I don’t know which moderator moved the OP but it was done at my request when I realized I had posted it in the wrong forum by mistake.
I disagree. As I stated above, there’s a distinction between study and worship. You can study the Bible without being a Christian or Jew. Just as a Christian or Jew can study the Quran without being a Muslim.
Suppose some current member of the Christian Legal Society suggested that they only study the New Testament. They put it to a vote and this proposal is passed by the majority. Another member who voted against the proposal says, “I joined this group in order to study the entire Bible not just half of it. But you guys used your majority control to destroy that. You’ve killed the Christian Legal Society that I joined.”
Groups change. Especially a college organization like this which presumedly has a complete turnover in members every few years. The group isn’t dead because the current members decide to do something different from what previous members did.
The fact that people like Alito and Scalia see democracy as a system where the majority can bully the minority around says more about their personal natures than it does about democracy.
Yes, but the type of study is completely different. I have never seen an atheist presuppose the book is truthful. And rarely have I seen one use it for moral guidance.
And, no, teaching only one point of view is not worship. You might argue that it’s religious, but I’m pretty sure that’s obvious to everybody.
I don’t know of any democracy that just lets anyone join. I sure as heck know the U.S. doesn’t, or we wouldn’t be talking about all the illegal immigrants.
Oh, and if someone voted and nullified the Constitution, I’d be very comfortable in saying the United States no longer exists.
Finally, I’m going to enjoy that a majority rule should be perfectly fine. Kinda nullifies civil rights legislation, as they exist to protect minorities from the majority. Funny that you missed civics memo.
BFD. So the genuine interested members get displaced by subversive members.
What happens? The genuinely interested members leave, and start a new group. Pretty soon the disruptive elements realize that what they’re doing isn’t a long-term viable strategy, and they just leave the group alone.
Market solution, eh?
You’re making objections up. Nobody is proposing letting “anybody” join. The United States only lets American citizens vote. Hawkings College only lets current students join student groups.
If you have to make apocalyptical hypotheticals like “the Constitution would be abolished” or “civil rights would vanish” or “Earth would be overrun by Nazis riding dinosaurs” the basis of your objections then nobody’s going to take your objections seriously. It’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have presidential elections because, in theory, we could elect Charles Manson as President.
Dude, re-think this so you don’t sound like a Teabagger.
It’s worth noting that “bible study” can mean two rather different things. When a Christian group of whatever sort holds a bible study, it usually means a devotional meeting at which some biblical passage will be examined and discussed, generally focusing on the implications for how Christians ought to live their lives, etc. That’s a completely different sort of thing than studying the bible as an academic exercise, and it makes perfect sense to me for someone to suggest that it’s not really appropriate for an atheist to lead a bible study in the first sense.
I have no idea whether Scalia meant it that way, though.
If it’s a Bible study group in that first sense, then I still hold that it’s a worship service and the college rules for religious services rather than student organizations should apply. I have no problem with religious students gathering to practice their religion. But I object to a group of religious students deciding that the rules for secular organizations are more favorable than the rules for religious organizations and deciding to masquerade their religious service as a secular meeting in order to take advantage of this. This seems to be a real example of what some people here have objected to - a group infiltrating a student organization with a hidden agenda.
With due respect the title of this thread is quite obviously misleading. Scalia did not say atheists can’t study the Bible.
I decided, in keeping with Scalia’s own practice, that I would take what was actually said (that requiring Bible study groups to admit atheists is “crazy”) and then I’d embellish it a little in order to create a memorable soundbite.
I’m going to teach from this physics textbook. I think all of it is crap and that gravity is really a function of aliens playing ping pong with us. But you can be sure to trust that I will keep my opinions out of it when teaching this physics textbook.
I can’t see what the fuss is about, either. It would be like having a quilting club and someone gets mad because you won’t let them join because they hate quilting. That’s what the club is for! If the school played favorites, I could see the outrage (they allow a Christian Club, but the Muslim club can use university facilities, for example) but as long as they are being above-board, isn’t this exactly what a college is supposed to promote?
Seems to me the case should be about what rules the university may apply to groups that want the benefits of university recognition.
If you want a group that excludes atheists knock yourself out. It is however unreasonable to tell the university that they must be cool with your admission policies and have to recognize you and give you their imprimatur regardless of what they think about you.
Every group is like that, though. If I have a stamp-collecting club, I don’t want a bunch of members who don’t like to collect stamps. It defeats the purpose of the group, and the end effect would be to remove religious groups from campus.
If that is the goal of the policy, then at least be up front about it instead of doing this end run by complaining about the rights of the poor oppressed atheists who are discriminated against by not being allowed to join the Christian club.
In the same vein, the campus atheist group shouldn’t have to admit Christians who will talking about turning from sin and accepting Jesus during their meetings.
Right.
Point to me is why the university must abide by whatever criteria you choose for membership. If they wanted to admit only white people is that ok?
In the end I think the university is free to make the rules as they see fit regarding which clubs they give recognition to. That does not mean you cannot form the club. Just means you cannot expect university support for it no matter what.
As an example of this must Bob Jones University give recognition to a GLBT club because they have no right to decide what groups they recognize?
Note I personally would like Bob Jones University to have to recognize a GLBT club but I think at the end of the day it is the university’s right to decide…even when I don’t like it.
I went to a private college that had a policy where all clubs had to be open to all students. It caused precisely zero problems, and we had about every variation of religious organization you could think of. At the end of the day, there just aren’t that many non-stamp collectors banging down the doors wanting to be part of the stamp collecting club. Why would they?
“Why are otherwise good people sometimes needlessly antagonistic?”?
I dunno, but perhaps they cover that in Bible study. 
I recall that at Uni, the Christian clubs were all well cashed up, because Christians were big on the giving money thing. As I recall, a bunch of engineering students proposed joining, swamping the Christians with numbers in a takeover, and then blowing the funds on beer.
I don’t know if they ever pulled it off, or were too pissed and disorganised, but the idea behind this litigation is not new.