NationStates Jolt Archive

In itself this is old news, but the petition is new, which I would like your support for.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1950955,00.html

Christian students at the University of Exeter are threatening to take legal action against the campus's student guild in a row over equal opportunities policies.
The 50-year-old Christian Union (CU) said in a statement today that it had been temporarily suspended from the official list of student societies there. The president of the Guild of Students, Jemma Percy, denied this was the case.

The society said its student union bank account has been frozen, and it had been banned from free use of student guild premises, because, it said, the guild claimed the CU constitution and activities did not conform to its equal opportunities policies.

Ms Percy confirmed some of the guild privileges afforded to its societies had been suspended because of the CU's constitution.

The CU said it appeared that unless they disassociated themselves from the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF), and stopped the practice of asking committee members and speakers to sign a declaration, they could be permanently banned from the guild.

The society's constitution states: "Participation in CU activities is open to all students in the university. Membership is open to all students in the university who can conscientiously sign the following declaration: 'In joining this union, I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my saviour, my lord and my God'."

...

Pod Bhogal, a spokesman for the UCCF, said the student unions were pushing a "secular, politically correct agenda posing as tolerance".


If you would like to see this stopped, as franky it is rather stupid, and you are a member of facebook, please sign the petion "Allow CU's to be Christian" at the following link http://apps.facebook.com/epetitions/petitions.php

EDIT

Just to be clear, the kind of discrimination we are talking about is that to be a MEMBER (not to participate) in the CU you have to be able to sign a doctrinal statement. Its a very general one that would be applicable to all Christians. Its a Christian union for goodness sakes. Of course they would discriminate against non Christians being on their executive or voting for their exectuive.

Oh noes! Christians feeling they are being oppressed for discriminating against others. We must protect their inalienable right to discriminate and take action now. :rolleyes:

Oh no! A bigoted student union is being punished. Woe is me!

That is ridiculously old news. It's a year old now, man. The fact is it's probably been resolved now, although I'm too lazy to actively find out.

http://weaselhut.net/100de9.gif

Oh noes! Christians feeling they are being oppressed for discriminating against others. We must protect their inalienable right to discriminate and take action now. :rolleyes:

Erm, have you read the article. The kind of discrimination being talked about is the same kind as discriminating against Muslims who want to be Archbishop of Canterbury

Old news. I recall hearing about this ages ago.

Face it: The union is discriminating. Therefore, it cannot gain the support of the university.

That is ridiculously old news. It's a year old now, man. The fact is it's probably been resolved now, although I'm too lazy to actively find out.

No, it hasn't. My friends who are in the CU know this, being part of it. They are possibly going to have to take it up with the European court of human rights.

Old news. I recall hearing about this ages ago.

Face it: The union is discriminating. Therefore, it cannot gain the support of the university.

Its not arbitary discrimination. Its logical. Its like saying "The C of E are being discriminatory! They won't let non Christians on their high postions like Bishops! When did you ever see a Non Christian Archbishop! Lets break through the religious glass ceiling!"

No, it hasn't. My friends who are in the CU know this, being part of it. They are possibly going to have to take it up with the European court of human rights.

Why do you expect to be supported by the public, which does not allow discrimination, when you discriminate?

Its not arbitary discrimination. Its logical. Its like saying "The C of E are being discriminatory! They won't let non Christians on their high postions like Bishops! When did you ever see a Non Christian Archbishop! Lets break through the religious glass ceiling!"

It doesn't matter. You discriminate, ergo you lose support of the public.

Seeing as how the university does not condone discrimination, it cannot condone the union.

Erm, have you read the article. The kind of discrimination being talked about is the same kind as discriminating against Muslims who want to be Archbishop of Canterbury

Yes, that would still be discrimination. Well done.

Why do you expect to be supported by the public, which does not allow discrimination, when you discriminate?

Erm, there is discrimination and there is logical discrimination.

If we were just saying "No blacks/asians etc" thats arbitary discrimination. There is no reason for it. However this is a CHRISTIAN union. To say that it is requried to have non Christians on its executive is silly.

Do you really call it discrimination when the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be a Muslim? Of course not. The same way that the Ayatolliah in Iran cannot be a Christian.

Yes, that would still be discrimination. Well done.

Yes, but is it really the kind of discrimination that is not acceptable?

Erm, there is discrimination and there is logical discrimination.

If we were just saying "No blacks/asians etc" thats arbitary discrimination. There is no reason for it. However this is a CHRISTIAN union. To say that it is requried to have non Christians on its executive is silly.

Do you really call it discrimination when the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be a Muslim? Of course not. The same way that the Ayatolliah in Iran cannot be a Christian.

And because it's a christian union, it must be private and NOT supported by the public.

How many times do I have to tell you this? It can potentially discriminate in this way, if it does not expect the support of the university.

"Membership is open to all students in the university who can conscientiously sign the following declaration: 'In joining this union, I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my saviour, my lord and my God'."

Meaning that membership isn't at all open to all students at the university and thus that the CU makes use of religious discrimination. Fuck them, then. If they want the support of the university, they can't discriminate against non-Christians.

Meaning that membership isn't at all open to all students at the university and thus that the CU makes use of religious discrimination. Fuck them, then. If they want the support of the university, they can't discriminate against non-Christians.

Don't you just love how vague wording can be used to create an image tolerance while being a bald-faced prick? :p As if saying "membership open to all" makes it a beacon of tolerance...

In itself this is old news, but the petition is new, which I would like your support for.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1950955,00.html



If you would like to see this stopped, as franky it is rather stupid, and you are a member of facebook, please sign the petion "Allow CU's to be Christian" at the following link http://apps.facebook.com/epetitions/petitions.php

EDIT

Just to be clear, the kind of discrimination we are talking about is that to be a MEMBER (not to participate) in the CU you have to be able to sign a doctrinal statement. Its a very general one that would be applicable to all Christians. Its a Christian union for goodness sakes. Of course they would discriminate against non Christians being on their executive or voting for their exectuive.


As a christian, I'm siding with the student guild on this. The CU has no right to restrict membership based on the willingness to sign that document.

"Membership is open to all students in the university who can conscientiously sign the following declaration: 'In joining this union, I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my saviour, my lord and my God'."

Meaning that membership isn't at all open to all students at the university and thus that the CU makes use of religious discrimination. Fuck them, then. If they want the support of the university, they can't discriminate.

And is thus discriminatory and should not be supported by the Student Union and get funding.

It's simple.

:headbang:

Coming from an atheist, I do have to say I'm disappointed in how so many people here are coming against this guy. I realize this is in the UK but obviously you people are the ones who don't support religous tolerance, not this "Christian Union".

How can you argue with this:

Its not arbitary discrimination. Its logical. Its like saying "The C of E are being discriminatory! They won't let non Christians on their high postions like Bishops! When did you ever see a Non Christian Archbishop! Lets break through the religious glass ceiling!"

I mean seriously... are you stupid? The organization is designed for CHRISTIANS... it only makes sense that they don't let non-Christians in.

How about this similar situation. Lets say I wanted to become a member of Greenpeace. Okay, so what.... well I don't believe that global warming is a bad thing (if it even is man-made), I intentionally don't recycle, and I oppose animal rights... under your logic Greenpeace has no right to not allow me to join because thats political discrimination.

Yes, but is it really the kind of discrimination that is not acceptable?
Yep.

See, we're not talking about some public organisation here. We're talking about a university-sponsored student body. And as such, it must behave in a manner representative of the university. This means that it must not accommodate ideological authoritarianism.

Personally, I'd rather not speak in front of a CU due to the inevitable controversy it would spark, but I think it is unreasonable to refuse to allow any non-christians to address the society. Even our college chapel last year had a muslim speaker along, and this year a jewish speaker; surely the ability to have that must remain within your organisation?

And because it's a christian union, it must be private and NOT supported by the public.

How many times do I have to tell you this? It can potentially discriminate in this way, if it does not expect the support of the university.

The university recieves support from the public, yet it discriminates against people who do not have at least three A-levels of above C grade. Should they recieve no public support?

I mean seriously... are you stupid? The organization is designed for CHRISTIANS... it only makes sense that they don't let non-Christians in.

Well then, they better stop expecting PUBLIC funding. Once they do that, fine. They'll still be dicks, but at least the public won't be funding their dickery.

How about this similar situation. Lets say I wanted to become a member of Greenpeace. Okay, so what.... well I don't believe that global warming is a bad thing (if it even is man-made), I intentionally don't recycle, and I oppose animal rights... under your logic Greenpeace has no right to not allow me to join because thats political discrimination.

Actually, Greenpeace has Every right to not allow you to join Because they are a PRIVATE organisation based on PRIVATE donations.

Just to be clear, the kind of discrimination we are talking about is that to be a MEMBER (not to participate) in the CU you have to be able to sign a doctrinal statement. Its a very general one that would be applicable to all Christians. Its a Christian union for goodness sakes. Of course they would discriminate against non Christians being on their executive or voting for their exectuive.
I have an answer; just get rid of the damned declaration. I doubt that non-Christians want to be a part of the CU anyways. However, if they do, what's to stop them?

Are you crazy I can not believe the U.K. would do this they were founded on Christianity! If I could I would go over there and prbolay get the person who did this!
Just because it's founded on such principles, it doesn't mean they have to be stuck by.

I mean seriously... are you stupid? The organization is designed for CHRISTIANS... it only makes sense that they don't let non-Christians in.

How about this similar situation. Lets say I wanted to become a member of Greenpeace. Okay, so what.... well I don't believe that global warming is a bad thing (if it even is man-made), I intentionally don't recycle, and I oppose animal rights... under your logic Greenpeace has no right to not allow me to join because thats political discrimination.

Chances are if you don't believe in any of that shit, you wouldn't join them. That's the thing. The people who want to join obvious have something in common with the group and are interested in being part of it.

Lets turn this around a little.

Let's say we have a GLBT society, and a straight cross-dressing person who supports their rights wishes to join. Would it be discrimination if they said "no"?

Yep.

See, we're not talking about some public organisation here. We're talking about a university-sponsored student body. And as such, it must behave in a manner representative of the university. This means that it must not accommodate ideological authoritarianism.


WHAT!

Since when is a Christian society wanting only Christians to be in its membership "Ideological autoritarianism". I suppose then the green society has to allow people in who disagree with global warming and think that we should all drive rather than walk where its easy to, and that the conservative party society should allow people in who want to create the United People's Socialist Republic of Great Britain! This is rediculous.

Are you crazy I can not believe the U.K. would do this they were founded on Christianity! If I could I would go over there and prbolay get the person who did this!

Coming from an atheist, I do have to say I'm disappointed in how so many people here are coming against this guy. I realize this is in the UK but obviously you people are the ones who don't support religous tolerance, not this "Christian Union".
What I support isn't "religious tolerance". What I support is interfaith dialogue. If your religious organisation isn't willing to open up to talk to others or allow them to talk to you, I'm going to pester you incessantly, regardless of what your religion says about it.

Well then, they better stop expecting PUBLIC funding. Once they do that, fine. They'll still be dicks, but at least the public won't be funding their dickery.


So I suppose you've got to remove public support for any society that has any kind of ideology. So that then also proberbly means that you have to remove the sailing society, after all people who don't like sailing can participate but they can't be members and so can't vote on the executive so well then...And I suppose the conservative party society not allowing socialists into its membership is wrong too...

WHAT!

Since when is a Christian society wanting only Christians to be in its membership "Ideological autoritarianism". I suppose then the green society has to allow people in who disagree with global warming and think that we should all drive rather than walk where its easy to, and that the conservative party society should allow people in who want to create the United People's Socialist Republic of Great Britain! This is rediculous.
Why is it? They shouldn't prevent people from joining if they aren't Christian. That is as discriminating as saying "no blacks, no Irish" whathaveyou.

Anyways, it's spelt ridiculous.

And what wrong with a United People's Socialist Republic of Great Britain? :p

Well then, they better stop expecting PUBLIC funding. Once they do that, fine. They'll still be dicks, but at least the public won't be funding their dickery.


So I suppose you've got to remove public support for any society that has any kind of ideology. So that then also proberbly means that you have to remove the sailing society, after all people who don't like sailing can participate but they can't be members and so can't vote on the executive so well then...And I suppose the conservative party society not allowing socialists into its membership is wrong too...

No, it hasn't. My friends who are in the CU know this, being part of it. They are possibly going to have to take it up with the European court of human rights.

you say this as if its a bad thing.

when else in their lives would they ever get the chance to bring an issue before the european court of human rights? (supposing that there is a chance in hell of getting the court to hear the case) they are being handed the opportunity of a lifetime and all they can do is winge?

they should be sending ms percy flowers.

:headbang:

Coming from an atheist, I do have to say I'm disappointed in how so many people here are coming against this guy. I realize this is in the UK but obviously you people are the ones who don't support religous tolerance, not this "Christian Union".

How can you argue with this:



I mean seriously... are you stupid? The organization is designed for CHRISTIANS... it only makes sense that they don't let non-Christians in.

How about this similar situation. Lets say I wanted to become a member of Greenpeace. Okay, so what.... well I don't believe that global warming is a bad thing (if it even is man-made), I intentionally don't recycle, and I oppose animal rights... under your logic Greenpeace has no right to not allow me to join because thats political discrimination.


The difference is that the invisible man we choose to give our faith to is a very special opinion that outweighs all other opinions. I can discriminate on you based on your favorite ice cream or whether you can sing, but I can't discriinate on you based on your faith.

... now that I said it, it sounds kind of silly, doesn't it? :p

But more to the point, Must all christians believe Christ is God? They didn't always.

Are you crazy I can not believe the U.K. would do this they were founded on Christianity! If I could I would go over there and prbolay get the person who did this!

The UK was not founded on Christian principles. It was a union forged between the different areas of control into a single Kingdom. England didn't see Christianity until the 7th century. It had been previous invaded by Vikings, Celts and Romans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_England

What I support isn't "religious tolerance". What I support is interfaith dialogue. If your religious organisation isn't willing to open up to talk to others or allow them to talk to you, I'm going to pester you incessantly, regardless of what your religion says about it.

Erm, they arn't closing up to inter faith dialogue. What they are closing up to is having people from other faiths being the ones running their CU or voting on who is running for their CU

Are you crazy I can not believe the U.K. would do this they were founded on Christianity!

The United Kingdom is not a colony - it was not "founded" at all.

If I could I would go over there and prbolay get the person who did this!

http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/05-21-04-magazines/dorquemada.jpg

Grow up.

:headbang:

Coming from an atheist, I do have to say I'm disappointed in how so many people here are coming against this guy. I realize this is in the UK but obviously you people are the ones who don't support religous tolerance, not this "Christian Union".
How've you come to that conclusion. No one is stating the CU can't exist, not even the University, they are just stating that the CU must conform to University procedures, as do all Unions.



I mean seriously... are you stupid? The organization is designed for CHRISTIANS... it only makes sense that they don't let non-Christians in.



Should the organisation not be trying to gain University support and equipment then their point would be correct. However, they are trying to use the University and its equipment and as such have to conform to University policy. As that policy states that they are not allowed to discriminate against anyone be it on racial or religious grounds then they are not allowed to do it and receive University support. There only case would be if the Muslim Union was discriminating by only allowing Muslims but as that appears to not be the case then they don't have a leg to stand on.

Why is it? They shouldn't prevent people from joining if they aren't Christian. That is as discriminating as saying "no blacks, no Irish" whathaveyou.

No its not. The Irish national football team discriminates against people playing on it who are not Irish citizens. Is that the unaceptable kind of discrimination? If the CofE wants to stop a Muslim attempting to be Archbishop of Canterbury is that a bad kind of discrimination


And what wrong with a United People's Socialist Republic of Great Britain? :p

You missed the point I was making. Whether or not there is something wrong with it is by the by. The point is that the conservative party society should not have to have a member who wants to do that if they don't want to. They should not be forced to have members who disagree with them.

