.

*sigh* The Christian Union doesn't have a leg to stand on. Students Unions, at least the Birmingham SU, was completely within its rights. Freedom of association does not extend to the property of a private members club. The CU recieved equal treatment as there are other christian societies within the SU which are accepted and which do follow the SU rules.

The university is not a private members club. Nor is the SU. As long as the CU is paying its membership fees and not breaking the law, the SU has no grounds on which to discriminate against it. It is just like any other society.

Banning non-Christians from membership does not mean they cannot come to the meetings. What it means is they cannot vote on the exec, be on the exec or adress the meetings.

Non Christians are quite welcome, indeed encoruaged to come to the CU meetings, but they can't vote on the exec and they can't adress the CU meetings, that does seem fair.

I can understand why the CU doesn't want non-christians voting, I don't agree with it but I can understand it. What I really don't get is why non-christians are barred from addressing a meeting. Perhaps you can explain that one.

Yes, they should...

...But students don't have a right to form discriminatory groups using college facilities.

As long as they are not breaking the law, the SU has no right to discriminate against them. They are acting within freedom of speech and freedom of asscoiasion. To seperate them out is to do so without proper cause.

I can understand why the CU doesn't want non-christians voting, I don't agree with it but I can understand it. What I really don't get is why non-christians are barred from addressing a meeting. Perhaps you can explain that one.

Simple. How would the Islamic society like it if they were adressed by a Jew who claimed that Mohammad was a crazy man who only corrupted the Torah further and that Islam has caused thousands of innocent Jewish deaths throught history. Or how would the Zoroastrian society like to be adressed by Richard Dawkins. Or the Labour Party confernce adressed by Margret Thatcher. Obviously debate is to be encouraged but it is fair and right that groups should be allowed to choose who adresses them

Simple. How would the Islamic society like it if they were adressed by a Jew who claimed that Mohammad was a crazy man who only corrupted the Torah further and that Islam has caused thousands of innocent Jewish deaths throught history. Or how would the Zoroastrian society like to be adressed by Richard Dawkins. Or the Labour Party confernce adressed by Margret Thatcher. Obviously debate is to be encouraged but it is fair and right that groups should be allowed to choose who adresses them

You can still screen speakers without having to have a blanket ban on all non-christians.

You can still screen speakers without having to have a blanket ban on all non-christians.

The puropose of the CU is to encorage and develop students in their christian faith, bring Jesus's name to the campus and encorage students to turn to Jesus. It is reasonable to understand that the CU would want Christians to be doing this

The puropose of the CU is to encorage and develop students in their christian faith, bring Jesus's name to the campus and encorage students to turn to Jesus. It is reasonable to understand that the CU would want Christians to be doing this

Surely a vital part of developing faith is to be exposed to view points contrary to your own and reconciling your beliefs with them?

Encouraging students to turn to Jesus? By not letting them join?

The puropose of the CU is to encorage and develop students in their christian faith, bring Jesus’s name to the campus and encorage students to turn to Jesus. It is reasonable to understand that the CU would want Christians to be doing this
How can one promote and develop faith, of any sort, without discussion and comment with those outside the faith?

Moreover, why would all non-Christian speakers automatically try and ‘convert’ the Christians away from their faith? As an atheist philosophy student, I relish the opportunity to discuss theology and the philosophy of religion with believers

Why must people persist in thinking their hatred must be given a pass, while at the same time the ill feelings towards them must be stifled? A double standard, no?[/QUOTE]

Hate the sin, love the sinner...
Their not hating gay's etc their hating the sin.

How can one promote and develop faith, of any sort, without discussion and comment with those outside the faith?

Moreover, why would all non-Christian speakers automatically try and ‘convert’ the Christians away from their faith? As an atheist philosophy student, I relish the opportunity to discuss theology and the philosophy of religion with believers

Im sure an orginised debate can be arranged but i think its fair enough if CU dosnt want non christain leaders and speakers etc imagine the upproar if an Islamic orginisation had to allow non muslim speakers and leaders.

