If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Vanderbilt robs Christian student groups of their religious freedom to not spread their faith to unbelievers   (foxnews.com) divider line 177
    More: Ironic, student groups, Vanderbilt, Randy Forbes, religious freedom, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Marsha Blackburn, discriminations, Title IX  
•       •       •

2961 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2012 at 11:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-08 11:55:29 AM
Go Dores!
 
2012-05-08 11:55:44 AM
Vanderbilt robs Christian student groups of their religious freedom to not spread their faith to unbelievers

So Vanderbilt took away their freedom to not spread their faith? Which means they forced them to spread their faith?

That headline hurt my brain.
 
2012-05-08 11:56:05 AM

skullkrusher: I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.


Then they have recourse - either don't vote for the white guy or deregister yourself as an affiliated student organization.
 
2012-05-08 11:56:11 AM

CPennypacker: qorkfiend: CPennypacker: Fauxtrage to the extreme. The student groups can still choose their leaders. Don't want an atheist running the jesus club? Don't vote for him when he runs!

But what about the 100 atheists that infiltrate the jesus club for the sole purpose of electing an atheist leader of the jesus club?

If 100 atheists join doesn't it become an atheist club anyway? Why not just make an atheist club?


because that's like starting a club for people who don't collect stamps or a bald is a hairstyle group or so I've been told
 
2012-05-08 11:56:29 AM

Weaver95: actually...that policy STILL does not prevent a member of the Rush Limbaugh fan club from becoming the leader of the college Democrats. In fact, if they don't allow said dittohead to be their leader, they're in violation of that policy.


Which is it, weave? Does the policy REQUIRE the college democrat club to be headed by a member of the Rush Limbaugh fan club? Or just ALLOW it to happen if he is voted in or whatever?
 
2012-05-08 11:57:14 AM
Suck it, christfags.
 
2012-05-08 11:57:20 AM

RexTalionis: skullkrusher: I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.

Then they have recourse - either don't vote for the white guy or deregister yourself as an affiliated student organization.


I thought that's what Vandy Catholic did when this story first broke. They went off campus. Then Vandy pressured them to drop the university's name too. Seems silly to me.
 
2012-05-08 11:57:23 AM

qorkfiend: CPennypacker: Fauxtrage to the extreme. The student groups can still choose their leaders. Don't want an atheist running the jesus club? Don't vote for him when he runs!

But what about the 100 atheists that infiltrate the jesus club for the sole purpose of electing an atheist leader of the jesus club?


We'll just use the precedent set by the long history of all the football players infiltrating the physics club to rename it the 'nerd patrol'.
 
2012-05-08 11:57:24 AM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: qorkfiend: CPennypacker: Fauxtrage to the extreme. The student groups can still choose their leaders. Don't want an atheist running the jesus club? Don't vote for him when he runs!

But what about the 100 atheists that infiltrate the jesus club for the sole purpose of electing an atheist leader of the jesus club?

If 100 atheists join doesn't it become an atheist club anyway? Why not just make an atheist club?

because that's like starting a club for people who don't collect stamps or a bald is a hairstyle group or so I've been told


Aw cmon we both know its not a real club until you start begging for money and raping young boys
 
2012-05-08 11:57:42 AM

Weaver95: would have to


Weaver95: have to


no and no
 
2012-05-08 11:58:29 AM
I thought this was pretty standard boilerplate student group charter stuff. Usually it is tied to accepting funds from the university or using their facilities for free. If you want the money or access for free, you cannot discriminate in membership. Even N.O.W. has men and the GLBT groups have straight people as members.

You cannot discriminate if you want university money. Period. End of story.

The work around of course is to not take university money, but still utilize university facilities that were open to all, and either pay the small fee, or meet at a local church.
 
2012-05-08 11:59:11 AM
Vanderbilt: One of the only things that doesn't suck in Tennessee.
 
2012-05-08 12:00:09 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: thomps: Nabb1: They legally may be able to do it, but it seems like an incredibly silly thing. I note they give a pass to fraternities and sororities, though. If you aren't Catholic, why would you join, much less seek a leadership position in a student Catholic organization?

step 1) join the catholic student organization with a large group of like-minded friends
step 2) collude with your friends to vote members of your group into all of the leadership positions
step 3) use catholic student organization branding to promote atheism for the lolz

So you believe that a campus Pro-choice group should be able to ban all Catholics from joining to prevent such a thing from happening then?

I would imagine they would ban pro-life Catholics.

I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.


Back to believing that private entities should have the legal right to discriminate?
 