I suppose then the green society has to allow people in who disagree with global warming and think that we should all drive rather than walk where its easy to, and that the conservative party society should allow people in who want to create the United People's Socialist Republic of Great Britain!
Yes! They should! In fact, if they don't, then their credibility would be seriously undermined! Organisations grow and develop into respectible entities by being challenged and forced to overcome these challenges. If you reject all such possible challenge as a matter of necessity, then you stagnate. It is precisely for this reason that the Greens need to allow technocrats, the Conservatives need to allow liberals, the Christians need to allow agnostics and Vice Versa; otherwise, they're totally invalidated as a credible representation of an idea!

How've you come to that conclusion. No one is stating the CU can't exist, not even the University, they are just stating that the CU must conform to University procedures, as do all Unions.

Yes, but the rules are stupid and denying the CU acess to freedom of asscoation. Freedom of asscoation says that you are allowed to associate with people that are like minded like you without being discriminated against because of your belief system and that you can assemble without fear of being disrupted. If other groups are given this right by the union, why shouldn't the Christian union



Should the organisation not be trying to gain University support and equipment then their point would be correct. However, they are trying to use the University and its equipment and as such have to conform to University policy. As that policy states that they are not allowed to discriminate against anyone be it on racial or religious grounds then they are not allowed to do it and receive University support. There only case would be if the Muslim Union was discriminating by only allowing Muslims but as that appears to not be the case then they don't have a leg to stand on.

Its a basic human right that they are granting to some and not others.

You missed the point I was making. Whether or not there is something wrong with it is by the by. The point is that the conservative party society should not have to have a member who wants to do that if they don't want to. They should not be forced to have members who disagree with them.
I was joking on that count.

Yes! They should! In fact, if they don't, then their credibility would be seriously undermined! Organisations grow and develop into respectible entities by being challenged and forced to overcome these challenges. If you reject all such possible challenge as a matter of necessity, then you stagnate. It is precisely for this reason that the Greens need to allow technocrats, the Conservatives need to allow liberals, the Christians need to allow agnostics and Vice Versa; otherwise, they're totally invalidated as a credible representation of an idea!

They can listen to their ideas, they do not have to be forced to accept them as members if they don't want to. Whether or not it will benefit them is not the point. It is whether or not they will be forced to accept them against their will

No its not. The Irish national football team discriminates against people playing on it who are not Irish citizens. Is that the unaceptable kind of discrimination? If the CofE wants to stop a Muslim attempting to be Archbishop of Canterbury is that a bad kind of discrimination

The C of E and Irish National Football Team are private institutions not receiving support or funds from the University and as such does not have to conform to University protocols.

You missed the point I was making. Whether or not there is something wrong with it is by the by. The point is that the conservative party society should not have to have a member who wants to do that if they don't want to. They should not be forced to have members who disagree with them.
Ah, but the Conservative Party society does not write into its policy that a socialist can't join unless they meet certain criteria. Socialists are just unlikely to join, but technically there is nothing stopping them and as such they follow University protocol.

Its a basic human right that they are granting to some and not others.

Getting support from a university for your religious discrimination is not a human right.

Yes, but the rules are stupid and denying the CU acess to freedom of asscoation. Freedom of asscoation says that you are allowed to associate with people that are like minded like you without being discriminated against because of your belief system and that you can assemble without fear of being disrupted. If other groups are given this right by the union, why shouldn't the Christian union
Name one other group that does not allow others to join that is supported by the University then you have an argument. As no other groups are mentioned then there is no argument.



Its a basic human right that they are granting to some and not others.
See above point.

The C of E and Irish National Football Team are private institutions not receiving support or funds from the University and as such does not have to conform to University protocols.

Ah, but the Conservative Party society does not write into its policy that a socialist can't join unless they meet certain criteria. Socialists are just unlikely to join, but technically there is nothing stopping them and as such they follow University protocol.

The university protocal is stupid! It is essentially saying that you are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of the nature of your society. Should the creative writing society expect to recieve artists with their paintins each week! Should the sailing society expect powerboaters! Should the areosoft society expect people with REAL 9mls! Obviously its discrimination, but its LOGICAL discrimination. The government already supports religions through public funds via tax breaks and charity commisions. Its rediculous to say that because this is a public institution it is somehow exempt from human rights. As long as it treets all the societies the same in allowing them to discriminate, there is no problem

The university protocal is stupid! It is essentially saying that you are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of the nature of your society. Should the creative writing society expect to recieve artists with their paintins each week! Should the sailing society expect powerboaters! Should the areosoft society expect people with REAL 9mls!

They can expect them but not support them. I'm the captain of the Dundee Uni Skydiving Club and anyone could join the club assuming they pay the membership fee and understand that we will only fund skydiving related activities

Name one other group that does not allow others to join that is supported by the University then you have an argument. As no other groups are mentioned then there is no argument.


The creative writing society does not allow people on its execitive who are not contributing any either construcitve criticisim or pieces of creative writing.

The university protocal is stupid! It is essentially saying that you are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of the nature of your society. Should the creative writing society expect to recieve artists with their paintins each week! Should the sailing society expect powerboaters! Should the areosoft society expect people with REAL 9mls! Obviously its discrimination, but its LOGICAL discrimination. The government already supports religions through public funds via tax breaks and charity commisions. Its rediculous to say that because this is a public institution it is somehow exempt from human rights. As long as it treets all the societies the same in allowing them to discriminate, there is no problem

But people won't join those societies because they aren't interested in the subject matter. All the CU needs do is remove that one paragraph and all is well, the odds of them suddenly gaining an influx of new atheist members is negligible but it would allow them to conform to University protocols. Every other Union group does it, so why should they be special?

I'm just curious as to what the rationale is for having people testify to a belief in Jesus as their Saviour in order to be a member with voting power or whatever it is they get.

The Christian group I was in at my university had no such requirement, and I can't figure out why such a group would need one.

The creative writing society does not allow people on its execitive who are not contributing any either construcitve criticisim or pieces of creative writing.

Is that written into their rules. Most university clubs elect their committee. Perhaps the reason there aren't any non-writers on the committee is because they weren't elected

Getting support from a university for your religious discrimination is not a human right.

No, but they provide freedom of asscoation to others but not the CU. The only legitimate grounds they would have is if the CU were acting in some kind of criminal matter and there is no proof of that. Just because the univeristy believes in secularism is not a reason to push them from being a part of the SU. The governement already funds chruches/mosques/synogogues/temples etc via tax breaks and charity commisions. Therefore there is no grounds to say that public funds are inapropriate for religious groups that discriminate like this.

Erm, there is discrimination and there is logical discrimination.

If we were just saying "No blacks/asians etc" thats arbitary discrimination. There is no reason for it. However this is a CHRISTIAN union. To say that it is requried to have non Christians on its executive is silly.
This is a complete car-crash of an argument, but I'll try my best to help you realise why things are the way they are -

a) Being on the exec of any committee allows you to make decisions that affect the wider population of your group - on the other hand, executives are made of more than one person, so a single non-Christian wouldn't outvote others, nor would they get voted in if their values seems anti-Christian

b) The University of Exeter's SU isn't saying that it's required to have non-Christians on the exec for the sakes thereof, it's just required to allow non-Christians onto the exec. Such measures are taken by vote and not decree, therefore it's unlikely that they'd be on the exec anyway.

and c) University and NUS guidelines state that discrimination due to sex, sexual preference, religious beliefs etc. isn't allowed, or your funding gets pulled. It's not like they're shutting it down, they're just taking away exec funding from the CU.
Do you really call it discrimination when the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be a Muslim? Of course not. The same way that the Ayatolliah in Iran cannot be a Christian.
Being on the exec of a Christian Union doesn't make you an honourary bishop or anything like that...

Is that written into their rules. Most university clubs elect their committee. Perhaps the reason there aren't any non-writers on the committee is because they weren't elected

Yes, but the people who are allowed to vote are the members, who have to either contribute in the form of criticisim that is construcitve or pieces, otherwise they are just wasting peoples time.

They can listen to their ideas, they do not have to be forced to accept them as members if they don't want to. Whether or not it will benefit them is not the point. It is whether or not they will be forced to accept them against their will
But this is ideological segregation! By only giving membership to a select few who agree with you, you're denying any chance of institutional change, growth or learning! Don't you see that this is why there's the whole "Us Vs Them" charade in the first place?

The creative writing society does not allow people on its execitive who are not contributing any either construcitve criticisim or pieces of creative writing.

On it's executive not just joining.

Membership is open to all students in the university who can conscientiously sign the following declaration: 'In joining this union, I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my saviour, my lord and my God'."
Notice the difference. One says they cannot be on the executive committee, one says they cannot join. Big difference.

Yes, but is it really the kind of discrimination that is not acceptable?

Yes, it is not acceptable.

Yes, but the rules are stupid and denying the CU acess to freedom of asscoation. Freedom of asscoation says that you are allowed to associate with people that are like minded like you without being discriminated against because of your belief system and that you can assemble without fear of being disrupted. If other groups are given this right by the union, why shouldn't the Christian union

All other groups are either privately funded or have no such clause in their constitution, if they did they would not be funded by the university.

Its a basic human right that they are granting to some and not others.

No it is not a 'basic human right'. Even if it was, all societies are granted it, just the CU wants to be able to not allow others into their society. The basis of all university groups is an open policy to learn and interact with others, a group cannot stop members joining arbitrarily. And 'being able to sail' is not a requirement of any university sailing club, only enthusiasm to learn is.

You really need to stop whining and come up with better arguments than 'the rules are stupid!1' to be actually taken seriously.

Getting support from a university for your religious discrimination is not a human right.
It's not discrimination if everyone has the right to join a society reflecting their own religious beliefs with the same access to university funding, which I'd assume is the case here. Noone benefits by watering down societies by forcing them to accept people who are potentially hostile to the purpose of the society into a decision making capacity. That goes for religious societies, environmental societies or the Tiddliwinks society not wanting to be told how they should play tiddliwinks by non Tiddliwinkers.

b) The University of Exeter's SU isn't saying that it's required to have non-Christians on the exec for the sakes thereof, it's just required to allow non-Christians onto the exec. Such measures are taken by vote and not decree, therefore it's unlikely that they'd be on the exec anyway.

Why should they be forced to allow people onto the exec that disagree with them?


and c) University and NUS guidelines state that discrimination due to sex, sexual preference, religious beliefs etc. isn't allowed, or your funding gets pulled. It's not like they're shutting it down, they're just taking away exec funding from the CU.


It is funding that the CU is allowed to have. It is a society like all the others. Can you see a good reason for not allowing religious people from other religions to be part of a diffrent religions group. Its like forcing the CofE to accept the possibility that its next archbishop of canterbury might be a Muslim. The Government give public funding to all religions currently via charity commision. Why not through SU's. Why make religious discrimiantion an issue?

Erm, they arn't closing up to inter faith dialogue. What they are closing up to is having people from other faiths being the ones running their CU or voting on who is running for their CU
It's a natural consequence of denying a voice to other faith groups that they cannot talk to you.

On it's executive not just joining.


Notice the difference. One says they cannot be on the executive committee, one says they cannot join. Big difference.

Not really. All membership means is that you cannot be on the executive or vote for the executive. You are fully entitled to participate in every other way

The university protocal is stupid!
Not really... it's there to actually help people out who are getting discriminated for whatever reason.
It is essentially saying that you are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of the nature of your society.
Yes, exactly.
Should the creative writing society expect to recieve artists with their paintins each week! Should the sailing society expect powerboaters!
Should the areosoft society expect people with REAL 9mls! Obviously its discrimination, but its LOGICAL discrimination.
Not really... if they're doing something utterly irrelevant to the society then they're probably not going to get voted onto the exec, and if they're being a nuisance then they'll probably be asked to leave, but that's no reason to stop people who care about whatever society and its aims and objectives from being on the exec, so long as they're voted in...
The government already supports religions through public funds via tax breaks and charity commisions. Its rediculous to say that because this is a public institution it is somehow exempt from human rights.
They're not taking away anyone's rights... come on, be a bit sensible about the issue.
As long as it treets all the societies the same in allowing them to discriminate, there is no problem
I don't really see how they're treating anyone differently. You cannot discriminate on religious grounds. Or many others. Which is why this has happened.

It's a natural consequence of denying a voice to other faith groups that they cannot talk to you.

How has the CU denied a voice to other faith groups?

How has the CU denied a voice to other faith groups?
By not letting them onto the exec. There we go.

4 pages and this troll still cant figure out the difference between public and private orgs?

It's only discrimination through technicality, it isn't exactly bigoted discrimination. It's the same as allowing only smart people into Mensa. The university defines equal opportunities as even allowing anyone to be on the exec. This society thinks it's silly to allow non Christians running a Christian society, thus their definition clashes. Both definitions are completely arbitrary, and to call it bigoted discrimination is rather pointless and frankly quite predictable. People discriminate all the time based on who would be more suitable for a certain role. This has nothing to do with believing that other religions are somehow inferior.

Not really. All membership means is that you cannot be on the executive or vote for the executive. You are fully entitled to participate in every other way

No it doesn't. I'm part of the University Paintball team. If I'm not a member I can't go and play paintball at the prices etc given to the team. The same theory applies to the CU. If you're not a member you don't receive the benefits of being a member, and that doesn't just include being on the executive.

It's not discrimination if everyone has the right to join a society reflecting their own religious beliefs

That is the very definition of religious discrimination - not allowing people to be members of a group on the basis of religious affiliation. No matter how convolutely and nonsensically you try to spin it as you just did, that fact remains. It doesn't matter that there are other religious groups they can join - what you said is as stupid as saying "it's not discrimination not to let blacks onto whites-only buses as long as there are blacks-only buses".

Meep.

It's only discrimination through technicality, it isn't exactly bigoted discrimination. It's the same as allowing only smart people into Mensa. The university defines equal opportunities as even allowing anyone to be on the exec. This society thinks it's silly to allow non Christians running a Christian society, thus their definition clashes. Both definitions are completely arbitrary, and to call it bigoted discrimination is rather pointless and frankly quite predictable. People discriminate all the time based on who would be more suitable for a certain role. This has nothing to do with believing that other religions are somehow inferior.

The Guild isn't stopping the CU from selecting its exec, it is stopping them from not allowing non-christians to join the CU.

The big problem I have with forcing them to accept non christians is that if you do you risk ending up with the discrimination you sought to avoid.

Supposing their society is taken over as they fear after they allow non christians a right to vote. Then what do they do? Say the Muslims, Hindus, Sihks, Atheist etc. have University funded societies but now the Christians don't. Do they go to the university and ask to set up another society - in which case the university will have to fork out more funding and that new society could still be taken over. Because any new Christian students to the university will now be discriminated against becasue they alone won't have a university funded society reflecting their religious beliefs.

Why should they be forced to allow people onto the exec that disagree with them?
They're not forced to, though, are they?

If they don't want them on the exec, then they won't vote for them, not that all non-Christians are diametrically opposed to Christianity...
It is funding that the CU is allowed to have.
No, no it isn't. It's funding that the CU is granted.
It is a society like all the others.
And hence the same rules apply.
Can you see a good reason for not allowing religious people from other religions to be part of a diffrent religions group.
No, I can't.
Its like forcing the CofE to accept the possibility that its next archbishop of canterbury might be a Muslim.
Nothing like it, whatsoever. The CU is a way to let people talk about Christianity, and the exec will make choices like running events, sorting out the finances etc. - it's basically just a CofE appreciation society.

The CofE doesn't have to have the next archbishop as a Muslim due to the fact that it's a proper faith, with literally millions of adherents.

The CU, by contrast, is a talking shop with probably about 100 or so members, and isn't a faith of its own, it's simply a society which promotes that faith.

Different cases entirely.
The Government give public funding to all religions currently via charity commision. Why not through SU's.
Because SUs give money to what they feel are worthy causes, there's nothing in NUS policy that says that an institution's SU needs to give money to Clubs & Socs, that's the uni's choice, and if the CU is acting in a reprehensible manner, then they get their funding pulled... it's not that hard.
Why make religious discrimiantion an issue?
Because it's NUS and ExSU policy?

The Guild isn't stopping the CU from selecting its exec, it is stopping them from not allowing non-christians to join the CU.