Im sure an orginised debate can be arranged but i think its fair enough if CU dosnt want non christain leaders and speakers etc imagine the upproar if an Islamic orginisation had to allow non muslim speakers and leaders.
I’d like to think there would be an uproar if any religious group disallowed non-religious/believers in different religions from attending or speaking.

An Islamic group at my university had a meeting recently about Jack Straw’s comments on the veil; there were plenty of Christians, atheists, etc., there. It would be irresponsible not to.

Answer the question. Should students be able to set up a white society and bar blacks from joining?

Yes, just as a black society should be allowed to not allow whites to join.

However, I was under the impression that all of these organizations were allowed to BE on campus, but they, like we do, have to provide their own funds.

Why not. The university provides funds to the judo group, the chess club, the hockey society etc. Just because it is religious it is somehow diffrent and singled out. The judo group does not teach Kendo, is that discrimination?

What a bunch of fallacious bullshit. They are not being singled out because they are Christian or religious, they are being singled out for refusing to follow the rules and everyone shouldn't fucking forget that.

What a bunch of fallacious bullshit. They are not being singled out because they are Christian or religious, they are being singled out for refusing to follow the rules and everyone shouldn't fucking forget that.

And the rules are flawed. By the groups nature it will be discriminatory. Also by the judo groups nature it will be discriminatory as it teaches judo and not chess. The CU should be treated the same as any other society, the rules in this case are flawed.

I’d like to think there would be an uproar if any religious group disallowed non-religious/believers in different religions from attending or speaking.

An Islamic group at my university had a meeting recently about Jack Straw’s comments on the veil; there were plenty of Christians, atheists, etc., there. It would be irresponsible not to.

Non Chrisitians are allowed to attend the meetings, and debates may or may not be arranged but if the CU chooses not to engage in such debates and thus wishes to only have Christian speekers it is within its rights to do so. It is not for any external force to determine what happens within the CU unless it is encourgaing breaking the law (EG enciting viloence)

And the rules are flawed. By the groups nature it will be discriminatory. Also by the judo groups nature it will be discriminatory as it teaches judo and not chess. The CU should be treated the same as any other society, the rules in this case are flawed.
No, their not flawed because the CU are affiliated with a university which has certain rules about discrimination within university-affiliated groups.

If the CU had nothing to do with an educational establishment, then they could discriminate on membership anyway they saw fit.

Non Chrisitians are allowed to attend the meetings, and debates may or may not be arranged but if the CU chooses not to engage in such debates and thus wishes to only have Christian speekers it is within its rights to do so. It is not for any external force to determine what happens within the CU unless it is encourgaing breaking the law (EG enciting viloence)
Again, the CU is part of a secular institution that has rules on discrimination. If the CU wants to affiliate with the university, it must, as you point out yourself, abide by the laws of the university.

The CU should be treated the same as any other society, the rules in this case are flawed.

The CU is being treated the same as any other society. It's just after a day of being told that, you still don't understand.

No, their not flawed because the CU are affiliated with a university which has certain rules about discrimination within university-affiliated groups.


The rules are flawed. Think about it logically. The discrimination that the CU puts into practise is no diffrent from the discrimination that the judo society puts onto people who want to learn Karate. The Judo society does not teach Karate and thus is discriminating aginst those people by that logic. The judo society is there for all those who either do, or want to, practise Judo. The CU is there for all those who are Christians or who want to be Christians. People can come who are just interested in Judo to the Judo sessions, as people can come to the CU meetings, but they cannot adress the meetings in the CU and they cannot teach Judo nor can they vote on either of their execs.

The CU is being treated the same as any other society. It's just after a day of being told that, you still don't understand.

No it isnt. By the logic implied the SU should also close the Judo society, since it discriminates aginst those who want to learn Karate.