2012-05-08 12:00:14 PM

skullkrusher: RexTalionis: skullkrusher: I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.

Then they have recourse - either don't vote for the white guy or deregister yourself as an affiliated student organization.

I thought that's what Vandy Catholic did when this story first broke. They went off campus. Then Vandy pressured them to drop the university's name too. Seems silly to me.


Why would it be silly for Vanderbilt to protect their brand name? Why should Vandy Catholic be allowed to use the Vanderbilt name if they're not part of the university?
 
2012-05-08 12:00:21 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: thomps: Nabb1: They legally may be able to do it, but it seems like an incredibly silly thing. I note they give a pass to fraternities and sororities, though. If you aren't Catholic, why would you join, much less seek a leadership position in a student Catholic organization?

step 1) join the catholic student organization with a large group of like-minded friends
step 2) collude with your friends to vote members of your group into all of the leadership positions
step 3) use catholic student organization branding to promote atheism for the lolz

So you believe that a campus Pro-choice group should be able to ban all Catholics from joining to prevent such a thing from happening then?

I would imagine they would ban pro-life Catholics.

I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.


Actually there are quite a few NAACP chapters whose presidents are white and same thing with the BSU. It is just so freaking amazing how people like you think that black people hate white people so much.
 
2012-05-08 12:00:24 PM

skullkrusher: I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.


under what circumstances would the black student organization elect a white guy that they don't want running their organization to run their organization?
 
2012-05-08 12:00:59 PM
vanderbilt wants to require religious groups to allow people who don't belong to said religion to apply for leadership positions. like, say, catholics should not be prevented from joining the (an) islamic student organization and running for the presidency.

actually, not a bad idea. christians should all join the islamic student organizations, and then vote for one of their own as the president. then the islamic student organization can proclaim that mohammad was a heretic and a sinner, and have a hog roast to celebrate their newfound glory.

in fact, since christians are a majority in the u.s., they should do this at all such college campuses. soon we'll be having hog roasts at hillel and cheeseburgers at divali. this way there won't be any minority groups at all.

i'm thinking vanderbilt didn't think this one out very well.
 
2012-05-08 12:01:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: thomps: Nabb1: They legally may be able to do it, but it seems like an incredibly silly thing. I note they give a pass to fraternities and sororities, though. If you aren't Catholic, why would you join, much less seek a leadership position in a student Catholic organization?

step 1) join the catholic student organization with a large group of like-minded friends
step 2) collude with your friends to vote members of your group into all of the leadership positions
step 3) use catholic student organization branding to promote atheism for the lolz

So you believe that a campus Pro-choice group should be able to ban all Catholics from joining to prevent such a thing from happening then?


what about my post indicates that i have a belief on this issue either way? i was just illustrating a possibility inherent in allowing open membership in private issue-based clubs: outside forces hijacking the issue.
 
2012-05-08 12:03:00 PM
www.aikenstandard.com
Phillip Howell - NAACP Branch President (being sworn in as President)
 
2012-05-08 12:03:16 PM

RexTalionis: Hang on, the whole thing is about whether it's okay for atheists and Hindus and other religious people to join Christian organizations?

You'd think Christians would want to have atheists and Hindus and Jews and Muslims in their groups - a broader group to preach to.


Letting them come to the meetings and having an exchange of views with them is one thing. Letting the non-Christian student invite all his non-Christian friends is good too. Like you said, preaching to more people.
But letting them all vote a non-Christian into leadership of the club, well, that defeats the whole purpose of having a Christian club then, doesn't it?
And it's not just a Christian issue. Christian students would have a free hand to do the same thing to a Hindu/Muslim/Jewish club. Muslim students could all come to a Hillel meeting, vote themselves into leadership, and start talking about freedom for Palestine.
 
2012-05-08 12:03:38 PM

Weaver95: RexTalionis: Weaver95: actually...that policy STILL does not prevent a member of the Rush Limbaugh fan club from becoming the leader of the college Democrats. In fact, if they don't allow said dittohead to be their leader, they're in violation of that policy.

It doesn't facilitate it, either, like you were suggesting.

sure it does. atheists have to put religious nuts into leadership positions....all kinds of crazy there.


The Troll is strong with this one.
 
2012-05-08 12:04:01 PM

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: qorkfiend: CPennypacker: Fauxtrage to the extreme. The student groups can still choose their leaders. Don't want an atheist running the jesus club? Don't vote for him when he runs!

But what about the 100 atheists that infiltrate the jesus club for the sole purpose of electing an atheist leader of the jesus club?