Same still applies. Whether they should be allowed to do this is a different matter. But they are not being bigoted.

That is the very definition of religious discrimination - not allowing people to be members of a group on the basis of religious affiliation. No matter how convolutely and nonsensically you try to spin it as you just did, that fact remains. It doesn't matter that there are other religious groups they can join - what you said is as stupid as saying "it's not discrimination not to let blacks onto whites-only buses as long as there are blacks-only buses".
That's just stupid because it's uneconomical and completely without purpose. Allowing societies to restrict voting rights is key to original purpose of the university funding these societies and also it uses the university's funding most economically if the money they spend on funding a christian society is actually used for that, and they don't have to put more funding into another christian society after it's been taken over.

The big problem I have with forcing them to accept non christians is that if you do you risk ending up with the discrimination you sought to avoid.

Supposing their society is taken over as they fear after they allow non christians a right to vote. Then what do they do? Say the Muslims, Hindus, Sihks, Atheist etc. have University funded societies but now the Christians don't. Do they go to the university and ask to set up another society - in which case the university will have to fork out more funding and that new society could still be taken over. Because any new Christian students to the university will now be discriminated against becasue they alone won't have a university funded society reflecting their religious beliefs.



Can you clarify that? I am not following.

I think the top is more complicated than Zahrebska thinks. The SU is clearly saying, this particular area of the CU (the docrine agreement) doesnt sit well with the purpose of student societies. Someone has clearly complained about how the CU operates, by the sounds of it the doctrine part, and the SU has decided that actually, they are right. As far as I'm concerned, I dont agree with my tuition fees going towards something that doesnt allow me to join. If I was interested in Christianity, but not sure if it is necessarily the right religion for me, might well join, and attend discussions, learning more about the idea of Christianity. The fact that this issue is so old implies that the university is on the side of the SU, and if it has made it to the court of human rights, so do they.
From the sounds of things the SU would reinstate their society status if they would abide by the rules and grant them this small point. The fact is that no-one is entitled to free money from a university, i suggest they use the society system as it was intended, and also use the church(which a society is not).

That's just stupid because it's uneconomical and completely without purpose.
It's not stupid, policy is that you give money to societies which are democratic and competently run. Lacking the possibility of non-Christians on the exec shows neither particularly great democracy nor competence in the leadership.

There being a possibility, if a low one, of non-Christians on the exec shows that things are being done fairly.
Allowing societies to restrict voting rights is key to original purpose of the university funding these societies
Erm... NUS and ExSU's policy is to get more democracy, not less...
and also it uses the university's funding most economically if the money they spend on funding a christian society is actually used for that
It's a talking shop, not a bloody miniature cathedral...
and they don't have to put more funding into another christian society after it's been taken over.
Aye, because a CU is under massive threat of being subverted by atheists / Muslims etc., aye?

Can you clarify that? I am not following.

Sorry.

The university puts funds -probably only small amounts for stationery but also use of facilities- for societies to reflect their students' interests. in return they can put it in the prospectus saying "look how diverse the opportunities are for students at our university".

If, however, you let non- Christinas vote in the Chiristian society or Non-muslims in the Islamic society then you run the risk of those societies being subverted so that they no longer reflect their original purpose.

then Students coming to the University find that there isn't actually a Christian Society for them because it's been taken over by Atheists etc. and feel discriminated against. And the university can no longer say that it has a Christian Society in its prospectus, unless it puts more funding into setting up a new society.

Sorry.

The university puts funds -probably only small amounts for stationery but also use of facilities- for societies to reflect their students' interests. in return they can put it in the prospectus saying "look how diverse the opportunities are for students at our university".

If, however, you let non- Christinas vote in the Chiristian society or Non-muslims in the Islamic society then you run the risk of those societies being subverted so that they no longer reflect their original purpose.

then Students coming to the University find that there isn't actually a Christian Society for them because it's been taken over by Atheists etc. and feel discriminated against. And the university can no longer say that it has a Christian Society in its prospectus, unless it puts more funding into setting up a new society.

If they find there isn't one then they start one, it's not that difficult, but the odds of there being more non-christians in a christian society are as likely as there being a majority of free marketeers in the Socialist Workers Society.

It's not stupid, policy is that you give money to societies which are democratic and competently run. Lacking the possibility of non-Christians on the exec shows neither particularly great democracy nor competence in the leadership.

I was referring to the buses. However a country isn't any less democratic for not allowing people of other countries to not vote come election time.

Aye, because a CU is under massive threat of being subverted by atheists / Muslims etc., aye?
It probably wouldn't have been before it got all this publicity. I can imagine people doing it now just to wind them up. After all the university says that you can't stop them, no matter if it spoils it for everybody.

I was referring to the buses. However a country isn't any less democratic for not allowing people of other countries to not vote come election time.

It probably wouldn't have been before it got all this publicity. I can imagine people doing it now just to wind them up. After all the university says that you can't stop them, no matter if it spoils it for everybody.

Maybe but I can't see them working hard enough to continue the "winding up" in the long term

They are students after all

Maybe but I can't see them working hard enough to continue the "winding up" in the long term

They are students after all
They only really need to do it during the general meetings. Presumably you aren't allowed to hold those specifically to avoid specific elements of your votership being there.

That's just stupid because it's uneconomical and completely without purpose.

And what's truly unsurprising by now is how you miss the point that that is what you said - "it's not discrimination if there are other groups who accept the discriminated". Yes, it is discrimination - just like it's discrimination not to let poofters into your bar with the excuse that "they have poofter bars they can go to" or not let women into your club because "they have needle-point groups they can join".

I was referring to the buses.
Right, OK.
However a country isn't any less democratic for not allowing people of other countries to not vote come election time.
I think a better analogy would be the UN telling all of the EU countries that they couldn't vote, just because they didn't really agree with the morals and values of the UN.
It probably wouldn't have been before it got all this publicity. I can imagine people doing it now just to wind them up. After all the university says that you can't stop them, no matter if it spoils it for everybody.
Erm, a) I doubt it, and b) if that did happen, it'd be pretty deserved.

And what's truly unsurprising by now is how you miss the point that that is what you said - "it's not discrimination if there are other groups who accept the discriminated". Yes, it is discrimination - just like it's discrimination not to let poofters into your bar with the excuse that "they have poofter bars they can go to" or not let women into your club because "they have needle-point groups they can join".
Again that's because there's no reason for there to be limitations like that. A Christian society at a university is only a Christian society because it has christians in it. likewise a Tiddliwinks society is only a tidliwinks society becasue it has Tiddliwinkers in it. Without limiting that you lose the point of having societies at all. A bar just provides drinks. There's no reason on earth it should stop homosexuals coming in.

Sorry.

The university puts funds -probably only small amounts for stationery but also use of facilities- for societies to reflect their students' interests. in return they can put it in the prospectus saying "look how diverse the opportunities are for students at our university".

If, however, you let non- Christinas vote in the Chiristian society or Non-muslims in the Islamic society then you run the risk of those societies being subverted so that they no longer reflect their original purpose.

then Students coming to the University find that there isn't actually a Christian Society for them because it's been taken over by Atheists etc. and feel discriminated against. And the university can no longer say that it has a Christian Society in its prospectus, unless it puts more funding into setting up a new society.


Looks like I did understand it before.

Fear of being over run is still no claim for discrimination.

Erm, a) I doubt it, and b) if that did happen, it'd be pretty deserved.
Well it doesn't necessarily have to be that drastic. That's just taking it to the logical potential conclusion. you could still end up with the situation of the university supporting a christian society for their students but then forcing that society to allow people to turn up and effectively vote that the society stop doing christian things.

I'm curious as to why a Christian Union would need uni funding anyway (not that I feel they should be denied it unless they are discriminating unfairly).
OK, as an exec officer of the York College SU, I feel I can comment on this issue.

Basically we try and fund as many societies as possible, mostly because we really have more money than things to do with it, which is especially true of HE institutions, more so than we FEs, and also because we like to feel like we're being nice to people, because we're just like the rest of the population and we're Kind As Much As Is Possible.

Incidetally, people like the CU are usually pretty alright, and we try to help groups like them, but when people start lodging complaints about pretty much anything, from staff to socs to the canteen, or whatever, then we're always a pretty tempted to go in with the strongest measures that we can, mostly to feel important, the truth be told.
What about all the money put in the collection plates on Sundays?
Keep in mind that most large HE SUs have budgets of literally over a million pounds, and you'll see why they can afford to give a fair bit to the CU, and taking collection tins along when you can just ask the union for a couple of grand is a bit pointless, no?

Well it doesn't necessarily have to be that drastic. That's just taking it to the logical potential conclusion. you could still end up with the situation of the university supporting a christian society for their students but then forcing that society to allow people to turn up and effectively vote that the society stop doing christian things.
I don't think that people are going to be bothered enough to go to the CU instead of, say, the pub, if the only reason is to cheese off some Christians, to be quite honest.

The CU is always going to be doing Christian things, I don't think any number of people is going to stop that occuring. It's their mandate, after all.

Again that's because there's no reason for there to be limitations like that.

Wait, so you're going to claim it's not discrimination as long as you can sympathise with the grounds for the discrimination and they "make sense" to you? Such utter bollocks.

Wait, so you're going to claim it's not discrimination as long as you can sympathise with the grounds for the discrimination and they "make sense" to you? Such utter bollocks.

Your religious attachment to the word "discriminate" is absurd. Is Mensa evil for discriminating against people below a certain IQ?

At Edinburgh University the Catholic, Christian and Buddhist societies do not require you to be a member of these religions to join. I don't understand why other unions cannot do the same.

I have an answer; just get rid of the damned declaration. I doubt that non-Christians want to be a part of the CU anyways. However, if they do, what's to stop them?
Hear hear. On one hand, it is a little stupid of the university to say that by requiring its members to be Christians, the Christian Union is discriminating. Well, yes, duh, that's kind of the point. On the other hand, it looks like the CU is going to have to compromise its position somehow, and getting rid of the declaration would be a good way.
Besides, by getting rid of the declaration, the CU allows students who aren't Christian, but are interested in becoming one, or want to support whatever the CU does and just don't share all of its beliefs. If it really screw up the CU, they can always kick people out based on behavior, not belief.

Wait, so you're going to claim it's not discrimination as long as you can sympathise with the grounds for the discrimination and they "make sense" to you? Such utter bollocks.
I just explained how they were different in the next sentence. If you're just going to quote selectively then you will think that.

I just explained how they were different in the next sentence.

You explained why you would like to pretend they're different. I'm not into such make-believe.

If you're just going to quote selectively then you will think that.

There's nothing selective in my quotes - they just cut to what you're claiming without all the ornaments that fail to support your claims as plausible or veracious.

Is Mensa evil for discriminating against people below a certain IQ?

Mensa are a private organisation and they don't, by the way, discriminate on the basis of religion (get back to me when they start to). The CU wants public support for religious discrimination. So, this is me not tucking into your red herring, and not just because it's a dead animal, but because I see it for the fallacy that it is.

You explained why...they're different. I ... believe.

There's nothing selective in my quotes - they just cut to what you're claiming without all the ornaments that fail to support your claims as plausible or veracious.
Right, just like my quotes. ;)

Oh noes! Christians feeling they are being oppressed for discriminating against others. We must protect their inalienable right to discriminate and take action now. :rolleyes:

What the hell. It's called freedom of religion. I assume you British have that?

Mensa are a private organisation

So? The pub is also a private organisation yet you keep using that as an example.


and they don't, by the way, discriminate on the basis of religion (get back to me when they start to).

But they do discriminate on the basis of intelligence. Whats the difference? At least religion is a choice (well sort of).


The CU wants public support for religious discrimination.

I don't think it should get public support, and I think it should turn into a private organisation. However, I don't think it is evil or bigoted. I don't think it is discrimination in the way you define it.

What the hell. It's called freedom of religion. I assume you British have that?
Yes, we have freedom of religion, on the other hand, our NUS has policies against discrimination on religious grounds, and our universities do, too.

The Christian Union is a society in Exeter University that the Students' Union funds from its own pockets on the grounds that it complies to non-discriminatory rules.

All that's happened is that the CU went over the line by not allowing non-Christians onto the exec, and they got their funding pulled - that's not very surprising.

You explained why you would like to pretend they're different. I'm not into such make-believe.

There's nothing selective in my quotes - they just cut to what you're claiming without all the ornaments that fail to support your claims as plausible or veracious.
I don't seem to know what to say to that; you seem to have a very illogical idea about what discrimination actually involves.

Every student has the same access to a society funded by the university where they can practice their religious views. if there isn't one for them I'm sure the university would allow them to set up their own provided they had enough members. The only discrimination is to disallow them from the right to vote on how others should practice their religious beliefs. If this is what you mean by discrimination then I think you're confused.

I don't seem to know what to say to that; you seem to have a very illogical idea about what discrimination actually involves.

Every student has the same access to a society funded by the university where they can practice their religious views. if there isn't one for them I'm sure the university would allow them to set up their own provided they had enough members. The only discrimination is to disallow them from the right to vote on how others should practice their religious beliefs. If this is what you mean by discrimination then I think you're confused.
I dunno, I'd consider "you can't vote unless you're a Christian" to be pretty descriminatory.

I dunno, I'd consider "you can't vote unless you're a Christian" to be pretty descriminatory.
They can vote, but at their own society. If you let them vote on Christian aspects then you discriminate against the Christians' freedom to practice their beliefs.

I don't seem to know what to say to that; you seem to have a very illogical idea about what discrimination actually involves.

No, I have the very definition of discrimination to support me, while you on the other hand seem to think that if you can find some reason you find sympathetic for the discrimination that it somehow doesn't make it discrimination. Sorry, bub, but I said I wasn't up for such arbitrary games of make-believe where you think that discrimination is somehow effaced if the discriminated have somewhere else to go and you sympathise with the reasons for the discrimination.

Yes, we have freedom of religion, on the other hand, our NUS has policies against discrimination on religious grounds, and our universities do, too.

The Christian Union is a society in Exeter University that the Students' Union funds from its own pockets on the grounds that it complies to non-discriminatory rules.

All that's happened is that the CU went over the line by not allowing non-Christians onto the exec, and they got their funding pulled - that's not very surprising.

How about the freedom of assembly, or some form of it? All groups are discriminatory to some extent, that, in part is the definition of a group. What the CU is doing is weakly discriminatory, if that. They ask that all their members meet a certain criteria, same as stuff like the National Honor Society here in the US. Is there anything wrong with that? I mean, they have that right, the freedom to assemble.

Or, if not, aren't the universities themselves discriminatory? They reject kids who aren't smart enough to enter-- blatant discrimination against kids who had the misfortune to be born with lesser intelligence.

They can vote, but at their own society. If you let them vote on Christian aspects then you discriminate against the Christians' freedom to practice their beliefs.
Err...

No you don't, and for one thing, the CU is hardly going to be voting on aspects of their faith, they'll doubtless be like every other club&soc, and will actually be voting on things like "do we get red pens or blue ones for the whiteboard with our new money".

No, I have the very definition of discrimination to support me, while you on the other hand seem to think that if you can find some reason you find sympathetic for the discrimination that it somehow doesn't make it discrimination. Sorry, bub, but I said I wasn't up for such arbitrary games of make-believe where you think that discrimination is somehow effaced if the discriminated have somewhere else to go and you sympathise with the reasons for the discrimination.
You say that but you haven't actually made any arguments saying why it is discrimination in the thread. You've just stated it as fact and provided a few spurious examples, "It's just like a bar not allowing in poofters".

How about the freedom of assembly, or some form of it?
Erm, what's your point?
All groups are discriminatory to some extent, that, in part is the definition of a group.
Not really. A group is just a bunch of likeminded people. The group in itself is not discrimatory, people are discriminator towards groups.
What the CU is doing is weakly discriminatory, if that. They ask that all their members meet a certain criteria, same as stuff like the National Honor Society here in the US.
Right, but ExSU don't want money being spent on a discriminatory group to come from their own coffers. This isn't about shutting the CU down, it's about saying that if they want to discriminate, they have to be self-sufficient, because SU policy is to fund non-discriminatory groups.
Is there anything wrong with that? I mean, they have that right, the freedom to assemble.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. All that ExSU is doing is saying that unless the CU allows non-Christians to be voted onto the exec, it won't be giving it funding, because that'd be against the policy of both ExSU and the NUS, and their views on discrimination based on faith.

