# Scalia says atheists can't study the bible. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2010, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939 "2010-05-01T02:54:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/121 "2010-05-05T20:22:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does Hastings have an obligation to provide access to its facilities to Christian student groups if they provide access to those facilities to other groups? I believe that it is Hastings’ position that they would provide these same facilities and resources to all student groups, Christian and not, who agree to Hastings’ non-discrimination policy. Let me amend that, based on my own long-ago student days. This equality would apply use of facilities for things like meetings and events. Meeting space at a college is virtually unlimited. Cash is another thing – there would normally be some kind of competitive grants program to distribute whatever money is available among groups that apply for it. AFAIK, the fairness or lack thereof of Hastings’ student grants program is not at issue in this case, as it would only be open to officially recognized student groups. So if this Christian group wins their case on recognition, they may apply for money, and if they are turned down, be back in court next year over the fairness of these distribution policies. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/122 "2010-05-05T20:26:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think when Justice Scalia said “this Christian society” he was referring to the CLS not the hypothetical Republican Club he had just mentioned. > > But on that point, Justice Scalia said, _“It is so weird to require the campus Republican Club to admit Democrats, not just to membership, but to officership.”_ > > Hastings policy prohibits student organizations from excluding members on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation. > > So does anyone think that there is a factual basis to what Scalia said? That Hastings’ existing policies would force a Republican Club to accept Democrats as members. And if so, can you explain what you base that opinion on? Once again, as Bright N’ Shiny has illuminated, it is going to depend on what exactly the policy says, and how it is actually applied. However, a better analogy would be Messianic Jews would have to be afforded officership in an atheist, Muslim, or Buddha clubs/organizations, if the latter wanted to be officialy recognized by the school and receive funds from the school. The point Scalia and others were making is the rule will have the effect of some organizations making positions of leadership available to individuals whose views are entirely contrary to those of the club/organization. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/123 "2010-05-05T22:38:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So… if you were to discover that such an event had actually happened somewhere, you’d change your mind? To the contrary, I’m certain it has. What I am saying is that Scalia’s analogy is [del]suspect[/del] completely skewed from the case. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/124 "2010-05-06T00:32:45Z")
The issue of whether Hastings policy is genuinely “all-comers” or just “no excluding members for the following list of reasons” appears to be one of the facts that is unclear in this case. I’ve looked and I’ve found contentions in both directions. > [@](#): > > Does Hastings have an obligation to provide access to its facilities to Christian student groups if they provide access to those facilities to other groups? My belief is that Hastings has an obligation to provide support to any student organization, Christian or non-Christian, that complies with its policies and an obligation to deny support to any organization, Christian or non-Christian, that does not comply with its policies. I don’t think anyone can argue that Hastings has generally refused to support Christian student groups. It supported the CLS before it adopted its no-gays policy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/125 "2010-05-06T00:47:29Z")
> [@](#): > > This would very likely fail the test of “sincerely held religious belief.” In Brown v. Peña, 441 F.Supp. 1382 (D.C. Fla. 1997), affirmed 589 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1979), a plaintiff in a Title VII action claimed that consuming Kozy Kitten People/Cat Food was a religious necessity. The court found that this was a sham claim. They identified a three-prong test for a sincerely-held religious belief: > > ``` > * If the belief is based on a theory of "man's nature or his place in the Universe" > * If it is not merely a personal preference but has an institutional quality about it > * If it is legitimately and sincerely believed > > ``` > > In contrast, the beliefs cited by the CLS would virtually certainly meet the criteria for sincerely held religious beliefs. > > There are others, but let’s stick with that for now, unless you find it deficient in some way. Okay, I’ll concede that my hypothetical $25,000 limit is unlikely to pass a sincerity standard. And I’ll certainly agree there’s no reason to doubt the CLS’s beliefs are sincere. But if sincerity is the key point, I’m sure I can come up with a hypothetical case essentially the same as the hypothetical example I gave except using a recognized religious belief. For example, let’s say a fast food chain offers a special where you can get a large order of fired for the price of a small order if you also order a hamburger. A customer comes in and says that he just wants a large order of fries but he wants it for the price of a small order. The counter guy says he has to buy a hamburger to get that special. The guy says he’s a Hindu and it’s against his religion to buy a hamburger. So the restaurant can’t force him to violate his religious beliefs and has to give him the french fries special even though he isn’t buying a hamburger. Now I see this as the same issue as CLS vs Martinez. Nobody is being told they cannot follow their religious beliefs. Nobody is being forced to buy a hamburger or to admit gay members to their organization. But they are being told that buying a hamburger and admitted gay members are conditions for receiving some benefit (extra french fries or college funding). If they choose not to comply with the condition, they don’t qualify for the benefit. Their reason for choosing not to comply is not germane. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/126 "2010-06-28T15:46:47Z")
Bump up – [SCOTUS has decided.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf)(PDF) 5-4, the “all-comers policy” is upheld. On remand, the lower court may look “if and to the extent it is preserved” into the issue of whether the policy is selectively enforced vis-a-vis specific groups. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/127 "2010-06-28T23:46:19Z")
I don’t know what Scalia was talking about in the OP, there must be more context to it. It sounds like he is referring to groups being\* forced \*to accept members who don’t share their beliefs, but I don’t know what he is referring to there. The problems in this area usually occur where there is public funding involved, perhaps the case in the college. It doesn’t sound like he’s talking about atheists being _unable_ to study the Bible, but private groups placing restrictions on their membership. I’d like to find out more about public resources used by the organization in question. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/128 "2010-06-29T02:55:56Z")
\*\*Moderator Note: \*\* I recognize that this could be construed as a zombie, but it has not been dormant very long and I do not see a lot of long-departed posters in it. Please do not report it as a zombie. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/129 "2010-06-29T17:52:09Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t know what Scalia was talking about in the OP, there must be more context to it. It sounds like he is referring to groups being\* forced \*to accept members who don’t share their beliefs, but I don’t know what he is referring to there. The problems in this area usually occur where there is public funding involved, perhaps the case in the college. It doesn’t sound like he’s talking about atheists being _unable_ to study the Bible, but private groups placing restrictions on their membership. I’d like to find out more about public resources used by the organization in question. My understanding- The whole case, which was decided yesterday 5-4 for the school, was whether a group that accepts school resources can determine the nature of its voting membership, the group being The Christian Legal Society & the school being Hastings. The CLS had a stipulation that gays were not eligible to be voting members. Hastings has a non-discrimination policy against gays and was withdrawing school resources from CLS as a result. CLS sued on free speech & freedom of association grounds & lost. The thread title is a total red herring. So what happens when the Gay Rights Legal Society has to deal with an influx of Christian Rightists applying for voting membership, the Jewish Legal Society with National Socialists applying, the Pacifist Legal Society with Nuke’Em Alls applying? It’s gonna be interesting! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939/130 "2010-06-29T20:22:24Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > The thread title is a total red herring. I quoted Scalia in the OP: _“To require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes, right? That’s crazy.”_ So I figure the thread title was factual. It was certainly more factual than some of the things Scalia was saying. > [@](#): > > So what happens when the Gay Rights Legal Society has to deal with an influx of Christian Rightists applying for voting membership, the Jewish Legal Society with National Socialists applying, the Pacifist Legal Society with Nuke’Em Alls applying? It’s gonna be interesting! If it happens, these groups will have to make the same decision that the CLS will: do they want to preserve their exclusivity or their subsidy? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-atheists-cant-study-the-bible/537939.md?page=6)