NationStates Jolt Archive

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 etc.

Its name is a union of Christians, which excludes people who arnt Christians. Its fine if non Christians want to come to the meetings, but they cannot be the president, vote for the president or adress the meetings, because they arnt a Christian. Again, its like the US government not having to be made up of US citizens.


A mosque isn't a publicly funded institution the way a university is.

Yes it is. UK charity commison law allows for that. Universities have charity status because they are not compulsery education institutes and are paritally government funded and paritally privately funded.


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.

No, but the Mosque has determined that those responabilities could only be filled by a Muslim, no one else made that distinction. In the same way the CU has done


Your citizenship comparison is also stupid

Why. Calling it stupid isn't an argument in itself. I suspect you dont have one

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.

Its a Christian union. The first word indicates that it is selective on the grounds of belief. IE It is for people of simmilar beliefs to meet up and asscoiate together. To deny that is to deny freedom of asscoisation


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).

No, I'm comparing someone who wants to join the Judo society but doesnt want to learn Judo with someone who wants to join the CU but who doesnt want to be or isnt 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.

The rules are flawed. That is my argument. As long as the groups pay the bills and act within the law of the country in question (IE not enciting viloence) then it is entilted to discriminate whoever it pleases from its membership. It isnt a workplace or a university facility.


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

Just stop it.

Actually criticise it then. How is demanding that a non Christian be able to be president of the CU diffrent from saying that a non US citizen be the president of the US.

Its name is a union of Christians, which excludes people who arnt Christians.
Which is exactly the problem.

For instance, at my university, a club cannot discriminate against anyone who wants to join. If I, an agnostic canadian-american citizen of European descent wanted to join the Coalition of Chinese Catholics, I could. If I wanted to run for president, I could. That doesn't mean people have to vote for me, but I can run for an exective position in the club if I want to.

Its fine if non Christians want to come to the meetings, but they cannot be the president, vote for the president or adress the meetings, because they arnt a Christian.
Which is why it's discriminatory.

Again, its like the US government not having to be made up of US citizens.
Except that there are rules about how one can become a US citizenship that does not necessarily include forcing someone to give up their personal beliefs. And except for the fact that this is a student organization, as such, students shouldn't be discriminated against in looking to join, this situation is actually more like a US citizen not being permitted to vote because they do not support one of the two major party candidates instead supporting an independant one. Your analogy sucks.

Yes it is. UK charity commison law allows for that. Universities have charity status because they are not compulsery education institutes and are paritally government funded and paritally privately funded.
Proof that mosques are government-funded and don't just say, not pay taxes? I don't know how things work in the UK, but here in Canada, they don't get government funding.

Why. Calling it stupid isn't an argument in itself. I suspect you dont have one
I do have an argument. I stated it earlier in this response. pwned. Your comparison still isn't valid.

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.

1. It isnt homophobia, as I have already demonstrated in previous posts

2. Even if it was homophobia, that is within the freedom of speech. Its when it is encouraging vilonence that it breaks the law

*sigh*

1. The CU is a student group affiliated with a university.

2. The University has a rule stating that student groups may not disallow members based on their religious beliefs, or lack of.

Therefore, the CU has to accept members irrespective of their religious beliefs, or lack of.

Is that clear enough?

1. It isnt homophobia, as I have already demonstrated in previous posts

2. Even if it was homophobia, that is within the freedom of speech. Its when it is encouraging vilonence that it breaks the law
1. You never actually demonstrated it wasn't homophobia. You claimed it wasn't, you made statements, you didn't prove or demonstrate shit.
2. Just because it's freedom of speech doesn't mean the university has to fund it. They can say that fags are going to burn in hell until they're blue in the face, but the university doesn't have to give them money to help them do so.

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

My thoughts: Cry more noobs?

Which is exactly the problem.

For instance, at my university, a club cannot discriminate against anyone who wants to join. If I, an agnostic canadian-american citizen of European descent wanted to join the Coalition of Chinese Catholics, I could. If I wanted to run for president, I could. That doesn't mean I have to be elected, but I can run for an exective position in the club if I want to.

Which is why it's discriminatory.

Just saying its "discriminatory" does not win the argument. Discrimination is only bad if it is illogical and subjective. It isnt here. Obviously a Christian union discriminates because it isnt going to cater to non Christians


Except that there are rules about how one can become a US citizenship that does not necessarily include forcing someone to give up their personal beliefs. And except for the fact that this is a student organization, as such, students shouldn't be discriminated against in looking to join, this situation is actually more like a US citizen not being permitted to vote because they do not support one of the two major party candidates instead supporting an independant one. Your analogy sucks.

No it doesnt. By nature of name the US government can only govern the US. And because it is a democracy its government is made up of people who are citizens of the US. Therefore the US govermnet discriminates against those who are not US citizens. However that discrimination is logical as it is the US government


Proof that mosques are government-funded and don't just say, not pay taxes? I don't know how things work in the UK, but here in Canada, they don't get government funding.

19. In general, no distinction is made between one religion and another. There is a general assumption that the advancement of religion is for the public benefit. For the advancement of religion to be charitable, a religion has to:

be founded on a belief in a supreme being or beings; and
involve expression of that belief through worship.
20. The advancement of religion can include the provision and upkeep of places of worship, paying ministers or priests, and holding services.

21. In some cases the advancement of religion is not charitable. This is where public benefit is clearly lacking. Examples of this include:

organisations where the benefit is wholly private (such as an entirely enclosed religious order where the activities consist only of private prayer); and
where an organisation is set up to promote the beliefs of a particular religion which undermine the accepted foundations of religion and morality, or are otherwise contrary to the public interest.

There

1. You never actually demonstrated it wasn't homophobia. You claimed it wasn't, you made statements, you didn't prove or demonstrate shit.

Yes I did. Homophobia refers culturally now to the fear of homosexuals (althogh literally translated it means fear of the same). Christian belief is not at all about fear (unless you talk of fear IE reverence of God, but that isnt the kind of fear that homophobia means) it is about love. Christians believe that you should love the sinner and hate sin. Not all Christians always practise that, but that is what the faith is structured around.


2. Just because it's freedom of speech doesn't mean the university has to fund it. They can say that fags are going to burn in hell until they're blue in the face, but the university doesn't have to give them money to help them do so.

If the university funds one groups right to speek, it must fund them all.

bump

Yes I did. Homophobia refers culturally now to the fear of homosexuals (althogh literally translated it means fear of the same). Christian belief is not at all about fear (unless you talk of fear IE reverence of God, but that isnt the kind of fear that homophobia means) it is about love. Christians believe that you should love the sinner and hate sin. Not all Christians always practise that, but that is what the faith is structured around.
Bullshit. Homophobia also includes hatred of and discimination against homosexuals, it's not just whether you fear them. Going about proclaiming that two men in a monogamous, perhaps marital relationship is sinful and not allowing them to be included in your club is homophobic.

If the university funds one groups right to speek, it must fund them all.
So it should fund the KKK?

I don't think so. The university should only have to fund groups that don't discriminate against people if it has a policy against discrimination.

Just saying its "discriminatory" does not win the argument. Discrimination is only bad if it is illogical and subjective. It isnt here. Obviously a Christian union discriminates because it isnt going to cater to non Christians
It's not that it's not catering to non-Christians that's the problem, it's that it's not allowing them to join as members that is. I don't go to a japanese club expecting to learn to speak french, I do however, expect that they'll let me join regardless of my background.

There
Doesn't change the fact that there are perhaps certain parts of the job where being muslim is a requirement, perhaps only muslims are allowed to preform certain rituals that the Imam must be able to preform.
It's the same deal with being a pharmacist, if your religious beliefs prevent you from being able to preform your job, you should find another job.

Bullshit. Homophobia also includes hatred of and discimination against homosexuals, it's not just whether you fear them. Going about proclaiming that two men in a monogamous, perhaps marital relationship is sinful and not allowing them to be included in your club is homophobic.

No it isnt. See the word "phobia" which means fear. People who have homosexual attractions are welcome to be members of the CU if they are Christians and thus not acting on those desires.


So it should fund the KKK?

I don't think so. The university should only have to fund groups that don't discriminate against people if it has a policy against discrimination.

Anti-Discrimination is logical in the work place because it is an objective place, IE people of diffrent cultural backgrounds can still do the same job as well as each other. But we arnt talking about the workplace, we are talking about asscociasion. If the university provides the right to asscociasion to one group, it must provide it to all provided the group pays the money and is not breaking the law

No it isnt. See the word "phobia" which means fear. People who have homosexual attractions are welcome to be members of the CU if they are Christians and thus not acting on those desires.
Except that that's not what the term actually means. It doesn't mean a literal fear of homosexuality, maybe that's how it started, but that's not what the word means anymore.
And one can be a sexually active homosexual and still be Christian.

Anti-Discrimination is logical in the work place because it is an objective place, IE people of diffrent cultural backgrounds can still do the same job as well as each other. But we arnt talking about the workplace, we are talking about asscociasion. If the university provides the right to asscociasion to one group, it must provide it to all provided the group pays the money and is not breaking the law
No, the university is only obligated to fund clubs that go along with the policies of the univesity. It seems that it's against the rules of the university to have a club discriminate against homosexual or transgendered individuals, or to discriminate on the basis of religion or race. If a club discriminates on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender et c then it is not following the university's policies and the university has every right to cease funding it.

It doesn't matter if these anti-discrimination policies are fair, they're the policies of the university.

You also didn't respond to my question. Should a university be obligated to fund the KKK or a neo-nazi group?

It's not that it's not catering to non-Christians that's the problem, it's that it's not allowing them to join as members that is. I don't go to a japanese club expecting to learn to speak french, I do however, expect that they'll let me join regardless of my background.

It is called freedom of asscoiasion. The group is allowed by law to choose who it allows to asscoiate and who it doesnt. The university is not entitled to circumvent that law. It must act in the same way as the government if it allocates for those kinds of rights.


Doesn't change the fact that there are perhaps certain parts of the job where being muslim is a requirement, perhaps only muslims are allowed to preform certain rituals that the Imam must be able to preform.
It's the same deal with being a pharmacist, if your religious beliefs prevent you from being able to preform your job, you should find another job.

And it doesnt change the fact that you dodged the issue. I have demonstrated that in the UK religious groups are given charity status. And a Christian union by its definiton is run by Christians for Christians.

Except that that's not what the term actually means. It doesn't mean a literal fear of homosexuality, maybe that's how it started, but that's not what the word means anymore.

Your moving goalposts. Redefining the word to mean whatever it is you want it to mean. Homophobia means, by its use, fear of homosexuals. Christians do not fear homosexuals. Love sinners, hate sin.


And one can be a sexually active homosexual and still be Christian

True, to an extent


No, the university is only obligated to fund clubs that go along with the policies of the univesity. It seems that it's against the rules of the university to have a club discriminate against homosexual or transgendered individuals, or to discriminate on the basis of religion or race. If a club discriminates on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender et c then it is not following the university's policies and the university has every right to cease funding it.

It doesn't matter if these anti-discrimination policies are fair, they're the policies of the university

The university does not have the right to do that. Either it allows all groups or it allows none. The kind of discrimination the CU uses is the same as any other group. Ergo it should not block the CU the same funds.


You also didn't respond to my question. Should a university be obligated to fund the KKK or a neo-nazi group?

I said the same thing. The university is obligated to provide funding to any group that obeys the laws of the country (IE is not enciting viloence)

It is called freedom of asscoiasion. The group is allowed by law to choose who it allows to asscoiate and who it doesnt. The university is not entitled to circumvent that law. It must act in the same way as the government if it allocates for those kinds of rights.
The university does not have to fund a club that violates the university's rules. Yeah, they can't stop them from assembling, but they sure as shit don't have to encourage it.

And it doesnt change the fact that you dodged the issue. I have demonstrated that in the UK religious groups are given charity status. And a Christian union by its definiton is run by Christians for Christians.
It doesn't change the fact that there are no religious rituals that require the president or executive member of a christian union to be a christian, there is nothing in the job desctiption that forces that to be the case.
I also really don't think that that's the definition of a christian union. I think that's the definition of a christian union that you made up.

The university does not have to fund a club that violates the university's rules. Yeah, they can't stop them from assembling, but they sure as shit don't have to encourage it.

If they allow one club, they must allow them all. They cannot select else they are guilty of the same kind of discrimination they claim the CU is guilty of.


It doesn't change the fact that there are no religious rituals that require the president or executive member of a christian union to be a christian, there is nothing in the job desctiption that forces that to be the case.
I also really don't think that that's the definition of a christian union. I think that's the definition of a christian union that you made up.

You couldnt really pray at the meetings if you didnt beleive in what you were praying to.

Your moving goalposts. Redefining the word to mean whatever it is you want it to mean. Homophobia means, by its use, fear of homosexuals. Christians do not fear homosexuals. Love sinners, hate sin.
1. I'm not moving goalposts, I'm defining the term correctly after you defined it incorrectly.
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals —ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun —ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective
The group is discriminating against homosexuals, correct?

2. You don't speak for all christians, look at the poor kids beaten to death for being gay and tell me that all christians love sinners and hate the sin. Just because you keep stating the same thing over and over and over doesn't make it true.

The university does not have the right to do that. Either it allows all groups or it allows none.
No, it only has to allow groups that follow the university's rules on clubs.

The kind of discrimination the CU uses is the same as any other group. Ergo it should not block the CU the same funds.
Ok, prove that the afro-carribean society actively denies membership to white people. Prove that the japanese club actively denies membership to non-japanese. Then you'll have a case.

I said the same thing. The university is obligated to provide funding to any group that obeys the laws of the country (IE is not enciting viloence)
No, you didn't say the same thing. I said that the university is not obligated to provide funds for groups that do not adhere to the policies of the university nothing at all about the laws of the country.

If they allow one club, they must allow them all. They cannot select else they are guilty of the same kind of discrimination they claim the CU is guilty of.
For the last time, no, you don't have to allow all clubs if you allow one. My school doesn't have to allow a neo-nazi club becasue they allowed a croatian club, nor do they have to fund a "god hates fags" club because they fund a GLBT club.

You couldnt really pray at the meetings if you didnt beleive in what you were praying to.
Who says you have to pray as president or member of the executive? It's quite possible to simply bow one's head in silence as others pray.

It's also not necessarily the case that a non-Christian will be elected to the position of president, in fact, if the members of the club do not believe that the person is able to serve effectively as president of the club becasue they aren't christian, then the club members are under no obligation to vote for them. Like I said, at my school, I could run for presidency of the Association of Chinese Catholics if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean they have to vote for me.

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.

But none of those clubs are discriminating by religion.

No it isnt. See the word "phobia" which means fear.

Hoist by your own petard:

Your own words shall condemn you: "Homophobia refers culturally now to the fear of homosexuals".

You opened the door on what a word 'refers' to 'culturally'. You can't now use etymology to rebut the same mechanism.

Culturally, 'homophobia' means any of the discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals... barring equality, attacking physically or verbally, etc.

Your moving goalposts. Redefining the word to mean whatever it is you want it to mean. Homophobia means, by its use, fear of homosexuals. Christians do not fear homosexuals. Love sinners, hate sin.


Many words do not mean their literal translation from latin.

In the context that 'Homophobia' is used it normally means hatred.

By it's use it DOES NOT only mean fear.



That said - back on the topic of the unions... Why do non-Christains want to join Christian Unions? Seems a bit odd to me...

Reminds me of when a bunch of homophobes joined the LGBT group at my university just before their elections, voted some homophobes into all the commitie plces, who then promptly shut down the LGBT Society.