Incidentally, they're not saying "you have to shut down", what they are doing is taking the ExSU's funding for it.
Or, if not, aren't the universities themselves discriminatory? They reject kids who aren't smart enough to enter-- blatant discrimination against kids who had the misfortune to be born with lesser intelligence.
The policy of the universities is to accept the best candidates. The policy of ExSU is to fund the best clubs&socs. When the CU stopped behaving acceptably, it cut the ExSU's funding to it.

Err...

No you don't, and for one thing, the CU is hardly going to be voting on aspects of their faith, they'll doubtless be like every other club&soc, and will actually be voting on things like "do we get red pens or blue ones for the whiteboard with our new money".

Sounds about right. Speaking from personal experience, at my university in order to qualify for funding from the Student Senate, an organization must allow as members anyone who wants to become a member, with no requirement for membership dues.

It doesn't matter if you're a Christian organization, the Society of Women Engineers (yes, there are male members), or the Society of Physics Students, anyone who wants to become a member must be allowed to become a member.

If you don't allow for this, you can't appropriate funding, and frankly I don't see anything wrong with this.

So? The pub is also a private organisation yet you keep using that as an example.

Private organisations are in some countries not subject to laws on discrimination, but only public institutions are. That doesn't happen to be the case where I live, but I mentioned it since it might apply in the UK. However, not all discrimination is covered by laws on discrimination - religion is, though. IQ isn't. So, red herring.

But they do discriminate on the basis of intelligence. Whats the difference? At least religion is a choice (well sort of).

Hey, if it was up to me, the religious wouldn't have special rights and "religious freedom" and "freedom to worship" would be encompassed by freedom of expression and freedom of association, and they wouldn't have protection from discrimination as they do indeed choose their religions just like any other opinion, but that's not how society has chosen to view it and it just happens to be that the ECHR does indeed mention religious affiliation specifically as a protected attribute. Your red herring of "intelligence" is irrelevant to that.

I don't think it should get public support, and I think it should turn into a private organisation.

I don't care if they're "evil" or "bigoted" (they are, but I don't give a shit) - they are bitching that the university no longer wants to give them public support for their discrimination, and their bitching is hollow and unconvincing since they do indeed discriminate on the basis of religion and they're claiming that religion should give them the right to discriminate against other religions otherwise they'd be subjects of discrimination themselves, which is poppycock. They want special rights to discriminate because they're religious, and I think that's bull.

However, I don't think it is evil or bigoted. I don't think it is discrimination in the way you define it.

Don't bitch to me, bitch to your chosen dictionary people.

Incidentally, they're not saying "you have to shut down", what they are doing is taking the ExSU's funding for it.

Does anyone know how much funding the group is getting from the university? I'm guessing it's a majority of their funding or a sizable minority, but does anyone have exact numbers?

Sounds about right. Speaking from personal experience, at my university in order to qualify for funding from the Student Senate, an organization must allow as members anyone who wants to become a member, with no requirement for membership dues.

It doesn't matter if you're a Christian organization, the Society of Women Engineers (yes, there are male members), or the Society of Physics Students, anyone who wants to become a member must be allowed to become a member.

If you don't allow for this, you can't appropriate funding, and frankly I don't see anything wrong with this.
Yeah, exactly. Nice to have someone else with experience of this whole thing getting involved, it must be said.

Err...

No you don't, and for one thing, the CU is hardly going to be voting on aspects of their faith, they'll doubtless be like every other club&soc, and will actually be voting on things like "do we get red pens or blue ones for the whiteboard with our new money".
I didn't mean making decisions on e.g. whether transubstantiation actually occurs or not. I meant decisions on e.g. planning religious outings and such where they will practice their beliefs.

Does anyone know how much funding the group is getting from the university? I'm guessing it's a majority of their funding or a sizable minority, but does anyone have exact numbers?
A few hundred quid would be the usual kind of amount, but it depends on the size and requirements of the society.

I didn't mean making decisions on e.g. whether transubstantiation actually occurs or not. I meant decisions on e.g. planning religious outings and such where they will practice their beliefs.
I'd think that most non-Christians would probably abstain, and a few interested people might ask if they could come along, and would it be any hassle, to be honest.

I didn't mean making decisions on e.g. whether transubstantiation actually occurs or not. I meant decisions on e.g. planning religious outings and such where they will practice their beliefs.

Non-Christians can't really ruin that, though. If they do, then the society has every right to make them leave, and the university shouldn't pull funding for barring students based on poor behavior. But I don't see how a Buddhist voting for where they will go this weekend hurts the organization at all.

Non-Christians can't really ruin that, though. If they do, then the society has every right to make them leave, and the university shouldn't pull funding for barring students based on poor behavior. But I don't see how a Buddhist voting for where they will go this weekend hurts the organization at all.
But that's just the same as not letting them vote at all if you don't listen to what they say if they do vote.

Yeah, exactly. Nice to have someone else with experience of this whole thing getting involved, it must be said.

It was the biggest non-issue we faced when coming up with the constitution for our chapter of SPS. We now have EE's and Math majors in addition to Physics majors in our organization. One of my old high school friends is also now president of the local SWE chapter, and one of our EE members, a guy, is also a member of SWE.

It's simple, really. If you want cash from the school senate, don't discriminate. If you want to keep the godless heathens out of your organization, don't expect to be able to milk the senate for all it's worth.

You say that but you haven't actually made any arguments saying why it is discrimination in the thread.

It's because I'm loathed to quote dictionaries as I always suppose people know what a word means when they use it. Apparently, you seem to think discrimination means "only the exclusion of people that I don't agree should be excluded", but I am afraid to tell you that is an incorrect definition.

"It's just like a bar not allowing in poofters".

It is like a student bar (or book club, or sports club, or whatever) that gets support from the uni not letting in poofters. Or Muslims. Or Christians. Or any other member of the student body, for that matter. You want support from the uni? Then you must admit all students, and no you cannot discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. No, your own religion doesn't excuse you from that.

You say that but you haven’t actually made any arguments saying why it is discrimination in the thread. You’ve just stated it as fact and provided a few spurious examples, “It’s just like a bar not allowing in poofters”.
There’s a very simple argument:


The CU is part of the general SU body, and must therefore abide by the rules of the University and SU themselves.

One of those rules is that no student organisation may discriminate on the basis of religion or lack of.

Therefore, the CU, by limiting their membership to only Christians, breaches this rule.

Now, you may think that the CU should be able to only let in Christians, as it is a Christian organisation; and if the CU had no affiliation with the student body, getting public money, then I’d heartily agree with you.

But the cold, hard fact is that as it receives university funding, it must abide by university policy. You may think this unfair or illogical, but thems the rules bub. I don’t see why the CU can’t remove the offending piece of text, abide by the uni’s rules and, as many posters have pointed out, not have to worry about non-Chritians joining the CU.

If the main worry is that disruptive non-Christians will join just to make trouble, then I’m sure the uni has disciplinary procedures for such silly people.

A few hundred quid would be the usual kind of amount, but it depends on the size and requirements of the society.

I don't know the particulars of this school, but in general the amount a given organization receives from the senate relies on three things:
1: The number of and cost of university/organization-benefiting activities that the organization implements.
2: Past expenses, both from previous appropriations and from the pockets of members.
3: Who the members of the organization know, particularly if any of those people are in the appropriations committees.

For instance, a member of our organization is also the representative of the Physics Dept. with the school senate. This gives us an ear on what's going on within the Senate, and how to incorporate that into what we do, as well as giving us a bit of leverage when dealing with the Senate.

How about the freedom of assembly, or some form of it? All groups are discriminatory to some extent, that, in part is the definition of a group. What the CU is doing is weakly discriminatory, if that. They ask that all their members meet a certain criteria, same as stuff like the National Honor Society here in the US. Is there anything wrong with that? I mean, they have that right, the freedom to assemble.
This isn't really about assembly though; it's about exclusion from that assembly, which is slightly different.

I'd argue that your "group" notion can be a very dangerous thing when it refuses to allow those who disagree with it to contribute to it. For one thing, it is the direct cause of war, where two collectives meet to destroy each other as a result of otherwise unresolvable differences in purpose. For another, it can very easily result in isolation from those who do not share its purpose, such as when the majority rule in a state denies representation to its minorities.

Erm, what's your point?

Not really. A group is just a bunch of likeminded people. The group in itself is not discrimatory, people are discriminator towards groups.

Right, but ExSU don't want money being spent on a discriminatory group to come from their own coffers. This isn't about shutting the CU down, it's about saying that if they want to discriminate, they have to be self-sufficient, because SU policy is to fund non-discriminatory groups.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. All that ExSU is doing is saying that unless the CU allows non-Christians to be voted onto the exec, it won't be giving it funding, because that'd be against the policy of both ExSU and the NUS, and their views on discrimination based on faith.

Incidentally, they're not saying "you have to shut down", what they are doing is taking the ExSU's funding for it.

The policy of the universities is to accept the best candidates. The policy of ExSU is to fund the best clubs&socs. When the CU stopped behaving acceptably, it cut the ExSU's funding to it.

I guess you have a point *grudgingly admits logic behind the argument*.
I dunno, I'm not very Christian myself, but I often feel that they recieve, unjustly, the blunt of secularist policies. Their religion is constantly being assaulted in the public forum and they are constantly on the defensive. I guess I kinda pity them.

But that's just my personal belief.

*Reads debate thus far.


So wait, it's a Christian group that lets only Christians in as full members?!


"OZMG!1!1!! TA DISKKKRIMINATIONZ!!1!"




Hahahahahaha.. such silly people here. :roll:

It is like a student bar (or book club, or sports club, or whatever) that gets support from the uni not letting in poofters. Or Muslims. Or Christians. Or any other member of the student body, for that matter. You want support from the uni? Then you must admit all students, and no you cannot discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. No, your own religion doesn't excuse you from that.
Exactly.
Actually, it's not even that this group is only allowing Christians. You have to sign a declaration of beliefs, and while I don't know many Christians that would disagree with "Jesus is the Savior," it's possible. Just as possible is someone who signs the declaration but isn't Christian. Altogether, it's an unwise decision.

*Reads debate thus far.


So wait, it's a Christian group that lets only Christians in as full members?!


"OZMG!1!1!! TA DISKKKRIMINATIONZ!!1!"




Hahahahahaha.. such silly people here. :roll:

Actually, it's a Christian Student organization that appropriates funding from the university, which is (if I'm not mistaken) publicly funded. It must therefore comply with the university's rules on who organizations can and can not exclude from their membership.

It would be no different from the university demanding the "Video Gamers Student Assocation" allow in all members who wished to join in order to appropriate funding from the student senate, whether or not those who wished to join were or were video gamers.

I often feel that they recieve, unjustly, the blunt of secularist policies. Their religion is constantly being assaulted in the public forum and they are constantly on the defensive. I guess I kinda pity them..
Well, I don’t see any ‘secularist’ policies here, unless tolerance and equality are somehow solely the domain of the non-religious.

I doubt many religious people would agree with the above.

Well, I don’t see any ‘secularist’ policies here, unless tolerance and equality are somehow solely the domain of the non-religious.

I doubt many religious people would agree with the above.

QFT

There’s a very simple argument:


The CU is part of the general SU body, and must therefore abide by the rules of the University and SU themselves.

One of those rules is that no student organisation may discriminate on the basis of religion or lack of.

Therefore, the CU, by limiting their membership to only Christians, breaches this rule.

Now, you may think that the CU should be able to only let in Christians, as it is a Christian organisation; and if the CU had no affiliation with the student body, getting public money, then I’d heartily agree with you.

But the cold, hard fact is that as it receives university funding, it must abide by university policy. You may think this unfair or illogical, but thems the rules bub. I don’t see why the CU can’t remove the offending piece of text, abide by the uni’s rules and, as many posters have pointed out, not have to worry about non-Chritians joining the CU.

If the main worry is that disruptive non-Christians will join just to make trouble, then I’m sure the uni has disciplinary procedures for such silly people.

you see it's the fact that it's such a part of the SU that means i agree with the restriction of voting rights. Provided that there is at least one society for everyone's views or the facility to set one up within the SU as a whole, then it's at cross purposes to force each society to reflect the whole.

I dunno, I'm not very Christian myself, but I often feel that they recieve, unjustly, the blunt of secularist policies. Their religion is constantly being assaulted in the public forum and they are constantly on the defensive. I guess I kinda pity them.

But that's just my personal belief.
I can see your point, it's just that the issue isn't so much one of discriminating against them because they're Christians, so much as taking away their funding, which comes from the general, multi-faith, student population because of their lack of respect for other faiths.

That's all, really.
*Reads debate thus far.

So wait, it's a Christian group that lets only Christians in as full members?!

"OZMG!1!1!! TA DISKKKRIMINATIONZ!!1!"

Hahahahahaha.. such silly people here. :roll:
OK, for starters, it's a Christian group that expects money from the general population in return for not providing a service to non-Christians.

Secondly, we're not being silly, you are, in addition, it's :rolleyes:, not :roll:, m'kay?
you see it's the fact that it's such a part of the SU that means i agree with the restriction of voting rights. Provided that there is at least one society for everyone's views or the facility to set one up within the SU as a whole, then it's at cross purposes to force each society to reflect the whole.
It's not really making all of the religious groups a homogenous block, so much as making sure that each one of the religious groups lets people who aren't of their faith become full members of their group.

It's not forcing the CU to have non-Christians on their exec so much as telling them that unless they allow the (very remote) possibility of non-Christians being on the exec, they won't be given union money.

you see it’s the fact that it’s such a part of the SU that means i agree with the restriction of voting rights.
Pardon?

As part of the SU, the CU can’t restrict voting rights; it breaches the SU’s rules.

End of story.

Provided that there is at least one society for everyone’s views or the facility to set one up within the SU as a whole, then it’s at cross purposes to force each society to reflect the whole.
Why is demanding that every student organisation employ non-discriminatory policies ‘at cross purposes’? Cross purposes to what?

I don’t see any good argument why an institution that must not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc., should allow, or fund, organisations in that institution that allow discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.

British universities, with the exception of Oxbridge, Durham, St.Andrews and the upper echelons of London, are bastions of left-wing pseudo-intellectual tyranny. In other news?

British universities, with the exception of Oxbridge, Durham, St.Andrews and the upper echelons of London, are bastions of left-wing pseudo-intellectual tyranny. In other news?
... pseudo-intellectual tyranny my arse.

"Society breaches rules, no longer gets funding from the general student population shocker" is more like it.

British universities, with the exception of Oxbridge, Durham, St.Andrews and the upper echelons of London, are bastions of left-wing pseudo-intellectual tyranny. In other news?
Spoken like a true Mail reader.

British universities, with the exception of Oxbridge, Durham, St.Andrews and the upper echelons of London, are bastions of left-wing pseudo-intellectual tyranny. In other news?
Chris is on drugs.

How is enforcing non-discrimination either left-wing, pseudo-intellectual, or tyrannical?

Oh, and how does it feel to attend a ‘left-wing bastion'?

Chris is on drugs.

How is enforcing non-discrimination either left-wing, pseudo-intellectual, or tyrannical?

Oh, and how does it feel to attend a ‘left-wing bastion'?

Fucking awful as it happens. I wake up every morning full of self-loathing for that fact I know I've sold myself short and will have to wait until I'm 21 to rectify it. I hate York University; I should have gone to Kings or UCL rather than a University where I'm forced to sit in seminars with students who are proud, and worked hard, to get AAB. I did fuck all work and got AAAAB, and have to endure hour after god forsaken hour of their self-satisfied faces as they paraphrase what their lecturer told them previously without a scrap of individuality, eloquence or sophistication.