If the SU provides for one society it should provide for all provided the society does not break the law (EG encite viloence)

I agree with you, people with traditional lifestyles deserve respect and recognition too.


Traditional for what, exactly?

Yeah, it doesn't seem fair, and I know that I'm only American. I don't necessarily see a problem with the ban if they're preaching prejudices. After all, this is supposed to be a religion based on love. Jesus didn't just preach to the Jews, after all. Why put a ban on outsiders?

No it isnt. By the logic implied the SU should also close the Judo society, since it discriminates aginst those who want to learn Karate.

If the SU provides for one society it should provide for all provided the society does not break the law (EG encite viloence)

The Judo society doesn't discriminate against those who want to learn karate, they are still allowed to join it, they just won't get what they are looking for. I've already told you that this analogy is deeply flawed, you really should stop posting it.

Again, the CU is part of a secular institution that has rules on discrimination. If the CU wants to affiliate with the university, it must, as you point out yourself, abide by the laws of the university.

Secular groups use the same discriminatory pracitsies. The Judo group discriminates against people who do not want to learn Judo

The Judo group is there for all those who want to or already do, pracitse Judo

The CU is there for all those who want to, or allready do, practise Christianity

People can go to the meetings if they are interested, but unless they want to participate they cannot join as members, which means they cannot be on the exec, vote for the exec or adress the meetings

Traditional for what, exactly?

Yeah, it doesn't seem fair, and I know that I'm only American. I don't necessarily see a problem with the ban if they're preaching prejudices. After all, this is supposed to be a religion based on love. Jesus didn't just preach to the Jews, after all. Why put a ban on outsiders?

They arnt preaching discrimination

The discrimination they are talking about is that Christian groups (shockingly) will not let non Christians vote on the exec, be on the exec or adress the meetings.

Its rather like insisitng that the US congress does not have to made up of US citizens, and that Non US Citizens should have the right to vote in US elections or that the president could be someone who has never lived in America, and is not an American citizen

The rules are flawed. Think about it logically. The discrimination that the CU puts into practise is no diffrent from the discrimination that the judo society puts onto people who want to learn Karate. The Judo society does not teach Karate and thus is discriminating aginst those people by that logic. The judo society is there for all those who either do, or want to, practise Judo. The CU is there for all those who are Christians or who want to be Christians. People can come who are just interested in Judo to the Judo sessions, as people can come to the CU meetings, but they cannot adress the meetings in the CU and they cannot teach Judo nor can they vote on either of their execs.

That's about the most stupid thing you have said and it bears no relevance to the subject. Your analogy is saying that people want to join the CU and have them preach some other faith, which is not the case. If your analogy were correct it would say that the Judo society was not allowing people who study karate to attend their Judo lessons.

Secular groups use the same discriminatory pracitsies. The Judo group discriminates against people who do not want to learn Judo

The Judo group is there for all those who want to or already do, pracitse Judo

The CU is there for all those who want to, or allready do, practise Christianity

People can go to the meetings if they are interested, but unless they want to participate they cannot join as members, which means they cannot be on the exec, vote for the exec or adress the meetings
Well, firstly that’s a ridiculous analogy; religious belief and martial art preference are completely different.

However, if we take your analogy as serious, I don’t see why someone who does Karate can’t come along to the Judo group and listen in on Judo classes, discuss fighting styles, look at the merits of both systems, etc.

Moreover as a university-affiliated group abiding by university non-discrimatory rules, CU/Judo group cannot disallow members based on religious belief, or lack of/knowledge of karate.

Secular groups use the same discriminatory pracitsies. The Judo group discriminates against people who do not want to learn Judo

It is just silly to compare religious discrimination with judo or chess and whatnot. *Sigh* Okay then, not allowing people of different religions to become members IS discriminating. However, the judo club IS NOT discriminating as long as they give ALL students a chance to join. It is up to the individual to decide if they actually want to join or not.