I can't see the sort of people who try to shut down a Christian Society bringing a positive membership to the club - the only reasons such a person would try to join would be to cause trouble.

I can't see the sort of people who try to shut down a Christian Society bringing a positive membership to the club - the only reasons such a person would try to join would be to cause trouble.

Maybe the 'Christian Society' managed a cushy deal on parking, or something... and others want in on it.

Unless you are intimately familiar with the situation, it's a bit risky to say causing trouble would be the only reason.

Maybe the 'Christian Society' managed a cushy deal on parking, or something... and others want in on it.

Unless you are intimately familiar with the situation, it's a bit risky to say causing trouble would be the only reason.

Before I reply - are you from the UK? And did you go to university here?

1. I'm not moving goalposts, I'm defining the term correctly after you defined it incorrectly.
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals —ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun —ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective
The group is discriminating against homosexuals, correct?

The group is discriminating against non-christians. It is hard to be a Christian when you are actively sinning and seeking acceptence for that sin and being unrepentant about it


2. You don't speak for all christians, look at the poor kids beaten to death for being gay and tell me that all christians love sinners and hate the sin. Just because you keep stating the same thing over and over and over doesn't make it true

What I said is that is what the Christian belief should be. I never said that is how people always act upon it. Do not put words in my mouth

No, it only has to allow groups that follow the university's rules on clubs.


Ok, prove that the afro-carribean society actively denies membership to white people. Prove that the japanese club actively denies membership to non-japanese. Then you'll have a case.

The Ex-pat society only offers membership to Ex-pats. People can go to the meetings, join in the activities but non ex-pats cannot vote on the exec.


No, you didn't say the same thing. I said that the university is not obligated to provide funds for groups that do not adhere to the policies of the university nothing at all about the laws of the country.

The univesities policies have to be in line with the governments policies. If the government allows for groups to be selective about their membership and fiancially supports them in doing so, so should the university seeing as the government funds them also.

Hoist by your own petard:

Your own words shall condemn you: "Homophobia refers culturally now to the fear of homosexuals".

You opened the door on what a word 'refers' to 'culturally'. You can't now use etymology to rebut the same mechanism.

Culturally, 'homophobia' means any of the discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals... barring equality, attacking physically or verbally, etc.

Actually, as I have to point out every time it gets brought up here, the root -phobia is used here, not the word phobia.

The root has the following definition:

-phobia
One entry found for -phobia.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

"Intolerance or aversion for." I think that works quite well in the word homophobia. Even the etymology results in the commonly used definition.

Actually, as I have to point out every time it gets brought up here, the root -phobia is used here, not the word phobia.

The root has the following definition:

-phobia
One entry found for -phobia.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

"Intolerance or aversion for." I think that works quite well in the word homophobia.

But, regardless of what the root might mean (and I do agree with you that more than just 'fear' is implied), Neo opened the door on 'cultural' meaning.

If he (she?) wants to live by received interpretation, he (she) must be prepared to die by it.

Before I reply - are you from the UK? And did you go to university here?

Yes, and yes.

Born in London, educated in Essex, then in Lincolnshire. Moved around a bit - including Ireland, attended college in Boston, and University in Leicester.

I'm not IN the UK, now, though. :)

But none of those clubs are discriminating by religion.

Yes, but they are discriminating in terms of what there clubs are about. The only differnce here is that it is a religious club and not a social/sport/entetainment etc club. This society discriminates on the basis of religion because it is a religious society. By its nature it will do that. In the same way the Indie group discriminates against those who dont like indie and will only complain about it etc

But, regardless of what the root might mean (and I do agree with you that more than just 'fear' is implied), Neo opened the door on 'cultural' meaning.

If he (she?) wants to live by received interpretation, he (she) must be prepared to die by it.

The cultural meaning of homophobia is fear of homosexuals. To suggest otherwise is to misuse the word and re-define it.

Yes, but they are discriminating in terms of what there clubs are about. The only differnce here is that it is a religious club and not a social/sport/entetainment etc club. This society discriminates on the basis of religion because it is a religious society. By its nature it will do that. In the same way the Indie group discriminates against those who dont like indie and will only complain about it etc

I joined a kick boxing club, you were not required to have taken a kick boxing class or have any knowledge or requirement other then and interest in the topic matter.

The cultural meaning of homophobia is fear of homosexuals. To suggest otherwise is to misuse the word and re-define it.

The cultural meaning is how the culture uses it, they use it as "hate" or discriminate not fear. Do you really need the thousands of news stories and writings where it is not used to mean fear.


Just look at how it is used http://www.google.com/search?q=homophobia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The cultural meaning is what the culture makes of it, and todays culture does not define it by "fear"

I joined a kick boxing club, you were not required to have taken a kick boxing class or have any knowledge or requirement other then and interest in the topic matter.

No, but you are required to want to take up kickboxing

Yes, and yes.

Born in London, educated in Essex, then in Lincolnshire. Moved around a bit - including Ireland, attended college in Boston, and University in Leicester.

I'm not IN the UK, now, though. :)

Hmmm...

Strange - maybe your university operated a TOTALLY different system to the Universitiy I went to, and all the Univeristies all my friends went to - but basically all that 'Social' Student Societies normally get is a little cash and they are allowed to book a room for meeting in. Of which there are plenty.

Sports Societies tended to get a bit more, bt that was more due to the costs of equipment and that they represented the university in competitions.

In this case the students have been denied the right to meet in University lecture rooms (of which there would be so many that they could not possibly be causing even moderate inconvieence to anyone else) and the measly handout that student unions get.

The cultural meaning of homophobia is fear of homosexuals. To suggest otherwise is to misuse the word and re-define it.

No it doesn't.

Homophobia in common usage means a hatred of homosexuals, or an aversion to them, or discrimination to them.

Hmmm...

Strange - maybe your university operated a TOTALLY different system to the Universitiy I went to, and all the Univeristies all my friends went to - but basically all that 'Social' Student Societies normally get is a little cash and they are allowed to book a room for meeting in. Of which there are plenty.

Sports Societies tended to get a bit more, bt that was more due to the costs of equipment and that they represented the university in competitions.

In this case the students have been denied the right to meet in University lecture rooms (of which there would be so many that they could not possibly be causing even moderate inconvieence to anyone else) and the measly handout that student unions get.

At my univ in the usa that was usually the same but every once and a while a particular club would have the ability to get a section of lockers or something (the ACM on campus got that) ... it depends on how closely associated you were with a particular department really and how much they wanted to share department resources with you. (Some times a benefit to them) for example the CNA club (Computer networking) has vested interest in making sure that a big well equipped CNA club has the space to run further education projects.

This leads to better more equipped students in their classes

The cultural meaning of homophobia is fear of homosexuals. To suggest otherwise is to misuse the word and re-define it.

Utter wank. The etymology of 'homophobia' makes it look like 'homophobia' should mean 'fear of the same'... but that is not what you are arguing. The cultural 'meaning' is negativity towards homosexuals.

It doesn't matter if it 'misuses' the word (according to you), or if it 're-definies it' (again, according to you) - because cultural meaning is free to do such.

After all, 'cultural meaning' enables me to put things that are no cups in a cuboard...

No, but you are required to want to take up kickboxing

Not really, you are required to have an interest in kick boxing Not take it up outside of the group, or even practice. Hell you can come for just the administrative meetings if you want and do absolutely no kick boxing in your entire life if you want to

Hmmm...

Strange - maybe your university operated a TOTALLY different system to the Universitiy I went to, and all the Univeristies all my friends went to - but basically all that 'Social' Student Societies normally get is a little cash and they are allowed to book a room for meeting in. Of which there are plenty.

Sports Societies tended to get a bit more, bt that was more due to the costs of equipment and that they represented the university in competitions.

In this case the students have been denied the right to meet in University lecture rooms (of which there would be so many that they could not possibly be causing even moderate inconvieence to anyone else) and the measly handout that student unions get.

I don't know. When I was at university (a decade and more ago), social student societies didn't get any cash. I don't know if this is just true of my uni, or just true of my time. The uni also did not seem obligated to provide meeting space - indeed, student societies were either off-campus completely, or were often fixtures at the Student Union.

However, the individual student soceities were not prevented from setting up their own advantageous situations... a number of the societies arranged special deals with entertainment venues (cinemas, laser-tag, etc). I can see that it might be entirely possible for a student to want to join a rock society (even if they didn't like 'rock' music), to take advantage of benefits the society had arranged at a given venue...?

I don't know. When I was at university (a decade and more ago), social student societies didn't get any cash. I don't know if this is just true of my uni, or just true of my time. The uni also did not seem obligated to provide meeting space - indeed, student societies were either off-campus completely, or were often fixtures at the Sudent Union.

However, the individual student soceities were not prevented from setting up their own advantageous situations... a number of the societies arranged special deals with entertainment venues (cinemas, laser-tag, etc). I can see that it might be entirely possible for a student to want to join a rock society (even if they didn't like 'rock' music), to take advantage of benefits the society had arranged at a given venue...?

I know we had a lot of non CNA students join just because they wanted to come discuss some of the projects that we were working on.

However, the individual student soceities were not prevented from setting up their own advantageous situations... a number of the societies arranged special deals with entertainment venues (cinemas, laser-tag, etc). I can see that it might be entirely possible for a student to want to join a rock society (even if they didn't like 'rock' music), to take advantage of benefits the society had arranged at a given venue...?

Ahhh - gotcha.

Somehow I have doubts that the Christian Society had too many such deals - maybe a reserved Pew at the local church...

I want to make it clear - I do not agree with the views of the Christian societies in question who seem to ahve homophobic leanings, but I think the people wanting to shut them down are motivated by something other than missing out on book vouchers at the local bible store.

Given how many people are allergic to Christianity I can see them not wanting such people in their group. If I ran a LGBT society and some homophobe turned up I would tell him/her to go away. If I ran a vegetarian society and a militant meat eater wanted to tur up to disrupt meetings/insult belierfs or eat beef burgers at meetings I would think they should b told to go away too.

I can see people wantin to join such groups to LEARN about somethign they were interested in - Like join the Islamic society to learn about Islam, or join the Chinese society to learn about chinese culture and the like. But I think the people complaning about not being able to join, and those who complained about what people said in meetings (like praying for homosexuals) do not seemt o be there to learn, but to disrupt.

Ahhh - gotcha.

Somehow I have doubts that the Christian Society had too many such deals - maybe a reserved Pew at the local church...

I want to make it clear - I do not agree with the views of the Christian societies in question who seem to ahve homophobic leanings, but I think the people wanting to shut them down are motivated by something other than missing out on book vouchers at the local bible store.

Again - I don't know. When I was at university, any society that preached homophobic or racist propaganda would have been targetted by a lot of the student body. No other reason would have been needed. Maybe Leicester is just more politically active than a lot of places? I don't know.

I can see that people might want 'in' for reasons other than causing trouble. I can see why people might want to shut down such bodies... not for some agenda, but because they simply stood against some agenda.

Again - I don't know. When I was at university, any society that preached homophobic or racist propaganda would have been targetted by a lot of the student body. No other reason would have been needed. Maybe Leicester is just more politically active than a lot of places? I don't know.

I can see that people might want 'in' for reasons other than causing trouble. I can see why people might want to shut down such bodies... not for some agenda, but because they simply stood against some agenda.

Thing is - I am not sure the thing in question about homophobia was a hate act, or just someone being misguided. It sounds like the one of the reasons was that a student prayed for the sould of homosexuals - which I don't think is a hate act. To me that sounds similar to somone in a vegetarian society saying they think it's imoral for people to eat meat - to other like minded people.

It does not sound like the student was calling for harm on homosexuals, btu more qwas acting through a misguided belief to (in their opinion) help homosexuals. (I do not agree with the belief - just to mak that clear).

This issue is completly bogus. Whatever idiot believes that any religious group should not meet on a university campus because it might offend someone needs to get a life. At my school they made us take our bible study off campus. It hurt noone. But a jewish study was allowed to stay on campus. Descrimination of all religions is bad. I do not know the specifics of British law, but it is completly retarded that any institution would even have this debate. Whoever came up with the concept of being politically correct should shoot themselves for all the trouble it has caused. It is an issue of equality and as long as religious participation not forced or evasive who cares.

Not really, you are required to have an interest in kick boxing Not take it up outside of the group, or even practice. Hell you can come for just the administrative meetings if you want and do absolutely no kick boxing in your entire life if you want to

You can come to the meetings, but if you dont do anything they dont have to allow you to vote on the exec or to be on it or to teach at the classes

You can come to the meetings, but if you dont do anything they dont have to allow you to vote on the exec or to be on it or to teach at the classes

But they do ... at least in the kick boxing club I was in

There is no guarantee I will win but you are allowed to run for a position without partaking in the projects.

And as long as you pay your due's and make it to a certain number of meetings to be considered an active member you are allowed to vote as well.

As to the original topic, personally, I'm much more bothered by the exclusivity being practiced by these "Christians" than the fact that their unions have been blocked from campuses for breaking rules. Based on the articles, it seems that even many Christians would not be allowed to be members, or even stand up and have something to say at meetings. Even as a Christian, these groups would be unlikely to allow me to be a member.

On my college campus, we had a Baptist Student Union (BSU), but it wasn't restricted to Baptists. Even non-Christians were invited to attend meetings if they wanted to. That's how Christians should act, if they intend to follow the example of Christ.

This issue is completly bogus. Whatever idiot believes that any religious group should not meet on a university campus because it might offend someone needs to get a life.

It isn't a matter of "because it might offend someone." It was a matter of the society not holding to university rules governing recognized student groups.

Should a white-supremacist group be allowed on campus? I'm quite certain that its existence would break a great deal of rules, but that doesn't seem to matter in some cases, eh?

I can't believe this has got to 20 pages just because the OP can't grasp a simple concept.

I can't believe this has got to 20 pages just because the OP can't grasp a simple concept.

Welcome to NS General!

They should thank the universitys. You can't be a religious group if everyone respects you and tolerates you. Thats why my cult could never get off the ground, not enough oppression.

I think people who discriminate against others (such as the christians here) shouldnt complain when being discriminated against... but i think think they should be discriminated against anyway

equality? yes

lawsuit? no

The group is discriminating against non-christians. It is hard to be a Christian when you are actively sinning and seeking acceptence for that sin and being unrepentant about it
Not every Christian considers homosexual sex to be sinful.
Furthermore, this group seems to discriminate against homosexuals separate from their discrimination against non-Christians. Who's moving the goalposts now?

What I said is that is what the Christian belief should be. I never said that is how people always act upon it. Do not put words in my mouth
Yes, but this group of Christians is not showing love for the "sinners" they are discriminating against them. There's a huge difference.

No, it only has to allow groups that follow the university's rules on clubs.
Wait, did you just agree with me?!

The Ex-pat society only offers membership to Ex-pats. People can go to the meetings, join in the activities but non ex-pats cannot vote on the exec.
Proof?

The univesities policies have to be in line with the governments policies. If the government allows for groups to be selective about their membership and fiancially supports them in doing so, so should the university seeing as the government funds them also.
They don't have to always be perfectly in line with the government's policies. And even the government doesn't have to fund every group that wants funding.

Hell, if it was the case that a group invoked the right to assemble and demanded money from the government then a group of students could form a "tv-watching" club and demand funding from the university.

why would a non-christian join the christian union :confused:

why would a non-christian join the christian union :confused:
Why should they be kept from joining if they want to?

