It should be noted that this option was offered to the Cranston School Committee, who rejected it. It should also be noted by those who say that it’s generic, that it was specifically written because Cranston specifically wanted a school prayer. It was written to be religious from the outset.
This thread seems to have moved on a bit since I looked at it last, but since you ask: strictly speaking, you didn’t say anything that was incorrect. However, your phrasing…
…implies that the First Amendment always applied to the states, or was reinterpreted at some point to apply to the states. Neither is true; SCOTUS ruled early on that only constitutional provisions which explicitly refered to the states (“no State shall…”) were in fact applicable to the states. They deemed the Constitution to be primarily a limitation on the federal government, even where provisions did not explicitly limit their application to Congress.
It wasn’t until passage of the 14th Amendment that the First Amendment became applicable to the states.
That’s not how it works. Some Christians feel persecuted by the mere fact that nonbelievers exist, and that’s what makes them “double down” on their claims of persecution. Reminders that atheists have rights and that the law does not inherently favor Christianity are even worse.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
No problem. That was also the crux of my comment to ITR Champion about posting from 1867.
Besides, why should we care about wholly unfounded cries of persecution ? Let them understand that they *really *aren’t, or let them whine and make fools of themselves. It don’t make me no nevermind.
You have assumed a fundamental error here, IMO. It is possible to have a moral compass without Christianity.
Organised religion is one way to teach acceptible social values (and hence create a fine upstanding citizen), but it’s not the only way. (And NO WAY is perfect 100% of the time.)
Do you think it’s right to force Christians groups to openly accept homosexuals into their groups? This is a growing problem for Christians who hold to the belief that homosexuality is a sinful act.
Here is one example where a campus Christian group is being FORCED to admit a gay man to their organization.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-vanderbilt-university-denying-religious-freedom-to-christian-groups-on-campus/
Christians should have the right to determine who they will accept in their group of church. I certainly had to sign a statement of faith and agree to the beliefs of the church before they accepted my membership.
In addition to committing the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The same argument that those who advocate school prayer use can be grafted onto any other of other absurd bits of temporally proximate events. The ‘decline in schools’? Due to color television. The trend is clear.
Christians accept all manner of sinners into their groups. Why should being gay be any different?
Into churches? No, Christians can be bigoted assholes who discriminate against gays and lesbians if they really want to. If they’re in a club that’s funded by a university which is required to have equal protection for all classes? Yep. Yet again, you seem to not understand the fundamental fact under discussion: you are free to do as you will on private property, with private funds, and so on. You are not free to run a bigoted hate club on a college campus.
That you’ve used the phrase “group of church” indicates that you realize you’re on incredibly shaky ground here too, just like you claim that the same exact banner isn’t religious or is specifically Christian, depending on how you want to distort your argument. Something tells me that you won’t ever address that issue either, as you know you’re wrong.
Why do you refuse to answer this simple question: If your claim is that the banner wasn’t specifically Christian in nature, how could taking it down be an attack on Christianity?
They’re not being forced to do anything. They’re being told to refrain from discrimination in order to retain their official status. Everyone has the right to discriminate. Nobody has the right to use public monies to do it (or in this case, to use the university’s money to do it when such discrimination violates the university’s policy).
And I’m sure it greatly affects the price of tea in China, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Or what **Marley **was saying, really.
…I know it’s probably yet another derail but… The hell ?!?
What kind of weird-ass, crooked-ass churches y’all are running over there, that not just anyone off the street can attend ? I thought that was rather the point.
So a fratenity must openly accept ANYONE for membership now? The gay person has a right to go start their own gay christian clubs, but no homosexuality is being forced down Christians throats by the secular world.
Would you accept people into your group who are registered sex offenders? If not, you are discriminating and being a bigot!!
Getting back on topic: If your claim is that the banner wasn’t specifically Christian in nature, how could taking it down be an attack on Christianity?
I assume that by “membership” he’s referring to his church’s equivalent of confirmation or affirmation or whatever. As in, anyone can attend his church, but only people who sign a form and put up a banner can vote in meetings.
If the fraternity wants official campus recognition, then it has to abide by the campus’ rules. I would have thought that was patently obvious. If I start a campus arson club, and the university tells me I can’t go around setting fire to buildings, I don’t think I’ll get very far if I start protesting. If the fraternity doesn’t care about official status it can discriminate however it likes.
I’m not sure what equivalence you’re trying to draw between gay people and sex offenders, but if I attend a university which prohibits discrimination against registered sex offenders by campus organizations, then sure. I don’t really see what difference it makes if I have to shoot skeet (or whatever my club does) with a sex offender.
Anyone is welcome to attend and soak in the spiritual truths. Becoming a member of the church and the body of Christ is a completely different matter.
If he can run a halfway decent game of AD&D and doesn’t start sulking when he’s losing at Diplomacy, sure, why not ?
ETA, @RNATB: ah, OK, that makes more sense.
You’re missing the point. You’re freely able to form any kind of group you want and accept or reject any type of person you want.
It’s where public monies are involved that you come across discrimination laws. Or, in the case of the banner, public facilities.
I was going to mention Romans 3:23 but perhaps Romans 2:1-4 is more appropriate here.
Turning away those who seek the communion of God is not considered a Good Thing by the Lord, you know.