The Judo group discriminates against people who do not want to learn Judo
Do you understand what discriminate means?
to treat a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, religion, sex, etc:
See the bit I underlined?

Okay, now is the christian club treating other groups differently? Yes, they are not allowing non-Christians to join.

Is this hypothetical judo club treating other groups differently? No, they are not. They are not discriminating against anybody, they have not made any attempt to stop a particular group of students from becoming members.

The Judo group is there for all those who want to or already do, pracitse Judo

The CU is there for all those who want to, or allready do, practise Christianity

Won't you please stop your constant repetition of this pathetic analogy? :headbang:

It is just silly to compare religious discrimination with judo or chess and whatnot. *Sigh* Okay then, not allowing people of different religions to become members IS discriminating. However, the judo club IS NOT discriminating as long as they give ALL students a chance to join. It is up to the individual to decide if they actually want to join or not.

The CU gives all students the chance to join, but logically its membership is limited to those who want to be or are Christians. It is a Christian union, what do you expect


Do you understand what discriminate means?

See the bit I underlined?

Okay, now is the christian club treating other groups differently? Yes, they are not allowing non-Christians to join.

Is this hypothetical judo club treating other groups differently? No, they are not. They are not discriminating against anybody, they have not made any attempt to stop a particular group of students from becoming members.


If a person does not want to learn Judo, the Judo society does not have to let them become a member. The same way that the CU does not have to let someone become a member if they do not want to be a Christian.


Won't you please stop your constant repetition of this pathetic analogy? :headbang:

Fine, another one. To say that CU membership shouldnt be limited to Christians, and that non Christians should be able to be on the exec, vote for the exec and adress the CU is a bit like saying that Mexicans should be allowed to vote in the US elections even if they arnt American citizens, and that the US president shouldnt have to be a US citizen or that the State of the union adress could be made by someone who isnt an American citizen

I don't think that this is really discrimination. I mean, it's one thing if it's just that they're not bothering anyone and going about singing their hymns and praying together and the like, but it's another thing entirely when they're proclaiming that homosexuals are sinful and offering to pray for them.

While there is freedom of speech and one should be able to say whatever one wants (unless it's encouraging harm to others or something), but that doesn't mean that a school has to give funding to a group who does so or allow them to be affiliated with the school. If that was the case, what's to stop neo-nazis or the kkk from forming a student group and using school funds to promote their racist ideals?

(this is in response to the first article...)

No, but they should treat all socieites with equality, just because they are Christians does not mean that they should be not allowed to meet there. This is what is called the right to freedom of asscociasion
Should the KKK also be allowed to meet and receive funds from the school? Racism and homophobia aren't really too different... the only real change is the group that's targeted.

Thats an assumption based upon a misunderstanding about the Christian belief about homosexuality. While Christians may believe its sinful, they also believe that people should not judge. Love sinners, hate sin.

And even if they did promote homophobia, freedom of speech allows for that to the point of enciting viloence
Yes, but does a university, as a publicly funded institution have to give monetary support to a group who encourages non-inclusive attitudes?

I think the BGLT proberbly would discriminate against a Christian talking to them, even in the manner I described above. There is a thing called freedom of asscociation. We do not force mosques to allow Jews to preach in there sermons.
1. The GLBT group at my school would take issue with someone standing there telling them they're hell bound sinners, but that's simply not polite really. They wouldn't be able to kick them out of their meetings or prevent them from joining the club unless they caused an incident.
2. A mosque isn't publicly funded, a school is.

Would the Afro-Carrabien society allow a white president?

This is freedom of assocoiation, people have a right to asscoicate peacefully
At my school they're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or religion for club membership.

If I wanted to, I could go join the Chinese Catholic group and run for president despite being a caucasian agnostic.

They are open to all the universities Christians. In the same way the football club is open to all the football players and the afro-carrabiean societity open to all the afro-carabiens at the university.
No, a football club has to be open to everyone in the university, whether they play football or not. The afro-carribean society has to be open to everyone in the university, whether they are afro-carribean or not.