As to the original topic, personally, I'm much more bothered by the exclusivity being practiced by these "Christians" than the fact that their unions have been blocked from campuses for breaking rules. Based on the articles, it seems that even many Christians would not be allowed to be members, or even stand up and have something to say at meetings. Even as a Christian, these groups would be unlikely to allow me to be a member.

On my college campus, we had a Baptist Student Union (BSU), but it wasn't restricted to Baptists. Even non-Christians were invited to attend meetings if they wanted to. That's how Christians should act, if they intend to follow the example of Christ.

Indeed, that is what I disagree with. The Christian union I go to is very wide and open and welcoming to all, thats what CU's should be like


It isn't a matter of "because it might offend someone." It was a matter of the society not holding to university rules governing recognized student groups.

Should a white-supremacist group be allowed on campus? I'm quite certain that its existence would break a great deal of rules, but that doesn't seem to matter in some cases, eh?

A white supremicist group should be allowed as long as it pays the bills and it doesnt break the national law. If these peoples views are hideous and wrong then you should accept that people will see that

Freedom of speech means just that. As long as they are not encouraging criminal activity then it is fine. It is not a crime to believe that whites are inherntly better than other races. I believe that that idea is abhorent but I will not stop someone beliving in it

"You have a right to have an opinion and you have the right to be wrong. I am not questioning your right to be wrong, merely the wisdom in doing so"

"I will fight you to my last ounce of strength for what you say, but will defend you to my last drop of blood for your right to say it" - Voltaire paraphrased

Not every Christian considers homosexual sex to be sinful.

Indeed.

why would a non-christian join the christian union

Perhaps they are interested in Chrisitanity and want to learn more or get to know people who profess faith.

Of course, based on the articles linked, it would appear that many Christians would be blocked from joining this CU.


A white supremicist group should be allowed as long as it pays the bills and it doesnt break the national law.

So, if it breaks school rules, that's ok? The school should be forced to fund it anyways?

Note that the school can't keep them from saying whatever they want, or associating however they want. It can, however, restrict the use of its own facilities and funds by its own rules.

Not every Christian considers homosexual sex to be sinful.
Furthermore, this group seems to discriminate against homosexuals separate from their discrimination against non-Christians. Who's moving the goalposts now?

Demonstrate that please. Even if they are they have the right to be.


Yes, but this group of Christians is not showing love for the "sinners" they are discriminating against them. There's a huge difference.

They are discriminating against them becoming members. The kind of love I am talking about being shared cannot be displayed on a level that we would here about, its far more personal.


Proof?

From what i have been told, they don't have a website. I asked an ex-pat friend when this discussion came around


They don't have to always be perfectly in line with the government's policies. And even the government doesn't have to fund every group that wants funding.

The governmnet has to give recognition to every group that meets the requirements of the charity commision and provide the same rights to every group that meets the needs of those rights. The same is true of the SU. They cannot deny rights to people whom the government has not denied rights to as they are partially government funded institutions, IE an arc of the government.


Hell, if it was the case that a group invoked the right to assemble and demanded money from the government then a group of students could form a "tv-watching" club and demand funding from the university.

We have a neighboughs society on campus. It is only funding in so far as a place to hold the meetings. And the socieites have to pay into the universities too.

why would a non-christian join the christian union :confused:
Debate? Interest in theology? I’m studying religion at uni, and very interesting it is too, but I’m an atheist. I may think religion’s non-sensical, but having an interest in something with so much influence in the world, especially in today’s political climate, is vital.

However, this isn’t the issue at hand. The Cu is a student group affiliated with the uni. All uni-affiliated groups must abide by laws set down at the uni, specifically two important to the ‘debate’ here:

1. No student group may disallow membership based on religious belief, or lack of.

2. No student group may espouse views condemning individuals or groups based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

The aforementioned CU breaks both of the above laws of the university. Therefore it must change its membership policy, and halt all homophobic statements.

No-one with any sense in them is calling for the CU to be shut down, or for the banning of religious student groups, or for the right of Christians to create groups with exclusive membership policies outside of university.

Though Neo Sanderstead seems to fail to understand this simple proposition.

Perhaps they are interested in Chrisitanity and want to learn more or get to know people who profess faith.

They are able to come to the meetings etc. But if they want to learn they do not have to become a member to join. They do not need to be able to vote on the exec or to be on the exec.


Of course, based on the articles linked, it would appear that many Christians would be blocked from joining this CU.

Indeed, that shouldnt be the case


So, if it breaks school rules, that's ok? The school should be forced to fund it anyways?

The school rules are flawed, that is what I am arguing. The school does not have the right to force those laws because the government makes its policy towards these types of groups clear, they are allowed to discriminate in that way because it is in their nature.

Debate? Interest in theology? I’m studying religion at uni, and very interesting it is too, but I’m an atheist. I may think religion’s non-sensical, but having an interest in something with so much influence in the world, especially in today’s political climate, is vital.

To learn about the group does not mean that you have to be able to vote on the exec or to be on the exec.


1. No student group may disallow membership based on religious belief, or lack of.

It is a religious group. By definition it demands that it is discriminatory, in much the same way that the LGBT would be discriminatory against people who believe homosexaulty is sinful.


2. No student group may espouse views condemning individuals or groups based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

I will quote Volitare and anon again

"You have a right to have an opinion and you have the right to be wrong. I am not questioning your right to be wrong, merely the wisdom in doing so"

"I will fight you to my last ounce of strength for what you say, but will defend you to my last drop of blood for your right to say it" - Voltaire paraphrased


The aforementioned CU breaks both of the above laws of the university. Therefore it must change its membership policy, and halt all homophobic statements.

The rules are the things that are flawed, not the CU


No-one with any sense in them is calling for the CU to be shut down, or for the banning of religious student groups, or for the right of Christians to create groups with exclusive membership policies outside of university.

Though Neo Sanderstead seems to fail to understand this simple proposition.

And no one in Saudi Arabia is calling for Christianity to be shut down, just that it practise outside the borders

The university does not have the right to make these demands. If it wishes to provide for societies it must provide for them all providing they are not breaking the law and they pay their membership fees. This is discriminating against religious groups as by definition, religious groups will discriminate on the grounds of religion. It is not discrimintoray for Chruches to not have a Muslim elder.

They are able to come to the meetings etc. But if they want to learn they do not have to become a member to join. They do not need to be able to vote on the exec or to be on the exec.

Even to talk in these meetings, someone had to already sign a 10-pt. statement of belief. What would be the point of going to a meeting when you are completely blocked from participation?

The school rules are flawed, that is what I am arguing. The school does not have the right to force those laws because the government makes its policy towards these types of groups clear, they are allowed to discriminate in that way because it is in their nature.

The school has the right to make any policies that are not, in and of themselves, illegal. Are anti-discrimination policies illegal in the UK? I highly doubt it.

The school could, if it wished, decide that only department-based student groups would be funded and allowed to use facilities. It could decide that only purely social groups would receive this distinction. It has not, however. What it has decided is that groups that discriminate on certain bases will not be funded or allowed to use facilities. As long as any and all groups that do so are equally barred from such standing, the school is well within its purview.

It is a religious group. By definition it demands that it is discriminatory, in much the same way that the LGBT would be discriminatory against people who believe homosexaulty is sinful.

Neither are within the definitions of the group. In fact, a religious group would have more reason to not be exclusive.

The rules are the things that are flawed, not the CU

How so? Are anti-discrimination laws illegal? If the school required that all clubs treat men and women equally, would that be "flawed"?

The university does not have the right to make these demands.

Yes, it does.

If it wishes to provide for societies it must provide for them all providing they are not breaking the law and they pay their membership fees.

Incorrect. The university can, and indeed must, regulate the societies it will and will not recognize. Otherwise, it will have to recognize no societies at all. Recognizing any old society that someone sits down and comes up with one day would be a beurocratic and financial nightmare, and would be rife with abuse.

This is discriminating against religious groups as by definition, religious groups will discriminate on the grounds of religion.

This is patently incorrect. I have seen many religious groups that don't discriminate on the grounds of religion. The BSU at my school was one of them. We didn't ask anyone what their religion was when they wanted to walk in the door. We didn't ask them not to talk until they affirmed that they completely agreed with us and followed our religion. Are you saying that our Thursday night worship services were now not religious, since we didn't discriminate based on religion?

It is not discrimintoray for Chruches to not have a Muslim elder.

Churches are not student societies on a college campus.

why would a non-christian join the christian union :confused:

Why should they be kept from joining if they want to?

As Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho) said, "I wouldn't belong to a club that would have me as a member."

Finally, they got a 1700 year free ride, and it's finally catching up to them.

Neither are within the definitions of the group. In fact, a religious group would have more reason to not be exclusive.

You are failing to apreciate the difference between membership and attendence. The CU is very open to who they want to attend, but by nature membership is restricted


How so? Are anti-discrimination laws illegal? If the school required that all clubs treat men and women equally, would that be "flawed"?

Anti discrimination laws are not universal, they are put in where apropriate. For instance, a netball society on the university campus will not let men join. A bank may not employ someone who is an expert in carpintary. They may be an excelent carpinter, but the bank is looking for a fincaial expert.


Yes, it does.

The government cannot demand that Chruches allow people who do not believe in Jesus to become members of the church. The university cannot demand that people who do not belive in Jesus become SU members.


Incorrect. The university can, and indeed must, regulate the societies it will and will not recognize. Otherwise, it will have to recognize no societies at all. Recognizing any old society that someone sits down and comes up with one day would be a beurocratic and financial nightmare, and would be rife with abuse.

At the university of Kent we have dozens of societyies. All that they require is a place to pracitse and a small ammount of fiance. The societies members in return pay the SU for the privialge of the facilities of the university.


This is patently incorrect. I have seen many religious groups that don't discriminate on the grounds of religion. The BSU at my school was one of them. We didn't ask anyone what their religion was when they wanted to walk in the door. We didn't ask them not to talk until they affirmed that they completely agreed with us and followed our religion. Are you saying that our Thursday night worship services were now not religious, since we didn't discriminate based on religion?

No, I'm saying they are entiled to discriminate since it is in there nature.


Churches are not student societies on a college campus

Yes, but that doesnt explain the flaw in the analogy. They are the same, but on a diffrent scale. Chruches are religious institutions provided ceritna privilages by the governemnt on the grounds of being in the "Furtherment of religon" cattagoiry under the charity commision. CU's are religious societies which should be provided the same privilages as any other society on campus, as long as they obey the national laws and pay the fees.

How were they discriminating? Keepin' hungry lions on school grounds or something?

*Ducks*

You are failing to apreciate the difference between membership and attendence. The CU is very open to who they want to attend, but by nature membership is restricted

According to the articles talking is restricted. Someone who has not signed their little statement cannot even talk. Attendance is pointless without the ability to participate, and one pretty much needs to be able to address the others to participate.

Anti discrimination laws are not universal, they are put in where apropriate. For instance, a netball society on the university campus will not let men join. A bank may not employ someone who is an expert in carpintary. They may be an excelent carpinter, but the bank is looking for a fincaial expert.

And the school has decided that funding discrimination against portions of its students based on religion, sexuality, and most likely race is not appropriate.

The government cannot demand that Chruches allow people who do not believe in Jesus to become members of the church.

No, it cannot.

The university cannot demand that people who do not belive in Jesus become SU members.

Yes, it can, if it provides funding and facilities for said society.

At the university of Kent we have dozens of societyies. All that they require is a place to pracitse and a small ammount of fiance. The societies members in return pay the SU for the privialge of the facilities of the university.

So there are no rules governing these societies at all?

No, I'm saying they are entiled to discriminate since it is in there nature.

And they can do it on their own funding and with their own facilities.

Yes, but that doesnt explain the flaw in the analogy. They are the same, but on a diffrent scale. Chruches are religious institutions provided ceritna privilages by the governemnt on the grounds of being in the "Furtherment of religon" cattagoiry under the charity commision. CU's are religious societies which should be provided the same privilages as any other society on campus, as long as they obey the national laws and pay the fees.

They are provided the same priviledges as any other society on campus. And, just like any other society on campus, discrimination on the basis of religion or sexuality results in a removal of funds and rights to use the facilities. They are treated exactly like other campus groups.

Demonstrate that please. Even if they are they have the right to be.
Wait, demonstrate that they're discriminating against homosexuals or against non-Christians? Your articles state that they're doing both. Multiple times.

They are discriminating against them becoming members. The kind of love I am talking about being shared cannot be displayed on a level that we would here about, its far more personal.
1. Love doesn't discriminate
2. You're not demonstrating personal love to someone if your group doesn't let them belong. Belonging and acceptance are two very basic requirements for loving someone.

From what i have been told, they don't have a website. I asked an ex-pat friend when this discussion came around
Then it's hearsay and inadmissable in such a debate. Either find some online evidence or drop the point.

The governmnet has to give recognition to every group that meets the requirements of the charity commision and provide the same rights to every group that meets the needs of those rights. The same is true of the SU. They cannot deny rights to people whom the government has not denied rights to as they are partially government funded institutions, IE an arc of the government.
Yes, the student union has to hold everyone to the same rules. However, they defined their rules differently than the government it seems, and added that one cannot form a group that discriminates against others. Thus they don't have to provide funding to such groups.

For instance, at my school, you can't start huge debates with other groups lest your funding get pulled, it happened to both the zionist and palestinian groups one year since they kept fighting. However, a government funded group could have as many disagreements with other groups as they wanted.

We have a neighboughs society on campus. It is only funding in so far as a place to hold the meetings. And the socieites have to pay into the universities too.
So they're not bitching about a lack of funding (despite what the articles say) and they're only bitching about not getting rooms reserved easily? (as the articles say)

According to the articles talking is restricted. Someone who has not signed their little statement cannot even talk. Attendance is pointless without the ability to participate, and one pretty much needs to be able to address the others to participate.

I think it proberbly is refering to adressing the meetings IE taking a sermon. I'm pretty sure the university CU isnt some kind of neo-totaliatain state that has guards thats stops non Chrisitians talking. They are clearly allowed to talk to people after the services.


And the school has decided that funding discrimination against portions of its students based on religion, sexuality, and most likely race is not appropriate.

It is apropirate if by definition those groups discriminate. The university funds netball societies but they do not let men play.


No, it cannot.

Yes, it can, if it provides funding and facilities for said society.

The societiy members provide funding. They pay the SU for the privialge of using the universities facilities.


So there are no rules governing these societies at all?

As long as the societes do not break the law and pay the bills, there is no reason why they cannot be on campus.


And they can do it on their own funding and with their own facilities.

Supposing the government said "Christians can no longer practise in this country. They can do it outside the country with their own resources and facilities but they may not do so here". Governments do not have that right, nor do SU's


They are provided the same priviledges as any other society on campus. And, just like any other society on campus, discrimination on the basis of religion or sexuality results in a removal of funds and rights to use the facilities. They are treated exactly like other campus groups.

You dont get it

IT IS A RELIGIOUS GROUP

Of course it is going to discriminate on the grounds of religion if religion is what the group is about. It is like suggesting that the Muslim society lunch is discriminatory against those who want to eat pork.

snip


You dont get it

IT IS A RELIGIOUS GROUP

Of course it is going to discriminate on the grounds of religion if religion is what the group is about. It is like suggesting that the Muslim society lunch is discriminatory against those who want to eat pork.

My kick boxing group did not discriminate on if you are a kickboxer or not ... it did not make you sign a letter of intent. Hell we did not even have to know your name to speak at the meetings

Why should we expect less of a religous group

Wait, demonstrate that they're discriminating against homosexuals or against non-Christians? Your articles state that they're doing both. Multiple times.