And no, I'm not on drugs at the moment. Given that there is, in fact, bugger all going on, I wish I was.:)

In any case, good sense suggests the CU has every right to restrict its membership to Christians. If they are unable to do so, it reduces the group to a nominal entity that exists only to give the university an illusion of diversity.

Fucking awful as it happens. I wake up every morning full of self-loathing for that fact I know I've sold myself short and will have to wait until I'm 21 to rectify it. I hate York University; I should have gone to Kings or UCL rather than a University where I'm forced to sit in seminars with students who are proud, and worked hard, to get AAB. I did fuck all work and got AAAAB, and have to endure hour after god forsaken hour of their self-satisfied faces as they paraphrase what their lecturer told them previously without a scrap of individuality, eloquence or sophistication.
http://forums.abrsm.org/style_emoticons/default/violin.gif http://forums.abrsm.org/style_emoticons/default/jumpin.gif

Incidentally, rubbish weather we're having, no?
In any case, good sense suggests the CU has every right to restrict its membership to Christians. If they are unable to do so, it reduces the group to a nominal entity that exists only to give the university an illusion of diversity.
They can restrict its membership to Christians if it wants, ExSU's not stopping them doing so, all it's doing is saying that they can't have money from the general student population to do so...

Fucking awful as it happens. I wake up every morning full of self-loathing for that fact I know I've sold myself short and will have to wait until I'm 21 to rectify it. I hate York University; I should have gone to Kings or UCL rather than a University where I'm forced to sit in seminars with students who are proud, and worked hard, to get AAB. I did fuck all work and got AAAAB, and have to endure hour after god forsaken hour of their self-satisfied faces as they paraphrase what their lecturer told them previously without a scrap of individuality, eloquence or sophistication.


Pride in working hard and doing the best I can?

or

Pride in being naturally intelligent and a quick learner?

Which should I choose?

Fucking awful as it happens. I wake up every morning full of self-loathing for that fact I know I’ve sold myself short and will have to wait until I’m 21 to rectify it. I hate York University; I should have gone to Kings or UCL rather than a University where I’m forced to sit in seminars with students who are proud, and worked hard, to get AAB. I did fuck all work and got AAAAB, and have to endure hour after god forsaken hour of their self-satisfied faces as they paraphrase what their lecturer told them previously without a scrap of individuality, eloquence or sophistication.
Shame the other universities didn’t take you then. ;)

In any case, good sense suggests the CU has every right to restrict its membership to Christians. If they are unable to do so, it reduces the group to a nominal entity that exists only to give the university an illusion of diversity.
How does complying with university rules and allowing for the possibility of interested non-Christians members of the CU reduce the CU to a group that only serve the university?

The only thing the university limits is acts of irrational discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sexual persuasion and religion or lack of. I don’t see how preventing the CU from discriminating with the university’s funds weakens the CU’s position.

http://forums.abrsm.org/style_emoticons/default/violin.gif http://forums.abrsm.org/style_emoticons/default/jumpin.gif

Incidentally, rubbish weather we're having, no?

They can restrict its membership to Christians if it wants, ExSU's not stopping them doing so, all it's doing is saying that they can't have money from the general student population to do so...

I don't expect sympathy at all. It's my own bloody fault, and I accept it; that doesn't change the fact that the majority of students here are not of the calibre one would find at the universities I ought to have gone to, nor that I find the standard of discussion a joke.

The weather is rather shit actually. I woke up at 10, looked out the window, decided to go back to sleep, woke again at 1, and it still looked awful.

I cannot see any sense in ExSU position. Logically, I accept that if is contravenes SU policy, it must abide by the consequences, however, the nature of religion is different to an interest in extreme frisbee, a certain type of music or, for that matter, pretty much anything else. Religion is exclusive, and membership of an organised religion requires faith; hence, such faith should be requisite to joining a university CU. If this dichotomy poses an irreconcilable barrier to ExSU, I daresay they could secularise their university fully.

Shame the other universities didn’t take you then. ;)


How does complying with university rules and allowing for the possibility of interested non-Christians members of the CU reduce the CU to a group that only serve the university?

The only thing the university limits is acts of irrational discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sexual persuasion and religion or lack of. I don’t see how preventing the CU from discriminating with the university’s funds weakens the CU’s position.

They did. I applied to Kings College, UCL, St.Andrews, Warwick, York and Oxford, and was accepted at all bar Oxford. I chose to come here, unfortunately.

And see my response to Yootopia, its essentially the same question, and I can't be bothered to retype it.

Pride in working hard and doing the best I can?

or

Pride in being naturally intelligent and a quick learner?

Which should I choose?

...erm, I like the second. Anybody can work hard, natural intelligence is exclusive, and allows for an unassailable sense of superiority.

...erm, I like the second. Anybody can work hard, natural intelligence is exclusive, and allows for an unassailable sense of superiority.

Anybody can work hard but very few do.

Edit : You are included in that group it seems and look at how well that can contribute to your sense of superiority

They did. I applied to Kings College, UCL, St.Andrews

You would have fitted in quite well there I think

I don't expect sympathy at all. It's my own bloody fault, and I accept it; that doesn't change the fact that the majority of students here are not of the calibre one would find at the universities I ought to have gone to, nor that I find the standard of discussion a joke.
To be honest, the standard of discussion at the other universities is likely to be the same, just a more right-wing joke.
The weather is rather shit actually. I woke up at 10, looked out the window, decided to go back to sleep, woke again at 1, and it still looked awful.
By the solstice, it'll basically be dark again by 1pm after your daily 1 hour 30's sunlight, if it's cloudy.

But hey, that's York for you. New Year's Eve is good, although I'd imagine that you'll be off back home over Christmas.
I cannot see any sense in ExSU position. Logically, I accept that if is contravenes SU policy, it must abide by the consequences
Yes. Which it's now doing.
however, the nature of religion is different to an interest in extreme frisbee
Heh, 'extreme'. It's like the exact opposite of the old Ronseal adverts.
Religion is exclusive, and membership of an organised religion requires faith; hence, such faith should be requisite to joining a university CU. If this dichotomy poses an irreconcilable barrier to ExSU, I daresay they could secularise their university fully.
Since the Buddhist, Muslim, UJS etc. societies are complying to the uni's regulations, I don't see why the Christian union can't, all things being as they are.

...erm, I like the second. Anybody can work hard, natural intelligence is exclusive, and allows for an unassailable sense of superiority.

You're all at York. Except that they have a decent work ethic and aren't racists.

2-1 to the hard working idiots imo.

Anybody can work hard
Most don't.

They did. I applied to Kings College, UCL, St.Andrews, Warwick, York and Oxford, and was accepted at all bar Oxford. I chose to come here, unfortunately.
May I ask why?

I know York is highly thought of as an up-and-coming university, but I thought someone like yourself would jump at the chance to attend an established, older uni such as St. Andrews, Kings or UCL.

And see my response to Yootopia, its essentially the same question, and I can’t be bothered to retype it.
Fair nuff.

As to your response, it looks to me like special treatment for religion. Again, what’s the harm to the CU of abiding by the university’s policies if they want university funding?

Portraying this, as some posters have, as some ‘anti-Christian’ thing, or an attempt to ‘secularise’ the university, is a complete misnomer. The SU is just pushing for every organisation to abide by the same standards, a perfectly reasonable request.

British universities, with the exception of Oxbridge, Durham, St.Andrews and the upper echelons of London, are bastions of left-wing pseudo-intellectual tyranny. In other news?

Spoken like a true Mail reader.
That wasn't the exact phrase I was thinking of, but I wouldn't think the two terms were mutually exclusive.

May I ask why?

I know York is highly thought of as an up-and-coming university, but I thought someone like yourself would jump at the chance to attend an established, older uni such as St. Andrews, Kings or UCL.


Fair nuff.

As to your response, it looks to me like special treatment for religion. Again, what’s the harm to the CU of abiding by the university’s policies if they want university funding?

Portraying this, as some posters have, as some ‘anti-Christian’ thing, or an attempt to ‘secularise’ the university, is a complete misnomer. The SU is just pushing for every organisation to abide by the same standards, a perfectly reasonable request.

I don't really know why actually. It has a reputation for being better than most for medieval and early medieval history, and since St. Andrews really was too far to go just to take a Medieval History degree, I vaguely remember thinking that York seemed a better option.

I do wish I'd gone to UCL or Kings; perhaps it it intellectual snobbery, or just snobbery, or both, but I can't quite reconcile myself to being at a university full of students taking subjects such as Management and Environmental Studies, and thinking themselves terribly intelligent for having got the BBB needed to do so.

I think, and always have, that religious groups should be an exception. The SU has every right to expect its subsidiary societies to abide by its rules, however, requiring members to be Christian is rather different to allowing societies to exclude members on grounds of race, disability or the like; the whole point of a Christian Union is to provide a meeting point for Christians, not to be a forum for discussions regarding whether or not God exists, which, I fear, would result from open membership.

You're all at York. Except that they have a decent work ethic and aren't racists.

2-1 to the hard working idiots imo.

Good for you. When I respect it, I'll take notice. The fact is I've come from a better school than pretty much all of them, I did get 15 marks more than any of them in the first essay, despite not going to the lectures and refusing to do the "group projects" the teachers deem terribly trendy, and have done all this whilst having a damn good social life and the sort of emotional trainwreck of a relationship I so love.

I do have a good work ethic; I work when necessary, and damn hard when that is the case. What I do not do is exert myself to my fullest simply to get by. I don't need to, and hence find it demeaning to do so. It's rather like a contrast between Barcelona and, say, Watford or Derby County; the latter two exert themselves always simply to compete, the former is superior to the others, an only needs to really engage itself when facing a worthwhile opponent.

Spoken like a true Mail reader.

I speak from experiance, and a bloody bitter, excruciating one at that.

and thinking themselves terribly intelligent for having got the BBB needed to do so.
.

As long as you accept that grades do not indicate your intelligence, especially since your background and schooling as a huge effect on such. Amirite?

As long as you accept that grades do not indicate your intelligence, especially since your background and schooling as a huge effect on such. Amirite?

I passed my 11+, and have never been challenged by the state education system. I don't need an indicator of my academic intelligence; it's the one aspect of myself I am secure about.

In any case, I'd still emphasise the role of education in determining grades as much as environment. Schooling does matter, however, I refuse to accept that natural ability is not just as relevant.

...the whole point of a Christian Union is to provide a meeting point for Christians, not to be a forum for discussions regarding whether or not God exists, which, I fear, would result from open membership.
I don’t see why it would.

If loads of students did start turning up with the sole intent of disrupting the CU’s meetings or trying to force theological discussion on the CU and its members, then those individuals could be reasonably removed for disrupting procedure; as in any student organisation.

It’s all about the same standards applying to everyone. Religion should not be an excuse for preferential treatment.

CU’s up and down the country — along with loads of other religious students’ groups — abide by their parent institution’s anti-discriminatory rules while being quite free from anti-Christian rants and the like.

I passed my 11+, and have never been challenged by the state education system. I don't need an indicator of my academic intelligence; it's the one aspect of myself I am secure about.

In any case, I'd still emphasise the role of education in determining grades as much as environment. Schooling does matter, however, I refuse to accept that natural ability is not just as relevant.

Let me rephrase then. You accept that getting bad grades at a level doesn't necessarily make you any less intelligent right?

I don’t see why it would.

If loads of students did start turning up with the sole intent of disrupting the CU’s meetings or trying to force theological discussion on the CU and its members, then those individuals could be reasonably removed for disrupting procedure; as in any student organisation.

It’s all about the same standards applying to everyone. Religion should not be an excuse for preferential treatment.

CU’s up and down the country — along with loads of other religious students’ groups — abide by their parent institution’s anti-discriminatory rules while being quite free from anti-Christian rants and the like.

It's not preferential treatment; not in the sense that can be inferred from your post anyway. It is more an acceptance that religion is fundamentally different from most other interests as the basis for a society, and should be treated thus.

It's not preferential treatment; not in the sense that can be inferred from your post anyway. It is more an acceptance that religion is fundamentally different from most other interests as the basis for a society, and should be treated thus.
Well since the Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist societies all managed to comply to the rules, I don't see why the CU couldn't...

Let me rephrase then. You accept that getting bad grades at a level doesn't necessarily make you any less stupid right?

I'm not sure I quite follow the grammar in that.

Do you mean to suggest bad A-level grades are, or are not, a valid indicator of intelligence?

I can accept that the education system is far too anti-intellectual to be a measure of genuine academic ability; that's what the 11+ serves to do. What I do not accept is that academic grades have no use in intelligence; the ability to conform to the "jump-through-hoops" A-levels created in 2001 demnstrates a certain permature maturity that is in itself intelligence.

Well since the Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist societies all managed to comply to the rules, I don't see why the CU couldn't...

Perhaps the other societies should not have done so? Just because they did does not suggest that they should have accepted ExSU's position.

Perhaps the other societies should not have done so?
Don't see why not. It's not like a member not of that faith is ever going to get on the exec, let's be honest, and the funding comes in handy.
Just because they did does not suggest that they should have accepted ExSU's position.
Meh.

I'm not sure I quite follow the grammar in that.

Do you mean to suggest bad A-level grades are, or are not, a valid indicator of intelligence?


Yeah I somehow managed to replace the word intelligence with stupid, how bizarre.. (see the edit)


I can accept that the education system is far too anti-intellectual to be a measure of genuine academic ability; that's what the 11+ serves to do. What I do not accept is that academic grades have no use in intelligence; the ability to conform to the "jump-through-hoops" A-levels created in 2001 demnstrates a certain permature maturity that is in itself intelligence.

Could you explain this a little further please? How does conforming and jumping through hoops indicate maturity? And, how does maturity at a young age equate to your overall intelligence?

It seems like it's only aimed at Christians, are they applying this to Islam, racism and other bigoted groups?
Everyone goes by the same rules, it's just that the CU breached them, hence they didn't get any funding.

The Muslim groups are usually the ones that actually try hardest to include non-Muslim members into their societies, to be fair to them.

Oh noes! Christians feeling they are being oppressed for discriminating against others. We must protect their inalienable right to discriminate and take action now. :rolleyes:

It seems like it's only aimed at Christians, are they applying this to Islam, racism and other bigoted groups?

It seems like it's only aimed at Christians, are they applying this to Islam, racism and other bigoted groups?

This might come as a shock to you, but it's only the christians who are being discriminatory.

Now, if you had proof that you couldn't join the other unions without being, say, a muslim or white, you might have a point.

It’s not preferential treatment; not in the sense that can be inferred from your post anyway. It is more an acceptance that religion is fundamentally different from most other interests as the basis for a society, and should be treated thus.
Allowing religious groups, because they are religious groups, exemption from non-discriminatory university rules is most certainly preferential treatment. It’s saying, “these people with belief-set X are not allowed to discriminate, but these people, with belief-set Y, are allowed to discriminate”.

It all comes back to the issue of funding; if the CU wants to gain funding from the SU, then it must comply with SU rules for funded societies. If its members feel this is impossible, then the CU isn’t eligible for funding by the SU.

Quite simple.

It seems like it's only aimed at Christians, are they applying this to Islam, racism and other bigoted groups?

Yes, but interestingly none of those groups have a problem following the rules.

Allowing religious groups, because they are religious groups, exemption from non-discriminatory university rules is most certainly preferential treatment. It’s saying, “these people with belief-set X are not allowed to discriminate, but these people, with belief-set Y, are allowed to discriminate”.

It all comes back to the issue of funding; if the CU wants to gain funding from the SU, then it must comply with SU rules for funded societies. If its members feel this is impossible, then the CU isn’t eligible for funding by the SU.

Quite simple.

Religion is a different kettle of fish to the other issues upon which societies are formed; it is exclusive and discriminatory by nature, and it is fairly typical of the types who inhabit NUS and SU buildings that their zeal blinds them to this.

I was asking whether or not those other groups were breaking the rules or being banned from the guild.
Only the CU were.

Basically, in the rules, they say that only Christians can be on the exec. Since this contravenes ExSU policy on discrimination, they lost their funding from the Students' Union, which gets money from every student, to run events and societies for the benefit of all students. A society which non-Christians can't be a part of leading isn't helping the general student population, so they don't get any money.