There is however freedom of asscoiasion. The univerity does not have the right to ban the Christian society and not others without proper cause, which has not been demonstrated.
Is the afro-carribean society actually discriminating against people?

And the rules are flawed. By the groups nature it will be discriminatory. Also by the judo groups nature it will be discriminatory as it teaches judo and not chess. The CU should be treated the same as any other society, the rules in this case are flawed.
This is an invalid compairson if ever there was one. A judo club isn't discriminating against those who want to learn to play chess, it just isn't teaching those who want to learn to play chess how to play chess. They can still come to meetings and they can still learn judo, but it is not the function of the Judo club to teach someone to play chess.
This is as stupid as claiming that a physics class is discriminatory because it doesn't teach english. We're not discussing specialization here, we're talking discrimination, for those who don't know what discrimination is: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Which is exactly what the christian group is doing by not allowing non-christians to join, address the exec or vote. It is exactly what a black power club would be doing if it didn't allow white members.

This is an invalid compairson if ever there was one. A judo club isn't discriminating against those who want to learn to play chess, it just isn't teaching those who want to learn to play chess how to play chess. They can still come to meetings and they can still learn judo, but it is not the function of the Judo club to teach someone to play chess.
This is as stupid as claiming that a physics class is discriminatory because it doesn't teach english. We're not discussing specialization here, we're talking discrimination, for those who don't know what discrimination is: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

It is a CHRISTIAN UNION. By definition it discriminates against non Christians because it is a Christian union. This discrimination is no more or less valid than a Mosques discrimination that only Muslims may be the Imam or that in the US elections, only US citizens can vote

It is a CHRISTIAN UNION. By definition it discriminates against non Christians because it is a Christian union. This discrimination is no more or less valid than a Mosques discrimination that only Muslims may be the Imam or that in the US elections, only US citizens can vote
No, it's a christian union, which means that anyone should be able to show up, join, become elected to preside over the group, but the subject matter should be primarily about christianity, issues that effect christianity et c. A mosque isn't a publicly funded institution the way a university is and an Imam has certain obligations that only a muslim could fill, part of the job requires being a muslim. Being president of a student club does not require any special religious training or choice.

Your citizenship comparison is also stupid.

The CU gives all students the chance to join, but logically its membership is limited to those who want to be or are Christians. It is a Christian union, what do you expect

I expect that this Christian club should obey the rules of the university and stop being religionist. It should be open to ALL students no matter what they happen to believe in.

If a person does not want to learn Judo, the Judo society does not have to let them become a member.

The judo club does have to let them become a member if the person wants to join.

The problem with this analogy is that you're comparing the Christian club having to accept any student who wants to join, with the judo club having to accept students that do NOT want to join. It makes little sense (to anyone that isn't you).

The same way that the CU does not have to let someone become a member if they do not want to be a Christian.

Actually no. Any student who wants to become a member of one of these clubs can become a member. To not allow certain people is against the university rules. Rules these clubs have to obey, although the Christian club seems to think that it is exempt.

Fine, another one. To say that CU membership shouldnt be limited to Christians, and that non Christians should be able to be on the exec, vote for the exec and adress the CU is a bit like saying that Mexicans should be allowed to vote in the US elections even if they arnt American citizens, and that the US president shouldnt have to be a US citizen or that the State of the union adress could be made by someone who isnt an American citizen

Why don't you go back and count the number of times people have criticised your analogies? :rolleyes:

Just stop it.

Anti-Christian discrimination?

That's a laugh.

So it couldn't possibly be because these groups exclude non-Christians, promote homophobia, and discriminiate against transgendered people! No, it must be because they're Christians, and the Man is keeping them down!

Why must people persist in thinking their hatred must be given a pass, while at the same time the ill feelings towards them must be stifled? A double standard, no?

Homophobia? Using buzzwords nullifies your argument. It actually means "fear of the same".