They argue that active Homosexuals cannot be Chrisitans, so it is both and one.


1. Love doesn't discriminate

It most definitely does, against action. It tells people when it thinks they are doing something wrong. It doesnt just let them go down the wrong path.


2. You're not demonstrating personal love to someone if your group doesn't let them belong. Belonging and acceptance are two very basic requirements for loving someone.

You dont need to allow someone to vote on the exec or be on the exec to be accepting and loving.


Then it's hearsay and inadmissable in such a debate. Either find some online evidence or drop the point.

Since they dont have a website it isnt my fault


Yes, the student union has to hold everyone to the same rules. However, they defined their rules differently than the government it seems, and added that one cannot form a group that discriminates against others. Thus they don't have to provide funding to such groups.

Then they have defined them wrongly


For instance, at my school, you can't start huge debates with other groups lest your funding get pulled, it happened to both the zionist and palestinian groups one year since they kept fighting. However, a government funded group could have as many disagreements with other groups as they wanted.

If they kept fighting (Vilonce) thats somewhat diffrent from simply not allowing a group to discriminate on the grounds of what it bases.


So they're not bitching about a lack of funding (despite what the articles say) and they're only bitching about not getting rooms reserved easily? (as the articles say)

They are complaining about not getting the funding that they put in. They pay fees and in return the univeristy gives them a limited supply of money for certian things. And the univeristy also gives them the privialge to use ceritan resources.

Wait, demonstrate that they're discriminating against homosexuals or against non-Christians? Your articles state that they're doing both. Multiple times.

They argue that active Homosexuals cannot be Chrisitans, so it is both and one.


1. Love doesn't discriminate

It most definitely does, against action. It tells people when it thinks they are doing something wrong. It doesnt just let them go down the wrong path.


2. You're not demonstrating personal love to someone if your group doesn't let them belong. Belonging and acceptance are two very basic requirements for loving someone.

You dont need to allow someone to vote on the exec or be on the exec to be accepting and loving.


Then it's hearsay and inadmissable in such a debate. Either find some online evidence or drop the point.

Since they dont have a website it isnt my fault


Yes, the student union has to hold everyone to the same rules. However, they defined their rules differently than the government it seems, and added that one cannot form a group that discriminates against others. Thus they don't have to provide funding to such groups.

Then they have defined them wrongly


For instance, at my school, you can't start huge debates with other groups lest your funding get pulled, it happened to both the zionist and palestinian groups one year since they kept fighting. However, a government funded group could have as many disagreements with other groups as they wanted.

If they kept fighting (Vilonce) thats somewhat diffrent from simply not allowing a group to discriminate on the grounds of what it bases.


So they're not bitching about a lack of funding (despite what the articles say) and they're only bitching about not getting rooms reserved easily? (as the articles say)

They are complaining about not getting the funding that they put in. They pay fees and in return the univeristy gives them a limited supply of money for certian things. And the univeristy also gives them the privialge to use ceritan resources.

Neo Sanderstead, you have changed your argument. We are not arguing whether the uni’s rules are correct or not (though I believe them to be perfectly reasonable) but whether the CU is allowed to continue disallowing non-Christian members under the laws of the uni. Stop trying, in the tradition of poor debaters everywhere, to wheedle yourself out of a poor argument.

To learn about the group does not mean that you have to be able to vote on the exec or to be on the exec.
The university’s laws would disagree with you. Anyone may join, regardless of religious belief, or lack of. The issue of whether the uni’s laws are correct is a completely separate issue.


It is a religious group. By definition it demands that it is discriminatory, in much the same way that the LGBT would be discriminatory against people who believe homosexaulty is sinful.
You are misrepresenting the argument at hand, and misunderstanding discrimination within uni-affiliated student groups.

The LGBT group may not, under uni law, disallow members that hold any belief, even that of homophobia. However, someone who held that belief would find it hard to get elected to the executive of such a group, just as an atheist would find it hard to get elected to the executive of the CU. By definition as uni-affiliated student groups, neither the LGBT, nor the CU may disallow members based on religious beliefs, or lack of.

I will quote Volitare and anon again

“You have a right to have an opinion and you have the right to be wrong. I am not questioning your right to be wrong, merely the wisdom in doing so”

“I will fight you to my last ounce of strength for what you say, but will defend you to my last drop of blood for your right to say it”–Voltaire paraphrased.
A fine statement, one I hold to be true within general society. But, we are not talking about general society, but an institution. As you point out on many occasions, groups and institutions within society may create rules within those institutions, as long as they are in line with the laws of that nation-state. Under present uni law, student groups may not espouse views condemning homosexuals, ethnic minorites, etc. Outside of the university, Christians may well organise groups that hold discriminatory views.

The rules are the things that are flawed, not the CU.
Again, that’s not the question at hand.


And no one in Saudi Arabia is calling for Christianity to be shut down, just that it practise outside the borders.
Your point? C’mon, you can do better than that.....

The university does not have the right to make these demands. If it wishes to provide for societies it must provide for them all providing they are not breaking the law and they pay their membership fees.
The CU is breaking the law of the uni, so therefore may not continue in its present form.


This is discriminating against religious groups as by definition, religious groups will discriminate on the grounds of religion. It is not discrimintoray for Chruches to not have a Muslim elder.
Because the church is a religious organisation, not a secular one, such as the university. It is a simple fact that student groups cannot disallow members based on religious views, or lack of, irregardless of wheter the group itself is a religious one.

I'm not sure any laws, university or government, are being broken here. But that doesn't mean prohibiting Christians from meeting is not discrimination. In other words, I don't think the university has any legal obligation to allow people it doesn't want to use its facilities. However, I think the reasons for not allowing the Christians to use them is a poor one, and they university should allow them to continue.

They argue that active Homosexuals cannot be Chrisitans, so it is both and one.
Ok, then for refrence, please see the articles you linked in your opening post.

It most definitely does, against action. It tells people when it thinks they are doing something wrong. It doesnt just let them go down the wrong path.
Huh? That's a conscience you're descrbing.

You dont need to allow someone to vote on the exec or be on the exec to be accepting and loving.
And it's certainly not accepting or loving to deny someone membership in your club because of a difference in opinion or something they can't help (like sexual orientation).

Since they dont have a website it isnt my fault
I don't care if it's your fault. You can't use that argument if you can't back it up, as far as I know you invented this friend of yours or (s)he lied to you. Feel free to find another example.

Then they have defined them wrongly
Why? Because you say so?

If they kept fighting (Vilonce) thats somewhat diffrent from simply not allowing a group to discriminate on the grounds of what it bases.
It wasn't violent. They'd do things like yell at each other from tables both groups had set up in the student centre and the like.

They are complaining about not getting the funding that they put in. They pay fees and in return the univeristy gives them a limited supply of money for certian things. And the univeristy also gives them the privialge to use ceritan resources.
Does the club itself pay fees or the students who belong to the club? If the club is paying fees, that's one thing, although in that case, the university should refund their fees and send them on their merry way. If, however, it's the student fees that are the issue, then well, every student pays the same fees and thus every student should have equal access to the service that is the Christian Union, not just the Christian students.

I think it proberbly is refering to adressing the meetings IE taking a sermon.

Most student Christian groups don't have regular sermons. Any member can talk - can "witness", as it were.

I'm pretty sure the university CU isnt some kind of neo-totaliatain state that has guards thats stops non Chrisitians talking. They are clearly allowed to talk to people after the services.

They certainly sound pretty neo-totalitarian, with their "Sign this before you can talk," statements and their discriminatory stances.

It is apropirate if by definition those groups discriminate.

And religious groups do not, by definition, discriminate. Some of them choose to do so, and those are the groups that aren't funded by college campuses.

The societiy members provide funding. They pay the SU for the privialge of using the universities facilities.

Good, they can now pay someone else for the priviledge of using someone else's facilities. In fact, they can save money completely by doing it at someone's home or at a local church.

As long as the societes do not break the law and pay the bills, there is no reason why they cannot be on campus.

There is if the campus has anti-discrimination policies.

Supposing the government said "Christians can no longer practise in this country. They can do it outside the country with their own resources and facilities but they may not do so here". Governments do not have that right, nor do SU's

Governments do not have that right because their citizens have the right to freely practice religion. However, governments do have the right to say that religious services cannot be held in government buildings, as governments control the use of their facilities. Governments do have the right to refuse to fund religious groups, especially if those religious groups do not follow government policies.

Student Unions are not restricting the free exercise of religion. Each student can believe and worship as he likes. They are, however, restricting the use of school facilities and funds to those societies which follow school policies. This one did not, and thus it cannot use school facilities and cannot get school funds.

Meanwhile, it isn't really an appropriate analogy. The government doesn't own all of the land in the nation. Churches, in fact, quite often own land. And they use their facilities as they see fit. This student group does not own the school facilities. As such, it must follow school policies on the use of said facilities.

You dont get it

IT IS A RELIGIOUS GROUP

And religious groups should get special treatment? They shouldn't have to follow school rules just because they are religious groups?

Sounds like you are arguing in favor of discrimination against non-religious groups.

Of course it is going to discriminate on the grounds of religion if religion is what the group is about.

If the group is about discriminating on the basis of religion, then it breaks school rules.

If it is simply about religion, there is no reason that it must discriminate on the basis of religion.

It is like suggesting that the Muslim society lunch is discriminatory against those who want to eat pork.

If someone who wants to eat pork wishes to attend the Muslim society lunch and eat with them, she can bring a ham sandwich with her. She obviously cannot expect any such food to be provided, but there is no reason that she cannot bring her own food and attend.

Then they have defined them wrongly

You have no authority to decide this. If you want them changed, get on the school board, or whatever group determines the university rules, and change them.


I'm not sure any laws, university or government, are being broken here. But that doesn't mean prohibiting Christians from meeting is not discrimination.

They are not prohibiting Christians from meeting. They are prohibiting a particular group of Christians who chose to break school policy from meeting. It isn't discrimination because any student society, Christian or not, that broke these rules would receive the same treatment.

In other words, I don't think the university has any legal obligation to allow people it doesn't want to use its facilities. However, I think the reasons for not allowing the Christians to use them is a poor one, and they university should allow them to continue.

So you have a problem with anti-discrimination rules? It would be perfectly allowable, then, for a bunch of neo-nazis to use school facilities to hold anti-black rallies?

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.

Homophobic views are not the views the CU are expressing, that is a misinterpetation of the views. The views are negative about homosexuality, but that isnt the same as being homophobic. Homophobic is fear/hate (as people here are pointing out) of people who are homosexual. Chrisitantiy says love sinners, hate sin


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.

They are conforming to the state. They are not breaking any laws. The university has put arbitary laws in place that do not apply logically to the current situation

You have no authority to decide this. If you want them changed, get on the school board, or whatever group determines the university rules, and change them.

Just as you can call an anti-gay marriage law unconstitutional so I can call these rules unfair. I have that right. They are unfair because they are not logical in there aplication.


So you have a problem with anti-discrimination rules? It would be perfectly allowable, then, for a bunch of neo-nazis to use school facilities to hold anti-black rallies?

Yes, provided those rallies are within the law. You cannot outlaw extremist views, what you can do is simply prevent encitement to crime.

Just as you can call an anti-gay marriage law unconstitutional so I can call these rules unfair. I have that right. They are unfair because they are not logical in there aplication.

Unconstitutional =/= unfair.

There's a difference between being 'just' and being 'fair'.

Homophobic is fear/hate (as people here are pointing out) of people who are homosexual.

As has already been pointed out to you numerous times, this is an incorrect definition.

They are conforming to the state. They are not breaking any laws. The university has put arbitary laws in place that do not apply logically to the current situation

Yes, provided those rallies are within the law. You cannot outlaw extremist views, what you can do is simply prevent encitement to crime.

In that case, by your logic, the unversity cannot place restrictions on the use of its facilities, unless those uses break laws. Anyone and everyone can freely use the facilities, and the university cannot regulate it.

Of course, that would be rather silly. The reality is that the university can restrict the use of facilities for activities that are contrary to the goals of the university. I highly doubt that the university wants its students to be alienated, so it has no reason to allow a neo-nazi rally on its campus.

Yes, provided those rallies are within the law. You cannot outlaw extremist views, what you can do is simply prevent encitement to crime.
There are not within the law of the university. I understand, and agree, with the view that suppressing extremist views within society is detrimental. However, a university is not society, and is obliged to ban extremist or discriminatory groups from affiliating with the university.

Outside of the university, extremist groups can, and should, have their say–no matter the idiocy of those said views.

Look, you yourself have advocated that institutions can create their own laws; such as a nation-sate only allowing citizens to become politicians. The uni is no different. The CU as part of the university, must abide by the institutions views.

Most student Christian groups don't have regular sermons. Any member can talk - can "witness", as it were.

Well that is how my CU works at the moment. We have worship and then we have a sermon and then break up into discussion groups and come back together at the end.


They certainly sound pretty neo-totalitarian, with their "Sign this before you can talk," statements and their discriminatory stances.

It is not "sign this before you can talk" it is "sign this before you can adress the group" that is very diffrent, do not twist things.


And religious groups do not, by definition, discriminate. Some of them choose to do so, and those are the groups that aren't funded by college campuses.

Religious groups can be expected to discriminate because they are religious in nature.


Good, they can now pay someone else for the priviledge of using someone else's facilities. In fact, they can save money completely by doing it at someone's home or at a local church.

So it would be acceptable for the US to ban all mosques and they will save the money of the upkeep of the building and can do it somewhere else?


Governments do not have that right because their citizens have the right to freely practice religion. However, governments do have the right to say that religious services cannot be held in government buildings, as governments control the use of their facilities. Governments do have the right to refuse to fund religious groups, especially if those religious groups do not follow government policies.

What if the only buildings in the state are government? As is the case at a university.


Student Unions are not restricting the free exercise of religion. Each student can believe and worship as he likes. They are, however, restricting the use of school facilities and funds to those societies which follow school policies. This one did not, and thus it cannot use school facilities and cannot get school funds.

They allow funding and facility use to other socieites that are identical in there form, IE discriminate by nature of what they are about. The Chess society discriminates against people who dont want to play chess.


Meanwhile, it isn't really an appropriate analogy. The government doesn't own all of the land in the nation. Churches, in fact, quite often own land. And they use their facilities as they see fit. This student group does not own the school facilities. As such, it must follow school policies on the use of said facilities.

The school policies are wrong.


And religious groups should get special treatment? They shouldn't have to follow school rules just because they are religious groups?

Sounds like you are arguing in favor of discrimination against non-religious groups.

All the groups have the right to discriminate on the basis of their nature. All the groups can refuse entry to people who do not want to engage in their activities.


If the group is about discriminating on the basis of religion, then it breaks school rules.

If it is simply about religion, there is no reason that it must discriminate on the basis of religion.

It is a religious group, so obviously it can discriminate about religion, as like all the other groups, it discriminates on the grounds of its nature.


If someone who wants to eat pork wishes to attend the Muslim society lunch and eat with them, she can bring a ham sandwich with her. She obviously cannot expect any such food to be provided, but there is no reason that she cannot bring her own food and attend.

Yes, but there is a reason why she cannot join the society and serve pork sausages at the barbeque

It seems like the real question here is whether or not a UK university society is allowed to choose its membership based on religion, sexual orientation, race, etc.

If a group is allowed to selectively choose its membership based on specific criteria, a group created to exclude members of a specific religion should also be allowed. (i.e. No Muslim group)

If a group is NOT allowed to selectively choose its members, then it should be prohibited for an ethnic group to exclude members based on race or homosexual groups to exclude membership based on sexual orientation.