This might come as a shock to you, but it's only the christians who are being discriminatory.

Now, if you had proof that you couldn't join the other unions without being, say, a muslim or white, you might have a point.

I was asking whether or not those other groups were breaking the rules or being banned from the guild.

...the ability to conform to the “jump-through-hoops” A-levels created in 2001 demnstrates a certain permature maturity that is in itself intelligence.
I’d say it determines you can ‘jump through hoops’ and you are lucky enough, or have trained yourself enough, to remember particular facts and regurgitate them at specific times.

Not quite a measure of intelligence.

It seems like it’s only aimed at Christians, are they applying this to Islam, racism and other bigoted groups?
Of course, that’s the whole issue here.

No student organisation funded by this particular SU, or most probably any SU in existence, may discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion or lack of, etc.

The CU must comply with the above if it wishes to gain funding, just like any student organisation.

Religion is a different kettle of fish to the other issues upon which societies are formed; it is exclusive and discriminatory by nature, and it is fairly typical of the types who inhabit NUS and SU buildings that their zeal blinds them to this.
...

And yet the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. still get funding from the SU, due to their non-discriminatory policies...

I was asking whether or not those other groups were breaking the rules or being banned from the guild.

None of the other groups have broken the rules and so they have not been banned from the guild, only the ECU (as it is now known).

None of the other groups have broken the rules and so they have not been banned from the guild, only the ECU (as it is now known).
They weren't actually banned, they just had their funding taken away, and weren't given free use of SU facilities, which is a perk they'd had before.

Religion is a different kettle of fish to the other issues upon which societies are formed; it is exclusive and discriminatory by nature, and it is fairly typical of the types who inhabit NUS and SU buildings that their zeal blinds them to this.

And it's fairly typical of the Christians (sadly) and their zeal that blinds them to the fact that every other religious and non-religious group can follow the rules laid down by the Guild bar them.
Religion is no different from any of the other societies and its people insistence that they are that makes them problematic.

No it doesn't. I'm part of the University Paintball team. If I'm not a member I can't go and play paintball at the prices etc given to the team. The same theory applies to the CU. If you're not a member you don't receive the benefits of being a member, and that doesn't just include being on the executive.

Well it does with Exeter CU. The only thing that you can't do as a member is vote on the exec or be on the exec. Thats how Exeter CU works, I know. My friends are members and they are co ordinating the legal action

Its fairly simple. You can either have a catch all, general anti-discrimination policy which is fairly stupid and doesn't take into account the complexities of the issue, or you can have a sensable, thought out one that lets everyone come to the table, regardless of who they are.

Of course, that’s the whole issue here.

No student organisation funded by this particular SU, or most probably any SU in existence, may discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion or lack of, etc.

The CU must comply with the above if it wishes to gain funding, just like any student organisation.

Why? Why should they have to change the nature of what they are for the SU?

Is there a good reason for the SU to have that rule apply to religious groups. Can you give me a descent reason to have a general, catch all anti-discrimination policy rather than a thought out, considered one which allows discrimination where its apropriate.

I was asking whether or not those other groups were breaking the rules or being banned from the guild.

And I told you: The CU is breaking the rules. Only the christians are being discriminatory. As far as we know, the other unions are not.

Well it does with Exeter CU. The only thing that you can't do as a member is vote on the exec or be on the exec. Thats how Exeter CU works, I know. My friends are members and they are co ordinating the legal action

Its fairly simple. You can either have a catch all, general anti-discrimination policy which is fairly stupid and doesn't take into account the complexities of the issue, or you can have a sensable, thought out one that lets everyone come to the table, regardless of who they are.
Yes, quite.

And this thought out anti-discrimination policy is the one that the CU are going up against - the CU aren't letting people come to the table regardless of who they are, they're keeping the exec entirely Christian and giving no other possibility.

Care to tell me how that's the sensible option that lets everyone come to the table, as you put it?

Why? Why should they have to change the nature of what they are for the SU?

Is there a good reason for the SU to have that rule apply to religious groups. Can you give me a descent reason to have a general, catch all anti-discrimination policy rather than a thought out, considered one which allows discrimination where its apropriate.

Can you give me a decent reason as to why other students should pay for something that they can't join?

The whole point of the SU is apparantly to fund student orgs that All students can participate in. By CU's declaration, only christians can participate. If they want to play that way, fine, but then they don't get any cash from the SU.

And it's fairly typical of the Christians (sadly) and their zeal that blinds them to the fact that every other religious and non-religious group can follow the rules laid down by the Guild bar them.
Religion is no different from any of the other societies and its people insistence that they are that makes them problematic.

Would you have made the italicised statement about Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism if you felt the same regarding such faiths? If not you are ten kinds of politically correct hypocrite.

Demonstrate to me why, given that religion has a different fundamental basis to most university societies, this should not be reflected in the manner in which it is treated.

Its fairly simple. You can either have a catch all, general anti-discrimination policy which is fairly stupid and doesn't take into account the complexities of the issue, or you can have a sensable, thought out one that lets everyone come to the table, regardless of who they are.

You're right, it is fairly simple: The CU can either stop discriminating or they can stop getting PUBLIC funding.

Rather than everyone saying "The CU are breaking the rules, if they want to get the funds and the rooms, they have to obey the rules" lets look at the real issue here. Why are the rules like that. Can someone give me a real benefit that is made from having that kind of religious discrimiantion policy applied to religious groups also. It is unnessecary and excessive. Wouldn't it be better to have an exception clause where apropriate.

Why? Why should they have to change the nature of what they are for the SU?
So that they can legitimately claim that they're benefitting the student population at large, which is who they're being subsidised by...
Is there a good reason for the SU to have that rule apply to religious groups. Can you give me a descent reason to have a general, catch all anti-discrimination policy rather than a thought out, considered one which allows discrimination where its apropriate.
Because I don't want to pay my money for a group that doesn't want me as a proper member, and nor does anyone, really?

They weren't actually banned, they just had their funding taken away, and weren't given free use of SU facilities, which is a perk they'd had before.
Sorry, I was reading a different report (I'll try and get the link) which said that they might be permanently banned not they were. My mistake.

You're right, it is fairly simple: The CU can either stop discriminating or they can stop getting PUBLIC funding.

In the UK religions get public funding via charity commision and tax breaks. It is perfectly acceptable to give the CU public funding.

Rather than everyone saying "The CU are breaking the rules, if they want to get the funds and the rooms, they have to obey the rules" lets look at the real issue here.

The real issue is that the CU are being discriminatory and as a result, have lost public funding. You don't feel that they should lose public funding. However, they should.

Why are the rules like that.

Because Britain is a society that does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion. Since society does not permit it, Society will not condone it. Funding the CU is condoning it, so the simplest means of not condoning it is to stop funding it and let them take care of their funding.

Can someone give me a real benefit that is made from having that kind of religious discrimiantion policy applied to religious groups also. It is unnessecary and excessive.

Because if religious groups cannot refrain from being discriminatory, we deserve to discriminate against them by cutting their public funding.

Wouldn't it be better to have an exception clause where apropriate.

No, your bigotry and discrimination is not acceptable.

In the UK religions get public funding via charity commision and tax breaks. It is perfectly acceptable to give the CU public funding.

No, because the CU is being discriminatory and the SU has a clear policy of not funding discriminatory unions.

Why can't you understand something as simple as: "The union is discriminating, they have therefore lost the right to public funding"?

So that they can legitimately claim that they're benefitting the student population at large, which is who they're being subsidised by...

They are legitmately benefiting the student population. You don't think CU's do events like outreach or general events for everyone. My CU organises open mic nights, quiz nights, grub crawls etc where everyone is invited. Its not as if its some sort of inward looking clique.

Also, to claim you were benefiting from every society would be to claim you belong to every one. Which no one realistically would have the time for


Because I don't want to pay my money for a group that doesn't want me as a proper member, and nor does anyone, really?

You don't. You only pay directly if you are a member in a society, and most CU's don't demand that you pay. They get their revenues via charity donations from churchs mostly.

Also, to claim you were benefiting from every society would be to claim you belong to every one. Which no one realistically would have the time for

The ideal is that you can benefit from every society.

Not everyone can benefit from the CU.

You don't. You only pay directly if you are a member in a society, and most CU's don't demand that you pay. They get their revenues via charity donations from churchs mostly.

Then there should be absolutely no problem in losing funding from the SU, should there now?

Why? Why should they have to change the nature of what they are for the SU?
They’re not being asked to ‘change their nature’. They are being asked to comply with anti-discriminatory rules; just like any other student organisation.

The CU wants funds from the SU. The SU has a policy in which it won’t give funding to organisations that discriminate on certain grounds. The waiver that potential CU members sign breaches this policy, and as such, the CU’s funding has been cut.

Practically every other religious student organisation at Exeter and any other UK uni complies with anti-discriminatory rules without compromising their religion or ‘changing their nature’. I don’t see why a few find this so hard.

Is there a good reason for the SU to have that rule apply to religious groups.
Yes.

Religious groups don’t get preferential treatment just because they are ‘religious’.

Can you give me a descent reason to have a general, catch all anti-discrimination policy rather than a thought out, considered one which allows discrimination where its apropriate.
Yes.

Discrimination isn’t appropriate here. The CU doesn’t need to discriminate, and the SU shouldn’t have to pander to the sensibilities of a small group of people who see themselves as ‘special’.

No, because the CU is being discriminatory and the SU has a clear policy of not funding discriminatory unions.

The Government has a policy of funding churchs and other religious institutions which are discriminatory in the same way via charity commision and tax breaks. Therefore there is no reason to treet the CU diffrently.

Why can't you understand something as simple as: "The union is discriminating, they have therefore lost the right to public funding"?

Because there is no reason to treet this kind of discrimination as the kind that is worthy of revoking public funding. You are treeting all kinds of discrimination the same. It is more complicated than that.

Would you have made the italicised statement about Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism if you felt the same regarding such faiths? If not you are ten kinds of politically correct hypocrite.
Of course I would make that statement for whichever religion, or non-religion, made such a practice. I have no problems with pointing out the inappropriate actions of any group, whatever its position on a subject may be. Could you say the same?

Demonstrate to me why, given that religion has a different fundamental basis to most university societies, this should not be reflected in the manner in which it is treated.

I'll do that if you tell me why the Evangelical Christian Union should be exempted from a rule that every other group has been able to follow, including the other religious groups.

The Government has a policy of funding churchs and other religious institutions which are discriminatory in the same way via charity commision and tax breaks. Therefore there is no reason to treet the CU diffrently.

University =/= The Government.

Because there is no reason to treet this kind of discrimination as the kind that is worthy of revoking public funding. You are treeting all kinds of discrimination the same. It is more complicated than that.

No it's not more complicated than that. It's really simple: The CU were not permitting certain students to be member of their union. The SU stopped funding them.

They are legitmately benefiting the student population. You don't think CU's do events like outreach or general events for everyone. My CU organises open mic nights, quiz nights, grub crawls etc where everyone is invited. Its not as if its some sort of inward looking clique.
My paintball group organises general events that everyone is invited to, but we follow the rules laid down by the University and the Guild, why can't the ECU?


You don't. You only pay directly if you are a member in a society, and most CU's don't demand that you pay. They get their revenues via charity donations from churchs mostly.

And the Guild which is funded by the students and the public so although they don't demand you pay to become a member I, as a tax payer and student, do pay for the Christian Union.

Snip

You don't. You only pay directly if you are a member in a society, and most CU's don't demand that you pay. They get their revenues via charity donations from churchs mostly.

Around here student groups also get funding directly from the Student Union ... which is a general fund paid by all students tuition ...

Of course I would make that statement for whichever religion, or non-religion, made such a practice. I have no problems with pointing out the inappropriate actions of any group, whatever its position on a subject may be. Could you say the same?


[QUOTE=L-rouge;13226329]
I'll do that if you tell me why the Evangelical Christian Union should be exempted from a rule that every other group has been able to follow, including the other religious groups.

Because it is not apropriate to apply it to them. Every other group has no interst in discriminating on religious grounds. Religion is not an issue to skydiving or poetry writing. Religion is however an issue to other religions. You cannot be both a Muslim and a Christian simultaniously

Because Britain is a society that does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion. Since society does not permit it, Society will not condone it. Funding the CU is condoning it, so the simplest means of not condoning it is to stop funding it and let them take care of their funding.

No, Britian is a society that does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion WHERE IT IS NOT APRPORIATE. It is not apropriate to stop a Jew being a referee in a football match because he is a Jew. There is nothing about him being a Jew that will stop him being able to refere well

Discrimination is apropriate when the nature of what is being discriminated against will affect your ability to perform your function. For instance, a white man will be discriminated agianst when auditioning for the part of "Othello" in a play, because Othello is a Moor (unless there is a specific reason why they want a white man, like they are doing it invertedly or some such thing). There are places and times where discrimination is apropriate. This is one of them

Chruchs/Mosques/Synoguges/Temples of various faiths are discriminatory organisations yet the government funds them with public funds via the charity commision giving them certian grants and the tax system giving them certian benefits. There is nothing about a religious system that means they cannot recieve public funds.

They are legitmately benefiting the student population. You don't think CU's do events like outreach or general events for everyone. My CU organises open mic nights, quiz nights, grub crawls etc where everyone is invited. Its not as if its some sort of inward looking clique.
Well, exactly. I don't really see why not allowing non-Christians onto the exec would stop this happening.
Also, to claim you were benefiting from every society would be to claim you belong to every one. Which no one realistically would have the time for
Come on, I'm sure you know what I meant. Every club&soc has to legitimately say that it's helping the general student population to get funding.

That doesn't mean that one has to be a member of every society, more that, were one to be a member of any society, you'd have to have full member privilages.
You don't. You only pay directly if you are a member in a society, and most CU's don't demand that you pay. They get their revenues via charity donations from churchs mostly.
If they're supported by the SU, then the general student population is paying for them.

They're free to be a private organisation with any kind of views they like, but the issue here is that the SU isn't paying them any money due to their discriminatory ways.

University =/= The Government.

Then its no longer public funds and thus the SU can only stop them if they are doing something criminal.

And universities ARE government funded in large parts.


No it's not more complicated than that. It's really simple: The CU were not permitting certain students to be member of their union. The SU stopped funding them.

No it is more complicated. The SU got a stupid, overyly PC secularist agenda of a constitution to apply in a rediculous fashion over a discrimination that is completley apropriate. There is nothing inaprorpiate about how the CU discriminates.

Please show me one way that is unreasonable about the way the CU discriminates. Please bear in mind that "Discrimination on the grounds of religion is wrong" is not a valid argument. Discrimination is only wrong when the discriminating factor has no relevence to the intrest of a group. When saying "Why can't a Jew be a reffere, theres nothing about being Jewish that makes him any less able to reffere" thats inapropriate discrimination. However when saying "Why cant a Muslim be head of the CU. There is nothing about beign a Muslim that makes it impossible to be a Christian" that is wrong and thus flawed.

No, Britian is a society that does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion WHERE IT IS NOT APRPORIATE. It is not apropriate to stop a Jew being a referee in a football match because he is a Jew. There is nothing about him being a Jew that will stop him being able to refere well

Discrimination is apropriate when the nature of what is being discriminated against will affect your ability to perform your function. For instance, a white man will be discriminated agianst when auditioning for the part of "Othello" in a play, because Othello is a Moor (unless there is a specific reason why they want a white man, like they are doing it invertedly or some such thing). There are places and times where discrimination is apropriate. This is one of them

Chruchs/Mosques/Synoguges/Temples of various faiths are discriminatory organisations yet the government funds them with public funds via the charity commision giving them certian grants and the tax system giving them certian benefits. There is nothing about a religious system that means they cannot recieve public funds.

See, the beauty of theater is that you can have anyone play Othello.

There is never a place or a time when discrimination on the basis of religion is appropriate.

Also, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc... cannot stop non-believers from entering.

ps - are you a university student?

Also, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc... cannot stop non-believers from entering.


