Yes, and for a long time now it’s also been interpreted to bar sectarian exercises that are endorsed by the state - like hanging a banner with a Christian prayer in a public school. This issue was discussed upthread, and you are going to need to get several generations of jurisprudence overturned if you want the law to be read that way. It’s also not the fault of atheists, of course. A lot of these cases were started by Jehovah’s Witnesses: Christians who don’t want to have to swear religious oaths in public.
Which part of the Constitution guarantees the right to see a banner?
Since my whole point was that this was a digressive tactic on the part of GEEPERS, I hardly see the point to arguing this. But since I did make the first move:
How is an unconditional r-squared of 0.41 a poor correlation? That figure implies that a simple linear predictor using religiosity explains 41% of the variation in suicide rates. To call that insignificant (in an informal sense) sets a pretty durned high bar.
A more nuanced analysis would surely look at how the different aspects of particular religions can play a part, but the question here is a basic relationship between religiosity and suicide rates. Comparing Shinto and Christianity (or whatever) is beside the point.
Well, um, that’s kind of the point of giving a summary statistic. One can’t falsify a correlation by pointing out counterexamples.
So you take a legalistic approach which really doesn’t prove anything. Fine, it’s their policy. Well, then the policy is wrong. It is simply wrong to force Christian organizations to go against their beliefs. It is wrong to force a Muslim group to accept a Christian or someone who eats bacon at the group meeting.
It is a clear example of the Christian rights being taken away. That is FACT, and your stubborn refusal to EVER admit that I’m right won’t change that.
This is still America, and people should have the freedom to create their own groups, and exclude whomever they want.
It was hung in a public space. If we let the Christians hang their banner, then every religion will demand equal time. The First Amendment guarantees freedom FROM religion as well.
OK. I disagree, and the university does, too- probably because they feel it would end up hurting them. They don’t want their name associated with that kind of discrimination. They wouldn’t give their approval to a fraternity that excludes black people, and they won’t give their approval to a group that excludes gays.
The Christian group is free to take its activities off campus and disclaim any affiliation with the university if it doesn’t like the policies it has to follow. If they want to have the prestige and support associated with Vanderbilt (which could include money, cheaper use of university facilities, and things like that) then Vanderbilt makes the rules. Since they are a fraternity, I’m guessing they get some very significant perks- you know, like a frat house.
I’m not sure it is. What is wrong is the sense of entitlement on display here: “Give me a fraternity house, let me use the name of your prestigious university, give me use of your school facilities, give me a school banner with a prayer on it, let me impose my values however I see fit. I demand all those things and you must provide them without conditions.”
No, it isn’t. What do you think would happened tomorrow if you started a group in your home tomorrow and refused to admit gays? Your private home or private church can do what it wants. Groups that get public funding or use facilities that belong to someone else sometimes have to abide by rules other people set. If you don’t like them, don’t use those facilities.
If you don’t understand the law or the policies, capslock won’t make your argument more convincing. Kind of the opposite, really.
They do.
No, you did not. You asserted it does not promote Christianity while ignoring the fact that no other religion uses the phrase and apparently forgetting that Hinduism and Buddhism and many other religions even exist. Nobody but Christians says “Our heavenly father.”
First off, you didn’t demonstrate that. You tried, and typically, you failed utterly.
Second off, promoting a group of Gods is still against the rules.
Think about this, why do you feel the ability to promote your religion is necessary? What if the banner had said, “Because there is no God and we are only material beings, We must strive to…” and so forth?
Not great does not equal poor. It means not great. I’m used to dealing with manufacturing data, we toss anything less than a .6 as go look somewhere else.
Heh, traditionwise he’s on solid ground. Excluding people is what the Pilgrims were all about. And yes, if the government really forced every private group out there to admit everyone, the idea of free association would become meaningless. But that doesn’t mean groups that use public resources or even shared resources held by a private entity like Vanderbilt have the right to conduct themselves however they want and the government/university/whatever has no say. That’s an absurd proposition- what if the views of two groups come into conflict or some groups use more resources than others? Does the university or government just have to give everybody everything they want with no questions asked?
This is really just a contract situation. If you agree to use someone else’s property or their stuff, they can set the conditions you have to follow. If you want to use government funding or property for your club, you agree to follow the government’s nondiscrimination policies. Those policies exist because the government can’t discriminate and isn’t going to enable someone else doing so. If you find those terms unacceptable, get your own meeting room- no harm, no foul. If I rent a no-smoking no-pets apartment, I can’t smoke indoors and I can’t have a pet while I live there. If I don’t like that, I can go someplace else. It’s that simple. You do have a Constitutional right to free speech and free exercise of religion with very few restrictions, but you don’t have some kind of right to use a school or a Vanderbilt frat house.
You are exactly right- which is why you should applaud Vanderbilt. People (privately) created Vanderbilt. And the people who created and run Vanderbilt (not the government) decided to write rules to exclude groups (of people) who discriminate in certain ways.
See, here’s the thing. No one said you didn’t have the right to believe anything. However, that doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t tell you what we THINK of your beliefs. That’s OUR right.
Which still doesn’t prove that your taxpayer money paid one cent for the banner.
I only merely demonstrated your refusal to accept reality:
"In modern monotheist religious traditions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Bahá’í, Krishnaism, Vaishnavism and the Brahma Kumaris religion, God is addressed as the father, in part because of his active interest in human affairs, in the way that a father would take an interest in his children who are dependent on him and as a father, he will respond to humanity, his children, acting in their best interests. "
Therefore, you fail miserably to prove that the school is endorsing Christianity as an official religion.
Second, the Constitution gives freedom of religious expression, which GASP means a Christian message can be in full view of an atheist. SHow me where the Constitution says that Christian messages can not be displayed in specific locales if you’re so right.
If it offended most of the student and faculty, I would think it is wrong to have the banner displayed solely on the desire of the few atheists. If the school was dominantly atheist, I would simply go to another school.
But this girl claimed it made her feel like an outsider. That’s baloney. SHe purposely made herself even more of an outcast by her crusade.
Can you find a single non-Christian prayer or scripture that uses these words? That’d go further than Wikipedia.
Yes, it does. But not in a school because the government isn’t supposed to get involved in the issue and has no place doing so. As introductions go, “Our heavenly father” is just as out of bounds as “Dear Thor” or “This isn’t addressed to any gods because they’re all fairy stories.”
Endorsing a particular religion (or some subset of religions) is the same thing as declaring it official. The federal government can’t do that, and ever since the 14th amendment was passed, states can’t do it either.
Who paid for the wall that the banner hanging on? And whose land was the wall built on?