I think whichever stand the university takes, it should be an "all or nothing" one. The univeristy would be discriminating against the Christian group if they were the only ones not permitted to create membership criteria.

There are not within the law of the university. I understand, and agree, with the view that suppressing extremist views within society is detrimental. However, a university is not society, and is obliged to ban extremist or discriminatory groups from affiliating with the university.

Outside of the university, extremist groups can, and should, have their say–no matter the idiocy of those said views.


Why? Why should a university be differnt than any other part of a society


Look, you yourself have advocated that institutions can create their own laws; such as a nation-sate only allowing citizens to become politicians. The uni is no different. The CU as part of the university, must abide by the institutions views

The instiutional views are FLAWED. Religion isnt like gender or race, it is a choice to make.

Why? Why should a university be differnt than any other part of a society
It isn’t. Any institution, as part of society, may choose whether or not to allow extremist groups from participating in said institution. The uni has chosen not to.

The instiutional views are FLAWED. Religion isnt like gender or race, it is a choice to make.
Why should we give special treatment to religious groups, especially in a secular institution? Religion should never be given preferential treatment, or be asked to be treated differently.

Any student group, no matter its content, must abide by uni laws. Its quite a simple concept which you either haven’t grasped, which I doubt, or have refused to accept in well over twenty pages of posts.

It isn’t. Any institution, as part of society, may choose whether or not to allow extremist groups from participating in said institution. The uni has chosen not to.

No it may not. You are defining what is extremist, there is no objective terminology for what is and isnt an extremist. Thus what you are doing is labelling views you do not like as extrmeist and using that label to outlaw them


Why should we give special treatment to religious groups, especially in a secular institution? Religion should never be given preferential treatment, or be asked to be treated differently.

It isnt preferential treetment. Think of this logically for a minute. The CU discriminates on the grounds of religion because it is a religious group. Legal firms discriminate on the grounds of legal education because they are a legal firm. Diving societies discriminate against people who are not qualified to dive because they are a diving society. You see the logic. Groups will always discriminate on the grounds of their nature.


Any student group, no matter its content, must abide by uni laws. Its quite a simple concept which you either haven’t grasped, which I doubt, or have refused to accept in well over twenty pages of posts.

I undestand that fully. What I am arguing is that said rules are not acceptable or logical. And you have been repeadly stating "The university makes the rules you abide by them" when the point I have been arguing is not that univiersities have primacy about there rules, but that the nature of the rules must be guided logically. This isnt loigical.

No it may not. You are defining what is extremist, there is no objective terminology for what is and isnt an extremist. Thus what you are doing is labelling views you do not like as extrmeist and using that label to outlaw them
For a start, I’m not labeling anything. If you wish me to be pedantic, then so be it. Any institution, as part of society, may choose whether or not to allow what it considers extremist groups from participating in said institution. The uni is not outlawing any group, merely disallowing certain groups from using the uni’s facilities and budgets. This is a perfectly legal and reasonable stance for the university to take.

It isnt preferential treetment. Think of this logically for a minute. The CU discriminates on the grounds of religion because it is a religious group. Legal firms discriminate on the grounds of legal education because they are a legal firm. Diving societies discriminate against people who are not qualified to dive because they are a diving society. You see the logic. Groups will always discriminate on the grounds of their nature.
You’re confusing between the neutral and pejorative usages of the term ‘discrimination’. To use your example, there’s a difference between making a distinction between divers and non-divers because of ability (neutral discrimination; noting differences), and disallowing someone from joining a diving club due to their religious beliefs, ethnicity, etc (pejorative discrimination; making a distinction due to grouping rather than merit). The CU is discriminating in a pejorative sense; it is disallowing people based on their religious beliefs, or lack of. Regardless of the status of the CU as a religious group, pejorative discrimination is disallowed by the uni’s laws.

I undestand that fully. What I am arguing is that said rules are not acceptable or logical. And you have been repeadly stating “The university makes the rules you abide by them” when the point I have been arguing is not that univiersities have primacy about there rules, but that the nature of the rules must be guided logically. This isnt loigical.
What isn’t logical:

P1: At present in UK law, an institution may create rules that its members must abide by, as long as the rules are not contrary to further UK laws.

P2. The university is a UK institution.

C1: The university may create rules that its members must abide by, as long as the rules are not contrary to further UK laws.

P3: The university has created a law stating that groups affiliated with the uni may not (pejoratively) discriminate in respect to membership.

P4: A law stating that groups affiliated with the uni may not (pejoratively) discriminate in respect to membership is not contrary to UK law.

P5. The CU is a student group.

C3: The CU may not (pejoratively) discriminate in respect to membership.


EDIT>> K, I'm off to bed. I'll check this thread in the morning. But before I go, a big w00t for a thread concerning religion without reactionary flaming for at least three pages!

It is not "sign this before you can talk" it is "sign this before you can adress the group" that is very diffrent, do not twist things.

These two amount to the same thing.

Religious groups can be expected to discriminate because they are religious in nature.

Not necessarily. I've already pointed out numerous times that they need not necessarily do so. Those that choose to do so, in spite of the rules, make their own choice.

So it would be acceptable for the US to ban all mosques and they will save the money of the upkeep of the building and can do it somewhere else?

Are you having trouble reading? No, it wouldn't be acceptable. The US government does not own all the land in the US. It would, however, be acceptable for the US government to decide that no mosques will be built on government land. It would also be acceptable for a college campus to decide that no mosques will be built on campus land.

What if the only buildings in the state are government? As is the case at a university.

The university is not a government, and it isn't much hastle to leave the university to do certain things. Many universities ban drinking on campus, as is their right to do so. You know what students who want to drink do? They go to a friend's house nearby or to the bar down the street.

They allow funding and facility use to other socieites that are identical in there form, IE discriminate by nature of what they are about. The Chess society discriminates against people who dont want to play chess.

No, it doesn't. If someone wanted to come hang out in the chess society and never play a single game, the chess society on these campuses would not be allowed to block their membership.

The school policies are wrong.

How so?

All the groups have the right to discriminate on the basis of their nature. All the groups can refuse entry to people who do not want to engage in their activities.

What makes you think that someone not willing to sign a 10 point manifesto doesn't want to engage in the activities of the group? What makes you think that a non-Christian would not wish to engage in the activities of the group? If they weren't interested in attending the meetings and such, they wouldn't try to join, now would they?

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, one need not engage in all activities to be a member of a given student society. At my school, there are plenty of members of the Skydiving Club that have never been skydiving.

It is a religious group, so obviously it can discriminate about religion, as like all the other groups, it discriminates on the grounds of its nature.

It can discriminate on the basis of religion, as long as it doesn't want campus funding or facilities.

Yes, but there is a reason why she cannot join the society and serve pork sausages at the barbeque

If she got enough votes for "pork sausages", she most certainly could. But that wouldn't happen.

It isnt preferential treetment.

Yes, it is. You are arguing that, because this is a religious organization, it should be able to break uni rules about discriminating on the basis of religion. That is the very definition of preferential treatment.

It's like saying, "Only Bob gets to have chocolate today. No, that isn't preferential treatment, because he's Bob. No one else can have it, but Bob gets it."

I undestand that fully. What I am arguing is that said rules are not acceptable or logical. And you have been repeadly stating "The university makes the rules you abide by them" when the point I have been arguing is not that univiersities have primacy about there rules, but that the nature of the rules must be guided logically. This isnt loigical.

Yes, it is. Anti-discrimination rules are put there for the safety and comfort of the students. A student is not going to be able to learn in a hostile environment. This is why the school will block groups like a neo-nazi organization from rallying on campus. This is why the school requires that student groups be inclusive of the various religions of the students.

As has already been pointed out to you numerous times, this is an incorrect definition.


No it isnt.


In that case, by your logic, the unversity cannot place restrictions on the use of its facilities, unless those uses break laws. Anyone and everyone can freely use the facilities, and the university cannot regulate it.

Of course, that would be rather silly. The reality is that the university can restrict the use of facilities for activities that are contrary to the goals of the university. I highly doubt that the university wants its students to be alienated, so it has no reason to allow a neo-nazi rally on its campus.

The university can regulate the use of its facilities by those who are willing to pay. You cannot restrict freedom of speech to extremists, because the word extremist is reletive, it is only a label for views we do not like.

These two amount to the same thing.

No they dont. Adressing the group refers to speeking in a sermon etc. Talking is far more general. Non Chrisitians at the CU are quite welcome to socialse during and after the meetings, they just are not welcome to oppose prayers as they are being said. If people want to discuss and debate, do it in a discussion and debating society, that isnt what the CU is


Not necessarily. I've already pointed out numerous times that they need not necessarily do so. Those that choose to do so, in spite of the rules, make their own choice.

They can choose to, but it can be expected due to there nature


Are you having trouble reading? No, it wouldn't be acceptable. The US government does not own all the land in the US. It would, however, be acceptable for the US government to decide that no mosques will be built on government land. It would also be acceptable for a college campus to decide that no mosques will be built on campus land.

Yes, but you forget. The ONLY land in the campus is campus land, ergo it is unacceptable.


The university is not a government, and it isn't much hastle to leave the university to do certain things. Many universities ban drinking on campus, as is their right to do so. You know what students who want to drink do? They go to a friend's house nearby or to the bar down the street.

Banning drinking is not comparable. Banning one drink and allowing all others is. The SU are allowing all other groups to discriminate on the grounds of their nature except the CU.


No, it doesn't. If someone wanted to come hang out in the chess society and never play a single game, the chess society on these campuses would not be allowed to block their membership.

Yes, but if someone went to the Chess society and did not want to play chess and actively said why chess was a bad idea all the time and was on the Chess clubs exec then yes it would be fair idea for them to ban them from the group.


How so?

Discrimination against race and gender are diffrent to discrimianton against religion because religion is a matter of choice. Groups are allowed to make discriminations about things that people have made a choice about


What makes you think that someone not willing to sign a 10 point manifesto doesn't want to engage in the activities of the group? What makes you think that a non-Christian would not wish to engage in the activities of the group? If they weren't interested in attending the meetings and such, they wouldn't try to join, now would they?

The activities of the group include worship, prayer etc. If a non Christian wished to do these things, why do they not want to be a Christian?


It can discriminate on the basis of religion, as long as it doesn't want campus funding or facilities.

You don't get it do you. It is discrimination ON THE GROUNDS OF ITS NATURE.

Of course it will discriminate against religion, that is what it is.


Yes, it is. You are arguing that, because this is a religious organization, it should be able to break uni rules about discriminating on the basis of religion. That is the very definition of preferential treatment.

It's like saying, "Only Bob gets to have chocolate today. No, that isn't preferential treatment, because he's Bob. No one else can have it, but Bob gets it."

No that isnt what I am saying. What I am saying is that the anti-discrimination rules should not apply with regard to the groups nature. There is no reason why a sky diving society should discriminate against Jews for instance, as there is no cause, no reason to suggest that a Jew could not enjoy skydiving. However, an Islamic society could understably want to bar Jewish members, because it is an Islamic society. It does not want to have to accomodate people who do not worship Allah and respect the prophet Mohammad.



Yes, it is. Anti-discrimination rules are put there for the safety and comfort of the students. A student is not going to be able to learn in a hostile environment. This is why the school will block groups like a neo-nazi organization from rallying on campus. This is why the school requires that student groups be inclusive of the various religions of the students.

What is uncomfortable about a Christian group not wanting non Christians to be members?

Also remember Prodst? He said that it is the years of suffering and the years in a hostile enviroment where the most is learnt.

Other political groups might be hostile to Nazis. Is that not a good learning enviroment?

Its not reasonable to ban groups just because you dont like them

All groups should be allowed providing they pay the fees and do not break the law

For a start, I’m not labeling anything. If you wish me to be pedantic, then so be it. Any institution, as part of society, may choose whether or not to allow what it considers extremist groups from participating in said institution. The uni is not outlawing any group, merely disallowing certain groups from using the uni’s facilities and budgets. This is a perfectly legal and reasonable stance for the university to take.

It is legal but it isnt reasonable. The university is essentially outlawing on a smaller scale. Its akin to the government saying that you can still believe this, but we will refuse to allow you to buy land if you do.


You’re confusing between the neutral and pejorative usages of the term ‘discrimination’. To use your example, there’s a difference between making a distinction between divers and non-divers because of ability (neutral discrimination; noting differences), and disallowing someone from joining a diving club due to their religious beliefs, ethnicity, etc (pejorative discrimination; making a distinction due to grouping rather than merit). The CU is discriminating in a pejorative sense; it is disallowing people based on their religious beliefs, or lack of. Regardless of the status of the CU as a religious group, pejorative discrimination is disallowed by the uni’s laws.

The diving soceity has no interest in peoples religion as diving is netural to faith. The CU is not. The diving society does have interest in whether people can dive. The CU does not.

It is acceptable for groups to discriminate on the grounds of their nature.


What isn’t logical:

P1: At present in UK law, an institution may create rules that its members must abide by, as long as the rules are not contrary to further UK laws.

P2. The university is a UK institution.

C1: The university may create rules that its members must abide by, as long as the rules are not contrary to further UK laws.

P3: The university has created a law stating that groups affiliated with the uni may not (pejoratively) discriminate in respect to membership.

P4: A law stating that groups affiliated with the uni may not (pejoratively) discriminate in respect to membership is not contrary to UK law.

P5. The CU is a student group.

C3: The CU may not (pejoratively) discriminate in respect to membership.


Its not logical because the discrimination is on the grounds of their nature. It is to be expected

The Socialist society doesnt want to have to deal with fascist members who are constantly opposing everything they say and put forward. They do not want to have to deal with the deabte and discussion. This is not because they do not want their views challenged, they just do not want them challenged there. The will debate and discuss in a debate or discsussion group. It is illogical to expect people to not discriminate on the grounds of the nature of the group. Otherwise it is not a speicfic group any more, it is just people.

It is legal but it isnt reasonable. The university is essentially outlawing on a smaller scale. Its akin to the government saying that you can still believe this, but we will refuse to allow you to buy land if you do.



The diving soceity has no interest in peoples religion as diving is netural to faith. The CU is not. The diving society does have interest in whether people can dive. The CU does not.

It is acceptable for groups to discriminate on the grounds of their nature.



Its not logical because the discrimination is on the grounds of their nature. It is to be expected

The Socialist society doesnt want to have to deal with fascist members who are constantly opposing everything they say and put forward. They do not want to have to deal with the deabte and discussion. This is not because they do not want their views challenged, they just do not want them challenged there. The will debate and discuss in a debate or discsussion group. It is illogical to expect people to not discriminate on the grounds of the nature of the group. Otherwise it is not a speicfic group any more, it is just people.

Yet I am betting the Socialist society allows non socialists to speak at their meetings

You propose all these ideas of what proposed groups would WANT. But no evidence of what they DO

Any club I have ever been in allows ANY student to be a member and speak at their meetings regardless.

Yet I am betting the Socialist society allows non socialists to speak at their meetings.

But they have the right to choose when and where if at all. It is there group.

But they have the right to choose when and where if at all. It is there group.

Not if it conflicts with university policy ... our policy says that any student may have a say in an organized manor (we use Parliamentary form)

Fairly reasonable to me and have never had an issue

Yet I am betting the Socialist society allows non socialists to speak at their meetings.

Thing is - one of the Christian societies appears to be getting closed because of what some of their own members have said - not because they banned people of other views from speaking.