They cannot stop them from entering and comming into the service, but that is not what the CU want. The CU desperately wants non Christians comming to the service. What they don't want is non Christians voting on the executive or being on the executive. They welcome people to come and participate in their meetings etc, but they don't want them on the executive. Its that simple. And its reasonable.

And yes, I am a university student

There is never a place or a time when discrimination on the basis of religion is appropriate.

So you are saying that to stop a practising Muslim from being the head of the Anglican church is evil and wrong of the church?

Because it is not apropriate to apply it to them. Every other group has no interst in discriminating on religious grounds. Religion is not an issue to skydiving or poetry writing. Religion is however an issue to other religions. You cannot be both a Muslim and a Christian simultaniously
No, but those societies do not stop Christians or atheists etc. from joining them as they are not allowed to under Guild rules. The ECU has stopped others so their account has been suspended until such time as they remove the discrimination clause from their constitution.

Chruchs/Mosques/Synoguges/Temples of various faiths are discriminatory organisations yet the government funds them with public funds via the charity commision giving them certian grants and the tax system giving them certian benefits. There is nothing about a religious system that means they cannot recieve public funds.
Of course not, as long as they comply with anti-discriminatory law, as the Catholic adoption agencies found out recently.

As a bigger point, saying that a church ‘discriminates’ non-Christians is misleading at best; non-Christians are free to visit and worship in churches if they wish. A church barring entry to their building to someone not intent on causing harm or disruption to their church, simply because of their race, sexuality, religion, etc. would be faced with legal action.

Again, the church hardly ‘discriminates’. A model boat group doesn’t ‘discriminate’ against those who don’t play with model boats. They just don’t cater for them.

Quite a stretched example of discrimination.

Then its no longer public funds and thus the SU can only stop them if they are doing something criminal.

*sigh*

Public can mean many things. Public, in this case means the general student body. For the general student body (the public) to finance this, the union has to respect certain rules. They have not. They lost their funding from the public.

And universities ARE government funded in large parts.

My university is nearly entirely government funded. Even the students who go to it are government funded. However, my university is also 100% independent of the government and the government cannot ask the university to do things one way or the other.

No it is more complicated.

No it's not.

The SU got a stupid, overyly PC secularist agenda of a constitution to apply in a rediculous fashion over a discrimination that is completley apropriate. There is nothing inaprorpiate about how the CU discriminates.

Tell me, why are you complaining? The CU is allowed to discriminate. They just won't receive public funding while doing so.

Please show me one way that is unreasonable about the way the CU discriminates. Please bear in mind that "Discrimination on the grounds of religion is wrong" is not a valid argument. Discrimination is only wrong when the discriminating factor has no relevence to the intrest of a group. When saying "Why can't a Jew be a reffere, theres nothing about being Jewish that makes him any less able to reffere" thats inapropriate discrimination. However when saying "Why cant a Muslim be head of the CU. There is nothing about beign a Muslim that makes it impossible to be a Christian" that is wrong and thus flawed.

Discrimination on the grounds of religion is wrong.

It IS a valid argument. Why? Because the SU says so. The SU provides the funds, you better follow their rules if you want their funds.

Also, being the head of the CU =/= christian. Your thinking is what got their funding dropped in the first place.

In any case, I recall you saying the SU didn't fund the CU, so why are you complaining?

Well, exactly. I don't really see why not allowing non-Christians onto the exec would stop this happening.

It would mean that its no longer doing it as a Christian union, which is what it wants to be doing. Why should it have to compromise on that? What is there to gain. All there is is loss. The CU becomes less Christian when there is no need for it to. Why should it.


Come on, I'm sure you know what I meant. Every club&soc has to legitimately say that it's helping the general student population to get funding.

And it does. You don't have to be a member to benefit from what the CU is doing. But to be a member and not a Christian makes the CU less Christian. It would be like the President of the United States not being an American Citizen.


That doesn't mean that one has to be a member of every society, more that, were one to be a member of any society, you'd have to have full member privilages.

The only privilages you dont have as not being a member is not being able to vote on the exec or be on the exec. You dont loose, but the CU does if its forced to change that.


If they're supported by the SU, then the general student population is paying for them.

Yes, and they can use them and have all the benefits execpt for being on the commitie or voting for it.


They're free to be a private organisation with any kind of views they like, but the issue here is that the SU isn't paying them any money due to their discriminatory ways.

What interest does the SU have in making the CU less Christian. What good reason is there. Its not a biggoted form of discrimination, its not encoruaging criminal behaviour. There is no good reason for it. All there is is a misapplied eithic

Discrimination is just not letting someone do something because of a factor. It is not always bad. It is only bad when the factor that you are discriminating against has no relevence to what they are being denied.

So you are saying that to stop a practising Muslim from being the head of the Anglican church is evil and wrong of the church?

There are hundreds of ways you can get rid of a practicing muslim from being the head of the Anglican church. Saying that "Zomg, he's a muslim!" isn't one of them.

They cannot stop them from entering and comming into the service, but that is not what the CU want. The CU desperately wants non Christians comming to the service. What they don't want is non Christians voting on the executive or being on the executive. They welcome people to come and participate in their meetings etc, but they don't want them on the executive. Its that simple. And its reasonable.

And yes, I am a university student

Then don't vote for them, is it really that difficult for the Christians to not vote for the Muslim, or athiest etc. or do you believe them to be too stupid to not vote for the Christian in the Evangelical Christian Union?

Then its no longer public funds and thus the SU can only stop them if they are doing something criminal.
Actually incorrect.

The SU can make any choices it likes, because it's not giving out its money to clubs&socs because it has to, simply because it deems them a worthy cause.

If any club or soc goes against the SU's rules on what means they can be given funding, then the SU is well within their rights to pull funding if it wants to - the CU has gone against the rules on the matter, and isn't changing its ways, hence it's not getting funding from the SU.

That is all.
No it is more complicated. The SU got a stupid, overyly PC secularist agenda of a constitution to apply in a rediculous fashion over a discrimination that is completley apropriate.
Simply not correct. The SU is simply acting in a perfectly legitimate way against a society that discriminates on religious grounds, which is something that the other religious clubs and socs seem to be capable of avoiding perfectly well.
There is nothing inaprorpiate about how the CU discriminates.
Maybe not in the CU's eyes, but when it comes to giving out funding, the SU is judge, jury and executioner on the matter. If you go up against
Please show me one way that is unreasonable about the way the CU discriminates. Please bear in mind that "Discrimination on the grounds of religion is wrong" is not a valid argument. Discrimination is only wrong when the discriminating factor has no relevence to the intrest of a group.
OK.

The CU gets money from all students, and yet doesn't open itself up to them.
However when saying "Why cant a Muslim be head of the CU. There is nothing about beign a Muslim that makes it impossible to be a Christian" that is wrong and thus flawed.
1) I don't think that anyone is imagining that a Muslim is going to lead the CU any time soon

2) If it wants to be publicly funded, the CU has to run the risk of a non-Christian at the top. If it wants to self-fund and have it as a Christian-only exec, that's fine, but expecting everyone's money to discriminate isn't going to happen.

Then don't vote for them, is it really that difficult for the Christians to notvote for the Muslim, or athiest etc. or do you believe them to be too stupid to not vote for the Christian in the Evangelical Christian Union?

If it really becomes an issue, they can always kick Muslims, atheists, etc. out. They just can't prohibit them from joining in the first place because they are Muslim, atheist, etc.

They cannot stop them from entering and comming into the service, but that is not what the CU want. The CU desperately wants non Christians comming to the service. What they don't want is non Christians voting on the executive or being on the executive. They welcome people to come and participate in their meetings etc, but they don't want them on the executive. Its that simple. And its reasonable.

It's not reasonable. The CU must allow all members to vote or they won't get funding from the SU.

Again, I recall you saying the CU doesn't get funds from the SU anyway, so what's the big deal?

And yes, I am a university student

Then I hope that all your spelling errors are not an indication of how you usually fare in courses.

The only privilages you dont have as not being a member is not being able to vote on the exec or be on the exec. You dont loose, but the CU does if its forced to change that.

Yes, and they can use them and have all the benefits execpt for being on the commitie or voting for it.

Yay for doublethink!

"They have full benefits, but they can't vote."

How is that full benefits?

So you are saying that to stop a practising Muslim from being the head of the Anglican church is evil and wrong of the church?
Not really, because the Anglican church is a proper, recognised faith, whereas the CU is simply one outlet of that faith.
It would mean that its no longer doing it as a Christian union, which is what it wants to be doing. Why should it have to compromise on that? What is there to gain. All there is is loss. The CU becomes less Christian when there is no need for it to. Why should it.
Because otherwise it loses its funding...
And it does. You don't have to be a member to benefit from what the CU is doing. But to be a member and not a Christian makes the CU less Christian. It would be like the President of the United States not being an American Citizen.
They can either be slightly poorer and Christian exec only or they can be richer and let non-Christians onto the exec, it's their choice.

The SU isn't forcing them to become less Christian, it's tell them that if they want the general student population's money, then they have to let every student who likes have all of the benefits of a Christian member.
The only privilages you dont have as not being a member is not being able to vote on the exec or be on the exec. You dont loose, but the CU does if its forced to change that.

Yes, and they can use them and have all the benefits execpt for being on the commitie or voting for it.
Those are pretty crucial things, to be quite honest.
What interest does the SU have in making the CU less Christian. What good reason is there. Its not a biggoted form of discrimination, its not encoruaging criminal behaviour. There is no good reason for it. All there is is a misapplied eithic

Discrimination is just not letting someone do something because of a factor. It is not always bad. It is only bad when the factor that you are discriminating against has no relevence to what they are being denied.
The Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist societies all seem to be conforming to their own religions perfectly well without stopping people not of their respective faiths from voting for their exec officers.

I don't see why the CU can't do the same.

Public can mean many things. Public, in this case means the general student body. For the general student body (the public) to finance this, the union has to respect certain rules. They have not. They lost their funding from the public.

The rules are inapropriately applied. It is using a universialist discrimination logic in a case where it doesnt apply. Look carefully at the word

It means to treet someone differently because of a specific factor. It is not always negative. MENSA discriminates against people with low IQs because MENSA is a group for people with high IQs. That is discrimination that is relevent because what is being discriminated against is relevent to the nature of the group. You have not adressed this point. Please say why the discrimination in this case is somehow bad, because it clearly is not inapropriate.


My university is nearly entirely government funded. Even the students who go to it are government funded. However, my university is also 100% independent of the government and the government cannot ask the university to do things one way or the other.

Yes, but then it is reasonable to expect it to act with the same legal system and laws that the Government does. If the Government says it is ok to fund "Discriminatory" religious organisations then there is nothing wrong with the university funding it. The only reason is a misapllied ethic.

Tell me, why are you complaining? The CU is allowed to discriminate. They just won't receive public funding while doing so.

It is being treeted diffrently from the other societies with no good reason. It is being denyied the free acess to the facilities that all the other societies get purely on the grounds of a poorly applied understanding of the concept of discrimination


Discrimination on the grounds of religion is wrong.

NO IT ISNT ALWAYS

Discrimiantion is only wrong when what is being discriminated against is in no way relevent to what is being denied. You have not adressed this argument


It IS a valid argument. Why? Because the SU says so

The SU provides the funds, you better follow their rules if you want their funds.

The rules need changing because they have no corispondance with logic. For 50 years the CU has existed there as part of the SU and there has been no problem with it.


Also, being the head of the CU =/= christian. Your thinking is what got their funding dropped in the first place.

Yes it does, otherwise it is no longer a Christian Union


In any case, I recall you saying the SU didn't fund the CU, so why are you complaining?

No, I said they do not charge for membership, they do get funds and space from the SU. Without the SU they would have to pay for it which is prohibitavely expensive for a society like that.

The only vaguely reasonable argument anyone’s been able to come up with in favour of the CU’s position is some sort of paranoia that the CU will become overrun with non-Christians chanting “God Sucks” or something similar.

And this seems rather silly.

I’m a member of my university’s Philosophy Society. As a group affiliated with, and gaining funding from, the universities Student Representative Council, we cannot discriminate against, nor bar entrance to, someone based on their race, sexuality, religion or lack of, etc., nor may we bar non-philosophy stuents from entering our meetings.

Does this mean we are overrun with psychology students ranting about how philosophy smells? Of course not.

The CU at Glasgow acts in the same manner; its members are free to discuss and worship their god, and gain funding from the SRC, as long as it complies with anti-discriminatory policies. Is it overrun with anti-Christian ranting? Of course not.

Is Exeter CU incapable of doing the same?

Of course not.

Public can mean many things. Public, in this case means the general student body. For the general student body (the public) to finance this, the union has to respect certain rules. They have not. They lost their funding from the public.

The rules are inapropriately applied. It is using a universialist discrimination logic in a case where it doesnt apply. Look carefully at the word

It means to treet someone differently because of a specific factor. It is not always negative. MENSA discriminates against people with low IQs because MENSA is a group for people with high IQs. That is discrimination that is relevent because what is being discriminated against is relevent to the nature of the group. You have not adressed this point. Please say why the discrimination in this case is somehow bad, because it clearly is not inapropriate.


My university is nearly entirely government funded. Even the students who go to it are government funded. However, my university is also 100% independent of the government and the government cannot ask the university to do things one way or the other.

Yes, but then it is reasonable to expect it to act with the same legal system and laws that the Government does. If the Government says it is ok to fund "Discriminatory" religious organisations then there is nothing wrong with the university funding it. The only reason is a misapllied ethic.

Tell me, why are you complaining? The CU is allowed to discriminate. They just won't receive public funding while doing so.

It is being treeted diffrently from the other societies with no good reason. It is being denyied the free acess to the facilities that all the other societies get purely on the grounds of a poorly applied understanding of the concept of discrimination


Discrimination on the grounds of religion is wrong.

NO IT ISNT ALWAYS

Discrimiantion is only wrong when what is being discriminated against is in no way relevent to what is being denied. You have not adressed this argument


It IS a valid argument. Why? Because the SU says so

The SU provides the funds, you better follow their rules if you want their funds.

The rules need changing because they have no corispondance with logic. For 50 years the CU has existed there as part of the SU and there has been no problem with it.


Also, being the head of the CU =/= christian. Your thinking is what got their funding dropped in the first place.

Yes it does, otherwise it is no longer a Christian Union


In any case, I recall you saying the SU didn't fund the CU, so why are you complaining?

No, I said they do not charge for membership, they do get funds and space from the SU. Without the SU they would have to pay for it which is prohibitavely expensive for a society like that.

I tire of trying to understand the gibberish you write.

Come back to me when you learn to spell.

The SU can make any choices it likes, because it's not giving out its money to clubs&socs because it has to, simply because it deems them a worthy cause.

Equality demands they all have to be treeted the same unless they are doing something criminal

If any club or soc goes against the SU's rules on what means they can be given funding, then the SU is well within their rights to pull funding if it wants to - the CU has gone against the rules on the matter, and isn't changing its ways, hence it's not getting funding from the SU..

The SU's rules are flawed. You arn't debating with me where the argument actually lies. I KNOW THE CU HAS BROKEN THE SU'S RULES. I AM NOT DEBATING THAT. WHAT I AM DEBATING IS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULES.

Simply not correct. The SU is simply acting in a perfectly legitimate way against a society that discriminates on religious grounds, which is something that the other religious clubs and socs seem to be capable of avoiding perfectly well.

THE OTHER CLUBS AND SOCEITIES ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.

Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied.


Maybe not in the CU's eyes, but when it comes to giving out funding, the SU is judge, jury and executioner on the matter. If you go up against.

That is wrong. The SU is a slave to logic and reason like everyone else. In this case they are wrong because this is not a discriminationary policy.

Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied.


The CU gets money from all students, and yet doesn't open itself up to them..

It does open up to all of them. They are all allowed to be a part of what the CU does. They just cannot be a part of the CU exec or the CU exec voting block

1) I don't think that anyone is imagining that a Muslim is going to lead the CU any time soon.

