Umm really? you do realize those same rules are the ones that keep gays out of scoutes and heathens out of the salvation army?
Most of the case law that allows individuals to restrict membership to private groups is from religious groups restricting membership from non-believers.
Read that. Read it again. It is clear, and easy to understand, right there. If you have questions ask, but it is very very simply put there. Crystal clear. I cannot see how you can possibly not understand the point here with that quote.
I expect, however, that I am speaking to a wall who is not interested in debate…
Actually, she didn’t destroy anything. The banner still exists in a Cranston storeroom somewhere.
And, for the record, she does use money which has “In God We Trust” crossed out with a black marker.
A problem with what? Exempting some organizations and not others? I don’t know if that’s what’s happening, and I don’t really the Congressional Prayer Caucus (and what a nauseating phrase that is) to provide an accurate view into what is happening. I think Vanderbilt should apply its policy constitently, whatever that policy is. But I also think that doesn’t really affect what we are discussing here.
Because it is factually true. So I’m holding out the vain hope you will acknowledge the facts and attempt to discuss the Constitutional issue rationally based on an informed understanding of the law and the relevant policies instead of howling about how you are being persecuted.
Tell me this: if you bought the banner and hung it up in your home, what do you think would happen? Do you think the government would come and take it down?
Your problem is that you take everything on faith (if you’ll pardon the pun). Did you even read this paragraph before quoting it?
What’s your point? It says that the organization moved off campus. It’s a shame that students no longer have access to the group on campus.
Would you feel the same way if the group “that students no longer had access to on campus” were Muslim?
Hindu?
Druids?
Wiccan?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say not.
You said earlier that if the girl in the OP didn’t like the religious attitude at school, she was free to go somewhere else. Seems to me that this group is taking the same approach you espouse - they don’t want to follow campus rules, so they’re moving off campus. Why do you consider this a problem?
I think that Vanderbilt’s rules are pretty stupid and unfair. (The notion that a Southern Baptist could become the president of the Mormon Club is rather silly.)
On the other hand, Vanderbilt is a private university and has nothing to do with laws governing publicly supported schools. Vanderbilt has the same right to make stupid and discriminatory rules that Falwell’s Liberty University has.
However the program still exists. It’s no longer on campus because it was not abiding by the university’s policies, and they decided they would rather stick to their own policies than change them as a condition of using university facilities. The Congresswoman says the university could have made an exception to its policy, although I question her ability to objectively evaluate the situation since she has a vested interest in it. But the bottom line here isn’t changing: Vanderbilt is a private university, and it can pretty much make whatever policies it wants with regard to using its facilities. If groups don’t like those policies and can’t convince the school to change them, they don’t have to use its facilities. They are certainly not entitled, Constitutionally or otherwise, to use those facilities. The university gets to decide who can use its buildings or its name. The idea that I am Constitutionally entitled to something that belongs to you - use of a house you own or your money - is absurd. If you disagree, I’m founding The First Church of Everybody Has to Give Me All Their Money. Publicly funded schools and other facilities have to follow the law, and generally they have less discretion than a private institution does. A state high school, for example, cannot officially endorse a religion by putting up a Christian banner on the wall. A private school could do that with no problem, but a public school cannot because it gives state endorsement to one religion.
Do you think we ignite upon contact with holy water too?
It would be nice to see an answer to this.
Go ahead. Put a banner like this up in your home. In your church. In your private business. Buy a billboard and put it on there. Put a giant one behind a plane and fly it around the city.
But sorry, you cannot put it on the wall of a government building that has been built and paid for by taxpayers of a variety of faiths and creeds, or of no faith at all.
I think this cartoon sums up GEEPERS’ argument succinctly.
Or possibly this one.
And definitely this one.
I wonder why?
That would be Catholic dogma. They are not true Christians. See any Jack Chick tract.
(Haw Haw!)
It says the organization could be excepted under Title VII, on the grounds that Title VII allows… something completely unrelated.
What “agenda” is that? Authors have no right to change their stories in order not to offend you. If it bothers you, don’t read it. Don’t like that? Too bad, so sad.
(And before you accuse me of it, I’m neither an atheist, nor do I hate Christianity. Just ignorance and bigotry)
While we’re busy telling teenagers to love the illegal endorsement of Christianity or leave it, we might as well tell the rest of the Atheists they’re not welcome or needed in this country either.
throws holy water on Der Trihs just to see what happens
BTW, GEEPERS, my parents – devout Catholics – were watching a news segment last night about homophobia in various churches, and were absolutely disgusted by it. So don’t claim to speak for all Christians.
public walls != society.
Precisely.
Mine ? None at all.
The students of Cranston however, as I’ve said in my very first post in this thread, now know that the State does not endorse Christianity nor does the law automatically side with Christian bullies. That’s a good thing.
I could give a shit what most Americans think ;).
Forced ? FORCED ? Why, that’s very much right to ignore territory, sir. Not only is no one putting a gun to your head to read these comics, but surely you can just avert your eyes from the “gay message”. Same as you were expecting the Cranston girl from “not seeing” the banner.
No can do ? Then don’t blame her for wanting to tear down the banner, either.