It looks like one has been closed for 'promoting homophobia' - which could be taken to mean any of a number of things. In this case it was because someone (misguidedly) prayed for homosexuals:

One has been threatened with pickets and its members told that they are “gutter-crawling scum”; another has been accused of “callous and inhumane attitudes” after one of its members prayed for the souls of homosexuals at a prayer meeting.

Now - this passage raises two issues:

1. Should the Christian Union be forced to admit people who threaten it members and call them "gutter crawling scum".

2. Is praying for someone because they are homosexual a hate crime? To me that sounds a lot more like closing a society Vegan society down because a member at a meeting made a comment that they feel eating meat is immoral and that more people should be vegans.

The 150-strong Christian union in Birmingham was suspended this year after refusing to alter its constitution to allow non-Christians to address meetings and to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and those of transgender sexuality.
Why are they not allowed to choose who can address their group?
Why do they need to include references to people of those groups?

At Edinburgh University, where copies of the Bible were banned from halls of residence last year after protests from the students’ union,

WTF?!



(Note - I do not subscribe to the Christian Unions beliefs)

Not if it conflicts with university policy ... our policy says that any student may have a say in an organized manor (we use Parliamentary form)

Fairly reasonable to me and have never had an issue

That turns the society into a debating club, the CU doesnt want to debate. Can you imagine if every time people wanted to pray, an Athiest stood up and denounced prayer as being evil and horrible and deluding themselves. The CU have the right to associate without that kind of treatment. If they have that right in the real world, they should have it on campus.

That turns the society into a debating club, the CU doesnt want to debate. Can you imagine if every time people wanted to pray, an Athiest stood up and denounced prayer as being evil and horrible and deluding themselves. The CU have the right to associate without that kind of treatment. If they have that right in the real world, they should have it on campus.

Thats why we use parliamentary form where one has to be recognized before speech. While we can not close the meeting without everyone being recognized it gives the pres the ability to recognize them in the order he wants and tends to snub debates

Thing is - one of the Christian societies appears to be getting closed because of what some of their own members have said - not because they banned people of other views from speaking.

It looks like one has been closed for 'promoting homophobia' - which could be taken to mean any of a number of things. In this case it was because someone (misguidedly) prayed for homosexuals:



Now - this passage raises two issues:

1. Should the Christian Union be forced to admit people who threaten it members and call them "gutter crawling scum".

2. Is praying for someone because they are homosexual a hate crime? To me that sounds a lot more like closing a society Vegan society down because a member at a meeting made a comment that they feel eating meat is immoral and that more people should be vegans.


Why are they not allowed to choose who can address their group?
Why do they need to include references to people of those groups?



WTF?!



(Note - I do not subscribe to the Christian Unions beliefs)

Fine should the school be REQUIRED to allow a racist group and give them funding?

What if there was a KKK club, should the school have to let them room space and funding?

Fine should the school be REQUIRED to allow a racist group and give them funding?

What if there was a KKK club, should the school have to let them room space and funding?

Yes. As I have said, provided they pay the bills and do not break the law, the university should be required to let them stay there. The university cannot outlaw people just because they dont like their views. If their views are very wrong then people will not listen to them

Yes. As I have said, provided they pay the bills and do not break the law, the university should be required to let them stay there. The university cannot outlaw people just because they dont like their views.

Sure it can ... it can decide where it wants to spend its money. Just like any business does. They do not have to recognize any student group (I know our university does not have to)

Fine should the school be REQUIRED to allow a racist group and give them funding?

What if there was a KKK club, should the school have to let them room space and funding?
A racist group promotes hate. This group does not seem to.

"Gay people should be killed/beaten" = Close it down
"We think homosexuality is immoral" = (Misguided - IMO) Your right to your beliefs.
"We think eating meat is immoral" = (Misguided - IMO) Your right to your beliefs.

If the Christian Union is not allowed to choose who should address them - then who should get to choose?

Sure it can ... it can decide where it wants to spend its money. Just like any business does. They do not have to recognize any student group (I know our university does not have to)

No it cant. To do so is to breach freedom of speech. If it treets one group that way unless it can provide an objective reason to not allow the other group then it cannot block it. To do so is discriminaton.

No it cant. To do so is to breach freedom of speech. If it treets one group that way unless it can provide an objective reason to not allow the other group then it cannot block it. To do so is discriminaton.

Supposedly ... religious racial and sexual discrimination is not allowed. Its applied across the board.

Just because one group wants to start a group that has built in religious discrimination does not mean it should be allowed by school rules.

I would not expect a Feminist group that did not allow men, a homosexual group that did not allow straits or a mens group that did not allow women in it to survive either.

A racist group promotes hate. This group does not seem to.

"Gay people should be killed/beaten" = Close it down
"We think homosexuality is immoral" = (Misguided - IMO) Your right to your beliefs.
"We think eating meat is immoral" = (Misguided - IMO) Your right to your beliefs.

If the Christian Union is not allowed to choose who should address them - then who should get to choose?

Like I said at our school as long as they are a student... thats all that is required to attend and participate in any school group

Never have heard of a single incident being caused by it.

Like I said at our school as long as they are a student... thats all that is required to attend and participate in any school group

Never have heard of a single incident being caused by it.

At your school would the Vegan society get closed down because a member said at a meeting that meat eating was wrong?

Would a society be required to admit people who threaten and abuse it's members for their beliefs?

At your school would the Vegan society get closed down because a member said at a meeting that meat eating was wrong?

Nope our school does not have anti meat eater discrimination as it has not been (unlike some other discrimination) a historical problem in our society. If there had been enough cause for it in our history I could see such a thing being implemented.

snip
Would a society be required to admit people who threaten and abuse it's members for their beliefs?

Reply to the edit

Verbal or physical abuse on either side is against school policy I believe. But it definitely would have to allow people that disagree with it participate.

Nope our school does not have anti meat eater discrimination as it has not been (unlike some other discrimination) a historical problem in our society. If there had been enough cause for it in our history I could see such a thing being implemented.

So because other people have taken a dislike of homosexuals to the extent of killing them, these people - who have expressed no desire to kill them or inflict violence on them - are not allowed to say homosexuality is wrong (even though that is as misguided IMO as saying meat eating is immoral and carries the same level of threat).

So if the other people in the past (and unfortunately present) have not/did not do this then it would be OK for them to say this?

This seems they are being judged on other p[opels actions that they have no ocntrol over rather than their own actions.

Verbal or physical abuse on either side is against school policy I believe. But it definitely would have to allow people that disagree with it participate.
A society is set up so like minded peopel can meet and chat. Why on eath should they be required to admit people who dislike them? And why would peope who dislike them be inclined to join?

So because other people have taken a dislike of homosexuals to the extent of killing them, these people - who have expressed no desire to kill them or inflict violence on them - are not allowed to say homosexuality is wrong (even though that is as misguided IMO as saying meat eating is immoral and carries the same level of threat).

So if the other people in the past (and unfortunately present) have not/did not do this then it would be OK for them to say this?

This seems they are being judged on other p[opels actions that they have no ocntrol over rather than their own actions.


A society is set up so like minded peopel can meet and chat. Why on eath should they be required to admit people who dislike them? And why would peope who dislike them be inclined to join?

Dont know, Just know that they are allowed to here. Back to my kickboxing club we have a man that is paralyzed from the waste down in the club. He likes watching the training video's that we have and watching us practice cause he was a big fan of chuck noris.

He has no real ability to partake in the "projects" but he is more then welcome to come and discuss things with us even if he does not have a personal stake in the focus of the group

Dont know, Just know that they are allowed to here. Back to my kickboxing club we have a man that is paralyzed from the waste down in the club. He likes watching the training video's that we have and watching us practice cause he was a big fan of chuck noris.

He has no real ability to partake in the "projects" but he is more then welcome to come and discuss things with us even if he does not have a personal stake in the focus of the group

So he likes the people in the club and has a positive interest in it.

How is that remotely similar to someone who dislikes a group and does not have a positive interest in the groups activities/beliefs?

So he likes the people in the club and has a positive interest in it.

How is that remotely similar to someone who dislikes a group and does not have a positive interest in the groups activities/beliefs?

They would be welcome as well ... for the most part does not happen

We have had a few anti-geek people at the CNA(computer networking and applications) club (I am faculty advisor for)

That happens
They move on and we move on, we do NOT make them sign a manifesto of intent and we do not blanket bar anyone that is not in or major or anything.

Well that is how my CU works at the moment. We have worship and then we have a sermon and then break up into discussion groups and come back together at the end.


One could argue that you CU is dishonest, then - since it functions as though it were a 'church' rather than as a student organisation.

While that is your choice, such deception strikes me as distinctly unchristian.

No they dont. Adressing the group refers to speeking in a sermon etc.

Or just, well, addressing the group.

Talking is far more general. Non Chrisitians at the CU are quite welcome to socialse during and after the meetings, they just are not welcome to oppose prayers as they are being said.

How do you know? You've already stated that you are not a member of the group at this particular university.

If people want to discuss and debate, do it in a discussion and debating society, that isnt what the CU is

That's restriction of free speech. I thought you were against that?

They can choose to, but it can be expected due to there nature

And if they choose to, they lose access to funding and campus facilities.

This is really no different from any sort of such rules. The local library may have rooms that they will sign out to people, but only for certain things. Those who break the rules, don't get the rooms. The same is true of the university.

Yes, but you forget. The ONLY land in the campus is campus land, ergo it is unacceptable.

Incorrect. The campus is not a nation. You insist on an analogy that simply doesn't work. The people on campus are not "citizens" of that campus. They are students or faculty. And, as such, they must follow whatever rules that those who run the university put in place (so long as those rules are not, themselves, illegal) or leave. They have no requirement or compulsion to be there. If they don't like the way things are done, they don't have to stay. They also have little to no authority in changing the rules.

Banning drinking is not comparable. Banning one drink and allowing all others is. The SU are allowing all other groups to discriminate on the grounds of their nature except the CU.

Some drinks are banned and others are not. If the drink has alcohol, it is banned. If it doesn't, you can have it on campus. This is a very similar situation. If your group discriminates based on certain criteria, it is banned. If it doesn't, it isn't.

And no, the SU are not allowing all other groups to discriminate. They are treating the CU exactly as they would any other group that likewise discriminated.

Yes, but if someone went to the Chess society and did not want to play chess and actively said why chess was a bad idea all the time and was on the Chess clubs exec then yes it would be fair idea for them to ban them from the group.

Why?

Discrimination against race and gender are diffrent to discrimianton against religion because religion is a matter of choice. Groups are allowed to make discriminations about things that people have made a choice about

Hairstyle is a choice too. Does that mean that the CU could decide that anyone with short hair wouldn't be allowed in? Of course not. Religion has been accepted by the Western world as an inappropriate criteria to use in discriminating against people. By your logic, it would be perfectly ok for the university to not allow any Christians on campus at all, since religion is a matter of choice.

The activities of the group include worship, prayer etc. If a non Christian wished to do these things, why do they not want to be a Christian?

Maybe they do. Maybe they are considering it. Maybe they enjoy the companionship. There are all sorts of reasons.

You don't get it do you. It is discrimination ON THE GROUNDS OF ITS NATURE.

No, it isn't.

Of course it will discriminate against religion, that is what it is.

You keep repeating this as if it is self-evident. But I have already pointed out religious societies that don't do this. Thus, it is obviously not in the nature of religious societies to do so, any more than it is in the nature of science societies to ban religious persons.

isnt what I am saying. What I am saying is that the anti-discrimination rules should not apply with regard to the groups nature.

In other words, you are saying that religious groups should get special treatment. They should be able to break uni rules because you claim (even though you are patently incorrect) that they *must* do so.

uncomfortable about a Christian group not wanting non Christians to be members?

Exclusivity will generally alienate people. When they aren't paying for it and can easily avoid it, we don't worry about how alienated people are. However, every student on campus pays for the things that occur on campus. Thus, every student on campus would be paying for the facilities, etc. that the CU would use, if it were on campus.

Its not reasonable to ban groups just because you dont like them

It has nothing to do with not liking them. It has to do with the safety and learning of the students.

You don't like it? Then become a member of whatever board runs the uni and change it.

All groups should be allowed providing they pay the fees and do not break the law

So the university should never be able to make rules of its own?

You know, let's go about this a different way. The CU can have their meetings. And a large group of students opposed to the CU can form an "anti-CU" and can "invade" their meetings and talk over them. The uni can't stop anything that isn't against the law, and talking isn't against the law. So I propose that the uni allow the CU, and the students who are opposed to their policies fill up the rooms where the meetings are to take place and take over the proceedings. The uni can't keep them from doing so, since that would restrict free speech, and they aren't being violent or doing anything illegal.

That turns the society into a debating club, the CU doesnt want to debate. Can you imagine if every time people wanted to pray, an Athiest stood up and denounced prayer as being evil and horrible and deluding themselves. The CU have the right to associate without that kind of treatment. If they have that right in the real world, they should have it on campus.

They don't have that right in the "real world" unless they are on private property. If they are in their own homes, or in a church, then someone unwanted cannot enter and begin to denounce them.

However, if they are on public space, any person who has access to that space can say whatever they like. If a Christian group holds a rally in a city park, for instance, there is nothing to stop an atheist from stopping and having his say.

These students do not own campus. It is not their private property, so they are entitled only to what protection from being disturbed that campus chooses to offer them.

No it cant. To do so is to breach freedom of speech. If it treets one group that way unless it can provide an objective reason to not allow the other group then it cannot block it. To do so is discriminaton.

If I say that a science group can meet in my house, but a KKK group cannot, am I breaching freedom of speech?

And an objective reason has been provided. The CU broke school rules by discriminating on the basis of religion and sexuality. Any society that does this will be treated as the CU was treated. Doesn't get much more objective than that.

-edit- Take it back. It said not to take other Christians to court, as it was spiritually immature. 1Cor 6 (http://www.gotquestions.org/lawsuits-suing.html)

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?

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for thruth.


gotta love that good, wholesome THRUTH! :p

gotta love that good, wholesome THRUTH! :p

I hate you ¬_¬

I corrected the typo. English is my second language, bear with me, okay? ;)

I hate you ¬_¬

I corrected the typo. English is my second language, bear with me, okay? ;)


Its all in good fun, my friend :)

Or just, well, addressing the group.

Taking a sermon is an example, or leading worship or saying prayers



How do you know? You've already stated that you are not a member of the group at this particular university.

Because that is how CU's across the country funciton. I have friends in many unviersities including Exeter and this is how theres function as well.


That's restriction of free speech. I thought you were against that?

People are allowed freedom of speech, but it is always qualified in regards to context not content. For example, you are allowed to say the word "Fire!" but not in a crowded thetre. And you are allowed to denouce Mohammad, but not disrupting a sermon in a mosque by doing so.


And if they choose to, they lose access to funding and campus facilities.

Which is wrong because they have the right to discriminate on the basis of their nature, like any other group. They are behaving no diffrently from any other group in this regard.


This is really no different from any sort of such rules. The local library may have rooms that they will sign out to people, but only for certain things. Those who break the rules, don't get the rooms. The same is true of the university.

The rules are not about who uses them, they are about what they do in them. Obviously if they are disruptive, or loud, or break the law then yes they should not be allowed there. But that is not what the CU are doing


Incorrect. The campus is not a nation. You insist on an analogy that simply doesn't work. The people on campus are not "citizens" of that campus. They are students or faculty. And, as such, they must follow whatever rules that those who run the university put in place (so long as those rules are not, themselves, illegal) or leave. They have no requirement or compulsion to be there. If they don't like the way things are done, they don't have to stay. They also have little to no authority in changing the rules.