No, but the principle is more important


2) If it wants to be publicly funded, the CU has to run the risk of a non-Christian at the top. If it wants to self-fund and have it as a Christian-only exec, that's fine, but expecting everyone's money to discriminate isn't going to happen.

No it doesnt. Chruchs are publicly funded and they do not have to deal with that. And for the seveal dozenth time this is not a bad discrimination

Can you actually find an argument against this point.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

That is not the case here.

All you are saying is

"The CU has to listen to the SU, like it or lump it"

Which is wrong. The SU has to listen to logic and logic says that: -

Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied.

Argue against THAT POINT. No others. Or I will not respond to your posts because you are not answering my points.

It is being treeted diffrently from the other societies with no good reason. It is being denyied the free acess to the facilities that all the other societies get purely on the grounds of a poorly applied understanding of the concept of discrimination
Nope, it is being denied free access to facilities because free access to those facilities is given with the understanding that the organisation using the facilities complies with the rules the institution lays down.

Squawking about how the CU is being discriminated against because it doesn’t get special treatment is ludicrous.

The SU can make any choices it likes, because it's not giving out its money to clubs&socs because it has to, simply because it deems them a worthy cause.

Equality demands they all have to be treeted the same unless they are doing something criminal

If any club or soc goes against the SU's rules on what means they can be given funding, then the SU is well within their rights to pull funding if it wants to - the CU has gone against the rules on the matter, and isn't changing its ways, hence it's not getting funding from the SU..

The SU's rules are flawed. You arn't debating with me where the argument actually lies. I KNOW THE CU HAS BROKEN THE SU'S RULES. I AM NOT DEBATING THAT. WHAT I AM DEBATING IS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULES.

Simply not correct. The SU is simply acting in a perfectly legitimate way against a society that discriminates on religious grounds, which is something that the other religious clubs and socs seem to be capable of avoiding perfectly well.

THE OTHER CLUBS AND SOCEITIES ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.

Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied.


Maybe not in the CU's eyes, but when it comes to giving out funding, the SU is judge, jury and executioner on the matter. If you go up against.

That is wrong. The SU is a slave to logic and reason like everyone else. In this case they are wrong because this is not a discriminationary policy.

Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied.


The CU gets money from all students, and yet doesn't open itself up to them..

It does open up to all of them. They are all allowed to be a part of what the CU does. They just cannot be a part of the CU exec or the CU exec voting block

1) I don't think that anyone is imagining that a Muslim is going to lead the CU any time soon.

No, but the principle is more important


2) If it wants to be publicly funded, the CU has to run the risk of a non-Christian at the top. If it wants to self-fund and have it as a Christian-only exec, that's fine, but expecting everyone's money to discriminate isn't going to happen.

No it doesnt. Chruchs are publicly funded and they do not have to deal with that. And for the seveal dozenth time this is not a bad discrimination

Can you actually find an argument against this point.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

That is not the case here.

All you are saying is

"The CU has to listen to the SU, like it or lump it"

Which is wrong. The SU has to listen to logic and logic says that: -

Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied.

Argue against THAT POINT. No others. Or I will not respond to your posts because you are not answering my points.

Why is this thread still going? The issue is beyond simple. There are rules which must be followed to get the SU's money. The CU broke the rules, so the SU chose not to give them any of their money. How on earth is this unfair?

Why is this thread still going? The issue is beyond simple. There are rules which must be followed to get the SU's money. The CU broke the rules, so the SU chose not to give them any of their money. How on earth is this unfair?

The rules are unfair.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

The rules are inapropriately applied. It is using a universialist discrimination logic in a case where it doesnt apply. Look carefully at the word

It means to treet someone differently because of a specific factor. It is not always negative. MENSA discriminates against people with low IQs because MENSA is a group for people with high IQs. That is discrimination that is relevent because what is being discriminated against is relevent to the nature of the group. You have not adressed this point. Please say why the discrimination in this case is somehow bad, because it clearly is not inapropriate.
MENSA, on the other hand, isn't a body which is publicly funded.
Yes, but then it is reasonable to expect it to act with the same legal system and laws that the Government does. If the Government says it is ok to fund "Discriminatory" religious organisations then there is nothing wrong with the university funding it. The only reason is a misapllied ethic.
No, the only reason isn't a 'misapplied ethic', it's because the SU isn't the government, doesn't have the kind of money that the government has, and doesn't take any crap in terms of discrimination, because it doesn't have any votes riding upon it.
It is being treeted diffrently from the other societies with no good reason. It is being denyied the free acess to the facilities that all the other societies get purely on the grounds of a poorly applied understanding of the concept of discrimination
It's being treated differently because it's the only union that's gone against the SU's regulations, that is the reason it's being treated differently.
NO IT ISNT ALWAYS

Discrimiantion is only wrong when what is being discriminated against is in no way relevent to what is being denied. You have not adressed this argument
The reason we haven't addressed it is because it's not valid in the slightest, to be perfectly honest with you.

The CU doesn't comply to the rules which mean that the SU is allowed to fund it, so it doesn't get funded any more.
The rules need changing because they have no corispondance with logic. For 50 years the CU has existed there as part of the SU and there has been no problem with it.
The CU are the ones in the wrong here.
Yes it does, otherwise it is no longer a Christian Union
I don't see why not. If the majority of its members are Christians, it'll still be a Christian Union, and if the president acts in a wrong way, then they can get him taken out of office...
No, I said they do not charge for membership, they do get funds and space from the SU. Without the SU they would have to pay for it which is prohibitavely expensive for a society like that.
Well then, it has to change its ways, like every other religious society.

How on earth is this unfair?
Because apparently it’s not nice to make religious people follow the same rules as everybody else.

They’re special, don’t you know?

"I'M OUTSTANDINGLY CRETINOUS"
Might as well have just said that, to be honest.

Nope, it is being denied free access to facilities because free access to those facilities is given with the understanding that the organisation using the facilities complies with the rules the institution lays down.

Squawking about how the CU is being discriminated against because it doesn’t get special treatment is ludicrous.

The CU isn't getting fair treetment because it is not discriminating, in the same way none of the other societies are discriminating. The fact that they think they are is a mistake and illogical.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

Might as well have just said that, to be honest.

Your reduced to insults now. Fine. Demonstrate why the following quote is wrong and I will listen to you

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

I tire of trying to understand the gibberish you write.

Come back to me when you learn to spell.

Oh great. You can't be bothered to attack my points so you attack my spelling. Answer me why this point is untrue and I will listen to you

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

The rules are unfair.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

The rules are fair.

The SU funds the student bodies it deems worthy. The CU has not been deemed worthy, on the premise that it does not permit every student to be a full member. Therefore, the CU has been given a very reasonable option - if you stop discriminating, then you will get funds again.

I suggest you look up the definition of the word discrimination. To have requirements isn't necessarily discriminatory. Let me help you, here are the keywords: Unfair. Treatment. Prejudice.

The rules are fair.

The SU funds the student bodies it deems worthy. The CU has not been deemed worthy, on the premise that it does not permit every student to be a full member. Therefore, the CU has been given a very reasonable option - if you stop discriminating, then you will get funds again.

It is not discriminating in a fashion that is inapropriate. It is not bad discrimination because there is a direct relevence to the reason you are being discriminated against and what you are being denied

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."


I suggest you look up the definition of the word discrimination. To have requirements isn't necessarily discriminatory. Let me help you, here are the keywords: Unfair. Treatment. Prejudice.

The word discrimination comes from the Latin "discriminare", which means to "distinguish between". That is what they are doing here.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

Equality demands they all have to be treeted the same unless they are doing something criminal
No, it doesn't.

Equality demands that they all have to be treated the same if they act in the same way. The CU is acting differently, so it's being treated differently.
The SU's rules are flawed.
No, they're not.
You arn't debating with me where the argument actually lies. I KNOW THE CU HAS BROKEN THE SU'S RULES. I AM NOT DEBATING THAT. WHAT I AM DEBATING IS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULES.
The rules are fine.
THE OTHER CLUBS AND SOCEITIES ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.
Apart from the Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist societies, all of which comply to the rules.
That is wrong. The SU is a slave to logic and reason like everyone else. In this case they are wrong because this is not a discriminationary policy.
It is by definition...
It does open up to all of them. They are all allowed to be a part of what the CU does. They just cannot be a part of the CU exec or the CU exec voting block
Which obviously isn't egalitarian...
No, but the principle is more important
No, no it isn't.
No it doesnt. Chruchs are publicly funded and they do not have to deal with that. And for the seveal dozenth time this is not a bad discrimination

Can you actually find an argument against this point.
Churches are only publicly funded because governments need the old-people vote.
That is not the case here.
Argue against THAT POINT. No others. Or I will not respond to your posts because you are not answering my points.
OK, it's not really relevant for the CU to discriminate, because if it's really acting for the general student population, then it shouldn't matter who's at the top, because they'd all be equally good candidates.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

"Unfair, prejudiced treatment is only bad when the reason why you are being unfairly and prejudicially treated against is not relevant to what you are being denied."

I think you need to look up the definition of discrimination.

The rules are unfair.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

Wow, now that you made that really big, I totally agree with you! Gosh, those giant letters are so awfully convincing!

And, oddly enough, no other group seems to find those rules unfair. The Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Shinto, Wiccan, etc. students all seem to be getting by just fine. Funny, that...

Oh great. You can't be bothered to attack my points so you attack my spelling. Answer me why this point is untrue and I will listen to you.

I was going to respond to a rather long posts as yours.

But when every paragraph contains up to three or more errors that make it hard to read and understand, then I start doing other things, considering I was multi-tasking.

The CU isn't getting fair treetment because it is not discriminating, in the same way none of the other societies are discriminating. The fact that they think they are is a mistake and illogical.

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."

Okay, perhaps this is going over your head but: The ECU is getting exactly the same treatment as [I]every[I] other society. The others do not discriminate, i.e. they do not place restrictions on those that wish to join the society. The ECU is discriminating as they place restrictions on those who can join the society, against Guild rules, ergo they lose the ability to utilise Guild facilities for free and lose its funding.
Why do you find it wrong that the Muslims can follow the rules but the Christians should be exempted?

The CU isn't getting fair treetment because it is not discriminating, in the same way none of the other societies are discriminating. The fact that they think they are is a mistake and illogical.

There are clear rules: Everyone must be able to become a member.

CU breaks this rule. CU faces the consequence.

No one else breaks that rule, no one else faces that consequence.

treatment[/b].

Your reduced to insults now. Fine. Demonstrate why the following quote is wrong and I will listen to you

"Discrimination is only bad when the reason why you are being discriminated against is not relevent to what you are being denied."
The quote isn't wrong, but the ECU is acting in a pointlessly, arbritrarily discriminatory way.

The CU isn’t getting fair treetment because it is not discriminating, in the same way none of the other societies are discriminating. The fact that they think they are is a mistake and illogical.
It is discriminating, and doing so in an inappropriate manner. It is preventing interested but not-as-yet-Christians and interested parties with different or no faith from joining.

As a student organisation that should have an open membership towards any interested party, it is unfairly discriminating. If the CU wants to become an exclusive organisation that only allows certain Christians who hold certain tenants of faith to join, then it must be prepared not to receive student-paid funding from the SU, or to become a completely private organisation.

How can it demand that the student body fund the organisation, while preventing much of the student body from joining?

Big Bolded Text
We saw it the first time.

We just disagree your point applies here.

The word discrimination comes from the Latin "discriminare", which means to "distinguish between". That is what they are doing here.

What a word meant and what it means are two different things. What the CU are doing is unfairly treating people, prejudiced on the fact that you can only be a christian if you are willing to sign their document.

A discrimination of the bad kind.

Edit: why is it so hard for you to understand that no one wants to fund an organization that they cannot themselves choose to be a part of?

What a word meant and what it means are two different things. What the CU are doing is unfairly treating people, prejudiced on the fact that you can only be a christian if you are willing to sign their document.

Erm, have you seen the article in the header. You do know what the document says is possibly the single widest Christian definition you could think of

Edit: why is it so hard for you to understand that no one wants to fund an organization that they cannot themselves choose to be a part of?

They can participate, they cannot vote, that is the only difference. The same is true if you are not disabled but you pay your membership for a sports club that has a disabled basketball team.

It is discriminating, and doing so in an inappropriate manner. It is preventing interested but not-as-yet-Christians and interested parties with different or no faith from joining.

As a student organisation that should have an open membership towards any interested party, it is unfairly discriminating.

It IS open to any interested party participating. It is not open to just anyone voting on who runs it.


If the CU wants to become an exclusive organisation that only allows certain Christians who hold certain tenants of faith to join, then it must be prepared not to receive student-paid funding from the SU, or to become a completely private organisation.

Why? Who benefits from that. The students don't because the CU now has to pay for the use of the facilities and thus cannot afford to do all the cool stuff it used to and thus they can't enjoy it.


How can it demand that the student body fund the organisation, while preventing much of the student body from joining?

Because it provides services that all of the students can use.


We saw it the first time.

We just disagree your point applies here.

Give a good reason.

Frankly you argument here consists of "ITS DISCRIMINATION" which I havn't disagreed with. What I have disagreed with is the idea that discrimination is a universal evil. It only becomes unfair when somehow what is being discriminated against, the factor in the person that you single out, has no relevence to what you are denying them. That has every single relevence here. There is no irrelevence here. You want to run the CU, you should be a Christian. The CU want to be doing Gods will on the campus, and thats not something someone who isn't a Christian will understand the same way a Christian would be able to. A non Christian doesn't have the qualities that are needed to run the CU or to vote on who runs it. Its just that.

If the CU don't want to abide by the rules they can go elsewhere, they don't have an automatic right to being an official university society.

It IS open to any interested party participating. It is not open to just anyone voting on who runs it.
Well, there we go then.

As a student organisation, funded by the student body, I’m afraid the CU doesn’t have the luxury of limiting its voting members.

Why? Who benefits from that. The students don’t because the CU now has to pay for the use of the facilities and thus cannot afford to do all the cool stuff it used to and thus they can’t enjoy it.
Of course the students benefit from it; they are allowed to join an organisation paid by student money. Interested individuals who perhaps aren’t comfortable with signing an unnecessary declaration of faith can now join. As an evangelical organisation, why would the CU want to prevent potential converts from attending meetings?

Because it provides services that all of the students can use.
But it doesn’t allow them to become members. It’s acting like a private organisation, rather than a student one.

If the CU only wants to provide services for the student body that perhaps much of the student body won’t use, much like a private organisation, then why should the student body stump up the cash?

Give a good reason.
I, and other posters, have given plenty. We gave plenty when this topic reared its head over a year ago. You don’t seem to be addressing many of them, apart from repeatedly posting a definition of discrimination that no-one is arguing against. A few:

The CU must abide by SU anti-discriminatory rules under the terms of it being a student organisation.
The CU can’t expect to receive money from the student body as a whole, while restricting its membership to Christian students.
No bad consequences — such as disbandment or being overrun with non-believers — have happened to any other CU or religious student organisation when they have complied with their parent institutions anti-discriminatory rules.
The CU shouldn’t expect special treatment just because it is a religious organisation; no other religious student organisation at Exeter or most other universities is demanding this.


Frankly you argument here consists of “ITS DISCRIMINATION” which I havn’t disagreed with. What I have disagreed with is the idea that discrimination is a universal evil.
No-one has argued this.

I agree that discrimination is not a blanket bad thing, the argument does not follow in this direction.


The CU want to be doing Gods will on the campus, and thats not something someone who isn’t a Christian will understand the same way a Christian would be able to.
Well, if they want to do a god’s work on campus, then they should comply with campus rules.

A non Christian doesn’t have the qualities that are needed to run the CU or to vote on who runs it. Its just that.
What do you think will happen if the CU removes the offending document?

Do you believe that the declaration of faith is the only thing stopping thousands of screaming heathens descending on the CU and eating them alive? Do you honestly believe that non-Christian troublemakers will give up their free time to attend a CU meeting?

Moreover, do you honestly believe that there will be such a concentration of non-believers that they will vote one of themselves into power unopposed?

If you do, I think you’re being rather paranoid.