They have paid to be there, they have the right to be there and that in turn means the right to associasion.


Some drinks are banned and others are not. If the drink has alcohol, it is banned. If it doesn't, you can have it on campus. This is a very similar situation. If your group discriminates based on certain criteria, it is banned. If it doesn't, it isn't.

There is an objective reason for that, IE people getting drunk which they dont want to happen. There is no objective reason for this, only an ideolgocial one.

Obviously a group that is not religous in its nature should not discriminate on the grounds of religion, but why not a religious group. Isnt it better than to say a blanket "no religious discrimination" to say "no discrimination other than nature" IE groups discriminate on the grounds of what they are. Netball groups do not allow men to play for instance, despite it being a non contact sport so men have no direct advantage.


And no, the SU are not allowing all other groups to discriminate. They are treating the CU exactly as they would any other group that likewise discriminated.

They are using the rule of "No religious discrimination" which is silly, as it is a religous society. A better rule is "no discrimination other than in nature" IE it is in the nature of a religious society to discriminate, it doesnt have to but it can because of what it is. There is no reason for any other society to discriminate against religon.


Why?

Because the Chess society is a place for people to play chess and enhance there game, not a place for people to mock chess and such


Hairstyle is a choice too. Does that mean that the CU could decide that anyone with short hair wouldn't be allowed in? Of course not. Religion has been accepted by the Western world as an inappropriate criteria to use in discriminating against people. By your logic, it would be perfectly ok for the university to not allow any Christians on campus at all, since religion is a matter of choice.

You are not listening

Discrimination against religion in situations where it does not make sense is not acceptable. For instance, the university has no right to discriminate against Christians being admited to the university because there is nothing in the universitys nature that makes being a Christian antithetical to it

But a Christian group by its nature has reason to discriminate against non Christians

A Bank doesnt have a reason to discriminate against black people, it does have reason to discriminate against people who do not have banking qualifications

A Mosque does not have a reason to discriminate against white people being their Imam. They do have a reason to discriminate against non Muslims

The position of member is to vote on the exec and be on the exec. Who should decide who should lead a CU? Christians. By the people, for the people, of the people.


Maybe they do. Maybe they are considering it. Maybe they enjoy the companionship. There are all sorts of reasons.

They can come to the meetings, they do not have to be a member to come to the meetings.


You keep repeating this as if it is self-evident. But I have already pointed out religious societies that don't do this. Thus, it is obviously not in the nature of religious societies to do so, any more than it is in the nature of science societies to ban religious persons.

It is in the nature of science socieites to ban people who believe that you cannot learn anything through the scientific method.


In other words, you are saying that religious groups should get special treatment. They should be able to break uni rules because you claim (even though you are patently incorrect) that they *must* do so.

No, I am saying the Uni rules should be diffrent. Instead of "no discrimination of religion" it should be "no discrimination other than in nature" IE give all groups the right to discriminate against people who it is not in the nature of the groups ethos to want as a part of them.


Exclusivity will generally alienate people. When they aren't paying for it and can easily avoid it, we don't worry about how alienated people are. However, every student on campus pays for the things that occur on campus. Thus, every student on campus would be paying for the facilities, etc. that the CU would use, if it were on campus.

No they dont. To go to specific events and use specific things you pay on a specific basis. For example you pay £40 for the student ball, £2 for membership of a certian society etc.


It has nothing to do with not liking them. It has to do with the safety and learning of the students.

Why is it unsafe to hear a viewpoint that does not like you. If they are enciting viloence that is criminal and thus they can be arrested


You don't like it? Then become a member of whatever board runs the uni and change it.

You debated the Millitary Commissions act in this forum several times. Do you think an acceptable counter argument is "You dont like it, be president and take it down"


So the university should never be able to make rules of its own?

Not one that contradicts freedoms granted in public


You know, let's go about this a different way. The CU can have their meetings. And a large group of students opposed to the CU can form an "anti-CU" and can "invade" their meetings and talk over them. The uni can't stop anything that isn't against the law, and talking isn't against the law. So I propose that the uni allow the CU, and the students who are opposed to their policies fill up the rooms where the meetings are to take place and take over the proceedings. The uni can't keep them from doing so, since that would restrict free speech, and they aren't being violent or doing anything illegal.

Actually, if they were disrupting the meeting of the CU they would be doing something illegal, violating freedom of associasion. There are laws in the UK which prevent people from disrupting things like religious services.

They don't have that right in the "real world" unless they are on private property. If they are in their own homes, or in a church, then someone unwanted cannot enter and begin to denounce them.

They have paid for the privilage of using the rooms, they pay membership fees to the SU. Ergo for a temporay basis it is private property


However, if they are on public space, any person who has access to that space can say whatever they like. If a Christian group holds a rally in a city park, for instance, there is nothing to stop an atheist from stopping and having his say

These students do not own campus. It is not their private property, so they are entitled only to what protection from being disturbed that campus chooses to offer them.

They have paid for the privialge to use the rooms, it is there property on loan while the meeting is happening


If I say that a science group can meet in my house, but a KKK group cannot, am I breaching freedom of speech?

It is your house, you have paid for it. The CU have paid for the rights to use these rooms


And an objective reason has been provided. The CU broke school rules by discriminating on the basis of religion and sexuality. Any society that does this will be treated as the CU was treated. Doesn't get much more objective than that.

That isnt an objective reason. That is subjective. Subjective because it is just because the SU believes that discrimination of this sort is wrong. It isnt in this case because it is discrimination based upon the nature of the CU. A better policy than "No religious discrimination" is "no discrimination other than in nature"

bump

Taking a sermon is an example, or leading worship or saying prayers

Or saying "Hi guys, this is what I think," or, "I have this one problem that I'd like to discuss," or, "Could we pray for my father, who has cancer?" or any number of things.

Because that is how CU's across the country funciton. I have friends in many unviersities including Exeter and this is how theres function as well.

Do CU's accross the country require you to sign a 10-pt. manifesto before you can become a member or openly participate? I'm guessing not, since you said you disagree with it. Thus, you are obviously not qualified to speak on this particular CU, which obviously has policies that the others do not.

People are allowed freedom of speech, but it is always qualified in regards to context not content. For example, you are allowed to say the word "Fire!" but not in a crowded thetre. And you are allowed to denouce Mohammad, but not disrupting a sermon in a mosque by doing so.

Not in a mosque. However, you are allowed to do so if the sermon is in a city park, or if it is a group of Muslims meeting in a library or student center.

Which is wrong because they have the right to discriminate on the basis of their nature, like any other group. They are behaving no diffrently from any other group in this regard.

Yes, they are. As has already been pointed out, there is nothing inherent in the nature of a religious student group that requires such discrimination. Thus, it is obviously not "on the basis of their nature." Meanwhile, most of the "discrimination on the basis of their nature," examples you have brought up have already been refuted.

The rules are not about who uses them, they are about what they do in them.

Precisely. And they are not allowed to discriminate against people based on religion or sexuality in them. If they wish to do this, they must go elsewhere.

Obviously if they are disruptive, or loud, or break the law then yes they should not be allowed there. But that is not what the CU are doing

Disruptive and loud generally isn't a violation of the law. I thought you said that restricting anything that wasn't illegal was wrong?

They have paid to be there, they have the right to be there and that in turn means the right to associasion.

They have the right to be there. They do not have the right to use campus funds to discriminate against people of other faiths or sexualities.

There is an objective reason for that, IE people getting drunk which they dont want to happen. There is no objective reason for this, only an ideolgocial one.

"We don't want people to get drunk," is no more objective or less ideological than, "We don't want people alienating others by discriminating based on religion and sexuality."

Obviously a group that is not religous in its nature should not discriminate on the grounds of religion, but why not a religious group.

If any student group can do it, all student groups can do it. Anything else is preferential treatment of religiously-oriented student groups. Thus, if the CU were allowed to operate this way, the chess club would be allowed to say, "No Baptists wanted here."

They are using the rule of "No religious discrimination" which is silly, as it is a religous society.

The rule doesn't just apply to a religious society. It applies to all student groups. If one student group can discriminate based on religion, then all of them can. It would be perfectly acceptable in your little world for the debate club to ban all Budhists.

A better rule is "no discrimination other than in nature"

Not really. This "rule" is something you have made up off the top of your head and it is so vague as to be useless.

IE it is in the nature of a religious society to discriminate,

...except it isn't, as I have already shown time and time again. If it were in its nature, such discrimination would be required. The fact that it need not practice such discrimination makes it clear that is actually not "in its nature" at all.

You are not listening

Yes, I am. You simply won't admit to what all of your innane blabbering amounts to. You want special treatment for religious groups, and only for religious groups. You want them to be able to discriminate based on religion, but no one else can. ((I'd guess that you want special treatment for specifically Christian groups, but I couldn't say that for sure))

Discrimination against religion in situations where it does not make sense is not acceptable.

Ok then. This means that the CU's discrimination is not acceptable.

But a Christian group by its nature has reason to discriminate against non Christians

No, it doesn't. I can name several Christian groups that do not do this. Thus, it is obviously not a requirement and thus not "by its nature."

The position of member is to vote on the exec and be on the exec. Who should decide who should lead a CU? Christians. By the people, for the people, of the people.

If that is what the members of the CU want, then they won't vote in any non-Christians. No extra rules specifically banning them are necessary.

It is in the nature of science socieites to ban people who believe that you cannot learn anything through the scientific method.

No, it isn't. In fact, those would be the people we'd want to talk to.

No, I am saying the Uni rules should be diffrent. Instead of "no discrimination of religion" it should be "no discrimination other than in nature"

This means that the CU cannot discriminate based on religion, since there is nothing in its nature that requires this.

IE give all groups the right to discriminate against people who it is not in the nature of the groups ethos to want as a part of them.

By this logic, if the chess club decided it was morally wrong to include Christians, that would be ok. The group, as a whole, could vote that Christians should not play chess.

No they dont. To go to specific events and use specific things you pay on a specific basis. For example you pay £40 for the student ball, £2 for membership of a certian society etc.

You don't pay tuition? You honestly think whatever paltry student fees you pay totally pay for the facilities and the funding of these groups. You are either very naive, or have never seen even a tiny fraction of a university budget, or both.

You debated the Millitary Commissions act in this forum several times. Do you think an acceptable counter argument is "You dont like it, be president and take it down"

Huh?

Not one that contradicts freedoms granted in public

So the university is public space? In that case, it can't restrict the usage of its facilities to students and faculty. All citizens must have free access to it, just as they would a public park.

Actually, if they were disrupting the meeting of the CU they would be doing something illegal, violating freedom of associasion. There are laws in the UK which prevent people from disrupting things like religious services.

This isn't a religious service. This is a meeting of a religious society. And they wouldn't be violating freedom of asscociation any more than people who protest at a political rally are "violating freedom of association."

They have paid for the privilage of using the rooms, they pay membership fees to the SU. Ergo for a temporay basis it is private property

At best, that is renting. And the person/entity renting out the space always has the right to restrict how it may be used.

They have paid for the privialge to use the rooms, it is there property on loan while the meeting is happening

It is "on loan" with certain restrictions. If they break those restrictions (as the CU has chosen to do), they lose the priviledge.

It is your house, you have paid for it. The CU have paid for the rights to use these rooms

I OWN my house, just as the univerity owns its own property. If I were to rent the rooms in my house out to people, I would have every right to restrict how they could be used. For instance, I could rent a group of people my living room in which to meet on the stipulation that they cannot advocate racism. If I find that they are advocating racism, I can kick them out.

Likewise, the uni alllows student groups on the stipulation that they follow certain rules. If they break those rules, the uni can kick them out.

Taking a sermon is an example, or leading worship or saying prayers

Or saying "Hi guys, this is what I think," or, "I have this one problem that I'd like to discuss," or, "Could we pray for my father, who has cancer?" or any number of things.

Because that is how CU's across the country funciton. I have friends in many unviersities including Exeter and this is how theres function as well.

Do CU's accross the country require you to sign a 10-pt. manifesto before you can become a member or openly participate? I'm guessing not, since you said you disagree with it. Thus, you are obviously not qualified to speak on this particular CU, which obviously has policies that the others do not.

People are allowed freedom of speech, but it is always qualified in regards to context not content. For example, you are allowed to say the word "Fire!" but not in a crowded thetre. And you are allowed to denouce Mohammad, but not disrupting a sermon in a mosque by doing so.

Not in a mosque. However, you are allowed to do so if the sermon is in a city park, or if it is a group of Muslims meeting in a library or student center.

Which is wrong because they have the right to discriminate on the basis of their nature, like any other group. They are behaving no diffrently from any other group in this regard.

Yes, they are. As has already been pointed out, there is nothing inherent in the nature of a religious student group that requires such discrimination. Thus, it is obviously not "on the basis of their nature." Meanwhile, most of the "discrimination on the basis of their nature," examples you have brought up have already been refuted.

The rules are not about who uses them, they are about what they do in them.

Precisely. And they are not allowed to discriminate against people based on religion or sexuality in them. If they wish to do this, they must go elsewhere.

Obviously if they are disruptive, or loud, or break the law then yes they should not be allowed there. But that is not what the CU are doing

Disruptive and loud generally isn't a violation of the law. I thought you said that restricting anything that wasn't illegal was wrong?

They have paid to be there, they have the right to be there and that in turn means the right to associasion.

They have the right to be there. They do not have the right to use campus funds to discriminate against people of other faiths or sexualities.

There is an objective reason for that, IE people getting drunk which they dont want to happen. There is no objective reason for this, only an ideolgocial one.

"We don't want people to get drunk," is no more objective or less ideological than, "We don't want people alienating others by discriminating based on religion and sexuality."

Obviously a group that is not religous in its nature should not discriminate on the grounds of religion, but why not a religious group.

If any student group can do it, all student groups can do it. Anything else is preferential treatment of religiously-oriented student groups. Thus, if the CU were allowed to operate this way, the chess club would be allowed to say, "No Baptists wanted here."

They are using the rule of "No religious discrimination" which is silly, as it is a religous society.

The rule doesn't just apply to a religious society. It applies to all student groups. If one student group can discriminate based on religion, then all of them can. It would be perfectly acceptable in your little world for the debate club to ban all Budhists.

A better rule is "no discrimination other than in nature"

Not really. This "rule" is something you have made up off the top of your head and it is so vague as to be useless.

IE it is in the nature of a religious society to discriminate,

...except it isn't, as I have already shown time and time again. If it were in its nature, such discrimination would be required. The fact that it need not practice such discrimination makes it clear that is actually not "in its nature" at all.

You are not listening

Yes, I am. You simply won't admit to what all of your innane blabbering amounts to. You want special treatment for religious groups, and only for religious groups. You want them to be able to discriminate based on religion, but no one else can. ((I'd guess that you want special treatment for specifically Christian groups, but I couldn't say that for sure))

Discrimination against religion in situations where it does not make sense is not acceptable.

Ok then. This means that the CU's discrimination is not acceptable.

But a Christian group by its nature has reason to discriminate against non Christians

No, it doesn't. I can name several Christian groups that do not do this. Thus, it is obviously not a requirement and thus not "by its nature."

The position of member is to vote on the exec and be on the exec. Who should decide who should lead a CU? Christians. By the people, for the people, of the people.

If that is what the members of the CU want, then they won't vote in any non-Christians. No extra rules specifically banning them are necessary.

It is in the nature of science socieites to ban people who believe that you cannot learn anything through the scientific method.

No, it isn't. In fact, those would be the people we'd want to talk to.

No, I am saying the Uni rules should be diffrent. Instead of "no discrimination of religion" it should be "no discrimination other than in nature"

This means that the CU cannot discriminate based on religion, since there is nothing in its nature that requires this.

IE give all groups the right to discriminate against people who it is not in the nature of the groups ethos to want as a part of them.

By this logic, if the chess club decided it was morally wrong to include Christians, that would be ok. The group, as a whole, could vote that Christians should not play chess.

No they dont. To go to specific events and use specific things you pay on a specific basis. For example you pay £40 for the student ball, £2 for membership of a certian society etc.

You don't pay tuition? You honestly think whatever paltry student fees you pay totally pay for the facilities and the funding of these groups. You are either very naive, or have never seen even a tiny fraction of a university budget, or both.

You debated the Millitary Commissions act in this forum several times. Do you think an acceptable counter argument is "You dont like it, be president and take it down"

Huh?

Not one that contradicts freedoms granted in public

So the university is public space? In that case, it can't restrict the usage of its facilities to students and faculty. All citizens must have free access to it, just as they would a public park.

Actually, if they were disrupting the meeting of the CU they would be doing something illegal, violating freedom of associasion. There are laws in the UK which prevent people from disrupting things like religious services.

This isn't a religious service. This is a meeting of a religious society. And they wouldn't be violating freedom of asscociation any more than people who protest at a political rally are "violating freedom of association."

They have paid for the privilage of using the rooms, they pay membership fees to the SU. Ergo for a temporay basis it is private property

At best, that is renting. And the person/entity renting out the space always has the right to restrict how it may be used.

They have paid for the privialge to use the rooms, it is there property on loan while the meeting is happening

It is "on loan" with certain restrictions. If they break those restrictions (as the CU has chosen to do), they lose the priviledge.

It is your house, you have paid for it. The CU have paid for the rights to use these rooms

I OWN my house, just as the univerity owns its own property. If I were to rent the rooms in my house out to people, I would have every right to restrict how they could be used. For instance, I could rent a group of people my living room in which to meet on the stipulation that they cannot advocate racism. If I find that they are advocating racism, I can kick them out.

Likewise, the uni alllows student groups on the stipulation that they follow certain rules. If they break those rules, the uni can kick them out.

Or saying "Hi guys, this is what I think," or, "I have this one problem that I'd like to discuss," or, "Could we pray for my father, who has cancer?" or any number of things.

You dont need to adress the CU to say those things, just talk to people individually


Do CU's accross the country require you to sign a 10-pt. manifesto before
you can become a member or openly participate? I'm guessing not, since you said you disagree with it. Thus, you are obviously not qualified to speak on this particular CU, which obviously has policies that the others do not.

They have the right to if they wish.


Not in a mosque. However, you are allowed to do so if the sermon is in a city park, or if it is a group of Muslims meeting in a library or student center.

If the CU has paid for it, they are allowed not to be disturbed, as that right is allowed for


Yes, they are. As has already been pointed out, there is nothing inherent in the nature of a religious student group that requires such discrimination. Thus, it is obviously not "on the basis of their nature." Meanwhile, most of the "discrimination on the basis of their nature," examples you have brought up have already been refuted.


Not all. They do not HAVE to discriminate, but it is in there nature to demand it if they so choose. Because it is in there nature


Precisely. And they are not allowed to discriminate against people based on religion or sexuality in them. If they wish to do this, they must go elsewhere.

They should be allowed to do it if it is in their nature to do so. Obviously its silly for the skydiving group to religiously discriminate, but this is a religious group. You may not agree with the discrimination but you can understand it.


Disruptive and loud generally isn't a violation of the law. I thought you said that restricting anything that wasn't illegal was wrong?

Causing a disturbance to the peace.


They have the right to be there. They do not have the right to use campus funds to discriminate against people of other faiths or sexualities.

They paid for it, they have the right to do what they want with it apart from break the law.


"We don't want people to get drunk," is no more objective or less ideological than, "We don't want people alienating others by discriminating based on religion and sexuality."

No, its "we dont want people drinking on campus because if they do they could hurt themselves severly". Thats an objective reason. Granted people could also do so outside the uni but that is beyond there control.


If any student group can do it, all student groups can do it. Anything else is preferential treatment of religiously-oriented student groups. Thus, if the CU were allowed to operate this way, the chess club would be allowed to say, "No Baptists wanted here."

The rule doesn't just apply to a religious society. It applies to all student groups. If one student group can discriminate based on religion, then all of them can. It would be perfectly acceptable in your little world for the debate club to ban all Budhists.

No, because it is not in the Chess clubs nature to be discriminatory against Christians, it is in the chess clubs nature to be discriminatory against people who dont want to play, and mock, chess.


Not really. This "rule" is something you have made up off the top of your head and it is so vague as to be useless.

I've already demonstrated its logic. You are being opinonated here, there is no objective reason why the rule of discrimination of nature doesnt work


...except it isn't, as I have already shown time and time again. If it were in its nature, such discrimination would be required. The fact that it need not practice such discrimination makes it clear that is actually not "in its nature" at all.


It doesnt have to but it should be able to if it so chooses. Who do you think it is fair should vote in US elections? US citizens? Who should be in the Cabernit, US citizens logically


Yes, I am. You simply won't admit to what all of your innane blabbering amounts to. You want special treatment for religious groups, and only for religious groups. You want them to be able to discriminate based on religion, but no one else can. ((I'd guess that you want special treatment for specifically Christian groups, but I couldn't say that for sure))

No, I want them to be able to discriminate on the grounds of their nature, as any other group is able able to.


No, it doesn't. I can name several Christian groups that do not do this. Thus, it is obviously not a requirement and thus not "by its nature."

They can choose not to, but equally they can choose that they can, and if they should so wish under freedom of asscocisaon, they are entitled to


If that is what the members of the CU want, then they won't vote in any non-Christians. No extra rules specifically banning them are necessary.

Excpet that it is possible for a majority of Non-Christians to vote on it.



No, it isn't. In fact, those would be the people we'd want to talk to.

Thats up to you, but you could choose not to if you should wish


This means that the CU cannot discriminate based on religion, since there is nothing in its nature that requires this.

Look at the name "Christian union" - a union of Christians. By its name alone you can see that. Furthermore the mission of the CU is to spread Jesus's name around the campus. Non Christians will not want to do this.


By this logic, if the chess club decided it was morally wrong to include Christians, that would be ok. The group, as a whole, could vote that Christians should not play chess.

That would be a subjective decision. There is nothing in Chess's nature to suggest that Christians could not play. However there is something in a CU's nature that Non Christians could not be on the exec for instance. How could someone be a worship co-ordinator to a God they did not belive in. How could someone be a praryer secutary for a God they didnt believe in. How could somone who is not a christian lead a group of people who were to evangalise that God to students. You do see the problem.


You don't pay tuition? You honestly think whatever paltry student fees you pay totally pay for the facilities and the funding of these groups. You are either very naive, or have never seen even a tiny fraction of a university budget, or both.

We pay tuition, we also pay for specific events, the CU pays for the right to have access to those rooms. If it is doing nothing illegal it cannot be stopped


Huh?

You heard me. Your suggesting that it is pointless bemoaning laws. Is it pointless for you to bemoan the MCA?


So the university is public space? In that case, it can't restrict the usage of its facilities to students and faculty. All citizens must have free access to it, just as they would a public park.

The rooms are paid for, the CU pays for access to them


This isn't a religious service. This is a meeting of a religious society. And they wouldn't be violating freedom of asscociation any more than people who protest at a political rally are "violating freedom of association."

A meeting of a religious society is a religious service, not a governmental instutution. You would not feel the same if the Islamic society was protested outside of. You would consider it immature and that it should not happen and do not pretend othrwise.


At best, that is renting. And the person/entity renting out the space always has the right to restrict how it may be used

It is "on loan" with certain restrictions. If they break those restrictions (as the CU has chosen to do), they lose the priviledge.

No they dont. As long as it does not break the law they have no right to restrict it.


I OWN my house, just as the univerity owns its own property. If I were to rent the rooms in my house out to people, I would have every right to restrict how they could be used. For instance, I could rent a group of people my living room in which to meet on the stipulation that they cannot advocate racism. If I find that they are advocating racism, I can kick them out.

Likewise, the uni alllows student groups on the stipulation that they follow certain rules. If they break those rules, the uni can kick them out.

The students have paid for the right to be at the university and paid for the right to use the room. For all intents and purposes they own the room untill the meeting finishes. If they are not breaking the law and not damaging the property they have every right to do what they wish there.

You dont need to adress the CU to say those things, just talk to people individually

But everyone else in attendance could address the whole group with those things. Only the people who are denied membership couldn't.

They have the right to if they wish.

Indeed. But they must find a place to do it that allows such treatment.

If the CU has paid for it, they are allowed not to be disturbed, as that right is allowed for

Wait, so now you're adding rights above and beyond the "real world" and public spaces?

Not all. They do not HAVE to discriminate, but it is in there nature to demand it if they so choose. Because it is in there nature

If they do not HAVE to do it, then it is not in the nature of the group. It is a choice. If that choice is allowed, then it must be allowed to all student groups.

They should be allowed to do it if it is in their nature to do so. Obviously its silly for the skydiving group to religiously discriminate, but this is a religious group. You may not agree with the discrimination but you can understand it.

No, I can't. In fact, it would make more sense to me for a skydiving group (which may or may not be made up of members who intend to follow the example of Christ) to discriminate than people claiming to be Christians.

Causing a disturbance to the peace.

That is a very limited law indeed. Most of "loud and disruptive" wouldn't apply.

They paid for it, they have the right to do what they want with it apart from break the law.

Incorrect. Anyone who essentially rents out meeting space can stipulate more than "don't break the law," the university included. They did not buy the space and they do not own it. At best, they are renting it at a very, very, very reduced rate. As such, the owner of the property can place stipulations above and beyond the law, if they see fit.

No, its "we dont want people drinking on campus because if they do they could hurt themselves severly".

No, it isn't. It's usually, "We don't want people drinking on campus because drinking is bad."

No, because it is not in the Chess clubs nature to be discriminatory against Christians,

....nor is it in the nature of Chrisitans or Christian groups to be discriminatory against non-Christians.

I've already demonstrated its logic.

No, you haven't. You've tried to pretend that it is based in logic very, very, very hard. But you haven't acheived that goal. And even if you did, the fact would still remain that there is nothing inherent in the nature of a religious society that requires discrimination on the basis of religion.

You are being opinonated here, there is no objective reason why the rule of discrimination of nature doesnt work

Yes, there is. Your rule is so subjective that it is useless. Who decides what is in the nature of the group? You? The members? The school?

You keep repeating that religious discrimination is inherent in the nature of a CU, despite evidence to the contrary. How is that any more "objective" than someone claiming that religious discrimination is inherent in the nature of a chess club, despite evidence to the contrary?

It doesnt have to but it should be able to if it so chooses.

Make up your mind. Is it in its nature or not? If it is in its nature, then has to do so. If it chooses to do so, then any group could make that choice.

Who do you think it is fair should vote in US elections? US citizens?

Indeed, but I don't think that a requirement to be a US citizen should be, "You have to be our type of Christian and sign this 10 pt. Christian manifesto," so its a rather insufficient analogy.

No, I want them to be able to discriminate on the grounds of their nature, as any other group is able able to.

They have that ability, just like any other group. You are trying to say that a particular type of discrimination that it not inherent in "their nature" actually is, despite quite often contradicting yourself.

They can choose not to, but equally they can choose that they can, and if they should so wish under freedom of asscocisaon, they are entitled to

....as long as they don't want to use campus funds or facilities.

Excpet that it is possible for a majority of Non-Christians to vote on it.

Highly unlikely. And the interesting thing about student groups is that, if it did happen, a new group could be formed by those who didn't like the leadership of the current one.

Look at the name "Christian union" - a union of Christians. By its name alone you can see that. Furthermore the mission of the CU is to spread Jesus's name around the campus. Non Christians will not want to do this.

How are they going to "spread Jesus's name around campus" by being discriminatory towards those who do not yet believe? This just makes the CU look even more stupid. They are implementing policies sure to turn people against their message, rather than inviting any and all who wish to hear it to join and be a part of the group.

That would be a subjective decision. There is nothing in Chess's nature to suggest that Christians could not play. However there is something in a CU's nature that Non Christians could not be on the exec for instance.

No, there really isn't. A non-Christian might, for instance, be much more learned in Christian theology than a given Christian. That person would likely be a good person to have as a leader in the group. Of course, that person would have to convince all of the members to vote them into said position, which would be rather unlikely.

We pay tuition, we also pay for specific events, the CU pays for the right to have access to those rooms. If it is doing nothing illegal it cannot be stopped

If the CU isn't recognized as a student group on campus, it is paying no extra money to have access to those rooms. The money issue is moot, as they aren't going to pay unless they are recognized groups.

However, you demonstrate your naivete here. The small fees paid by the student groups do not pay for the upkeep of those buildings. The tuition goes towards that end much more so than what little fees students pay in addition.

You heard me. Your suggesting that it is pointless bemoaning laws. Is it pointless for you to bemoan the MCA?

I don't even know what the MCA is. That's why I'm confused. You claim that I constantly argue about something when I don't even know what it is.

The rooms are paid for, the CU pays for access to them

No, it doesn't. Only recognized student groups do so. What the university is saying is that it refuses to recognize the CU. Thus, the CU does not pay any extra fees to use the rooms. It does not get to use the facilities and it receives no funding from the uni.

A meeting of a religious society is a religious service,

Not necessarily.

not a governmental instutution. You would not feel the same if the Islamic society was protested outside of. You would consider it immature and that it should not happen and do not pretend othrwise.

I'm going by your logic. You say that freedom of speech and freedom of association cannot be restricted by the university. This means that the university cannot lift a hand to stop such a protest, nor can it enforce the CU's "No addressing the group unless you sign our 10 pt. manifesto," rule.

Of course, what you are actually arguing is that the university can restrict these things in ways that you like. They can even apply anti-discrimination rules to other clubs. Just not the CU, which should receive special treatment on the basis of it being a CU.

No they dont. As long as it does not break the law they have no right to restrict it.

Then I have to let the KKK hold meetings on my land, since their meetings do not break the law?

The students have paid for the right to be at the university and paid for the right to use the room. For all intents and purposes they own the room untill the meeting finishes. If they are not breaking the law and not damaging the property they have every right to do what they wish there.

Wrong. Even if they were paying to rent the room, which they aren't, since they aren't a recognized student group that pays such fees, they would not have the right to do whatever they wished there. Renting and owning are not the same thing. They would only have the right to do what the owners allowed.

For instance, I rented an apartment for a year and a half. I did not, however, own it. The owners restricted what types of pets I could have, how I could or could not paint, what changes I could make to the apartment, and so forth. They also restricted how many people I could have visit at a time and what types of gatherings I could hold in the apartment. Why? Because they owned it. I did not, not even "for all intents and purposes." Now, I own my house. I can make whatever changes I like. I can have whatever pets I like. I can have a big party or a KKK rally if I like.

The students, even if they were paying to rent the rooms (which they are not), do not own the facilities. Just as the owner of my apartment (where I lived, rather than just wanting to meet there for an hour a week or something like that) could restrict my actions there, the university can restrict the actions taken within its own borders. If they choose not to rent to societies that discriminate based on religion and sexuality, that is their right, just as it is my right to determine who can rent my property.