If 100 atheists join doesn't it become an atheist club anyway? Why not just make an atheist club?

because that's like starting a club for people who don't collect stamps or a bald is a hairstyle group or so I've been told

Aw cmon we both know its not a real club until you start begging for money and raping young boys


ooh, I think you just wrote my club's new constitution!
 
2012-05-08 12:04:52 PM

GentDirkly: RexTalionis: Hang on, the whole thing is about whether it's okay for atheists and Hindus and other religious people to join Christian organizations?

You'd think Christians would want to have atheists and Hindus and Jews and Muslims in their groups - a broader group to preach to.

Letting them come to the meetings and having an exchange of views with them is one thing. Letting the non-Christian student invite all his non-Christian friends is good too. Like you said, preaching to more people.
But letting them all vote a non-Christian into leadership of the club, well, that defeats the whole purpose of having a Christian club then, doesn't it?
And it's not just a Christian issue. Christian students would have a free hand to do the same thing to a Hindu/Muslim/Jewish club. Muslim students could all come to a Hillel meeting, vote themselves into leadership, and start talking about freedom for Palestine.


Why would ANY of them do that?
 
2012-05-08 12:05:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: thomps: Nabb1: They legally may be able to do it, but it seems like an incredibly silly thing. I note they give a pass to fraternities and sororities, though. If you aren't Catholic, why would you join, much less seek a leadership position in a student Catholic organization?

step 1) join the catholic student organization with a large group of like-minded friends
step 2) collude with your friends to vote members of your group into all of the leadership positions
step 3) use catholic student organization branding to promote atheism for the lolz

So you believe that a campus Pro-choice group should be able to ban all Catholics from joining to prevent such a thing from happening then?

I would imagine they would ban pro-life Catholics.

I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.

Back to believing that private entities should have the legal right to discriminate?


sure, when that discrimination is necessary for the purpose of the organization. Or do you think Rabbi Saul Berkstein should be eligible for the Bishop's job in the Archdiocese of New York?
 
2012-05-08 12:06:26 PM

RexTalionis: [www.aikenstandard.com image 400x477]
Phillip Howell - NAACP Branch President (being sworn in as President)


oh wow, a rare snapshot of the president before being sworn in but after being crowned with his ceremonial NAACP bluetooth earpiece.
 
2012-05-08 12:07:04 PM

cman: I dunno how to feel about this, lol

On one side, the group has freedom of association. On the other side, the college has a right to enact anti-discriminatory rules.

Sigh


This. So don't be a campus group. Meet on campus, sure, if they allow non-campus groups to use their facilities, but to be an official campus group ... screw them.


Tennessee lawmakers have also jumped into the fray. Last week the legislature passed a "religious freedom" bill that would exempt religious groups from non-discrimination policies at all colleges and universities in Tennessee.

Yay! No more darkies in our organization, so long as we call ourselves a religious organization!

Tennesse: Welcome back to the early 20th century. (Please visit Dollywood.)
 
2012-05-08 12:07:12 PM

CPennypacker: GentDirkly: RexTalionis: Hang on, the whole thing is about whether it's okay for atheists and Hindus and other religious people to join Christian organizations?

You'd think Christians would want to have atheists and Hindus and Jews and Muslims in their groups - a broader group to preach to.

Letting them come to the meetings and having an exchange of views with them is one thing. Letting the non-Christian student invite all his non-Christian friends is good too. Like you said, preaching to more people.
But letting them all vote a non-Christian into leadership of the club, well, that defeats the whole purpose of having a Christian club then, doesn't it?
And it's not just a Christian issue. Christian students would have a free hand to do the same thing to a Hindu/Muslim/Jewish club. Muslim students could all come to a Hillel meeting, vote themselves into leadership, and start talking about freedom for Palestine.

Why would ANY of them do that?


Because they're.. ummm.. college students? And college students do goofy things?
 
2012-05-08 12:07:27 PM

thomps: RexTalionis: [www.aikenstandard.com image 400x477]
Phillip Howell - NAACP Branch President (being sworn in as President)

oh wow, a rare snapshot of the president before being sworn in but after being crowned with his ceremonial NAACP bluetooth earpiece.


He's being sworn in over the phone. He's looking at a Time Person of the Year mirror.
 
2012-05-08 12:08:22 PM

GentDirkly: RexTalionis: Hang on, the whole thing is about whether it's okay for atheists and Hindus and other religious people to join Christian organizations?

You'd think Christians would want to have atheists and Hindus and Jews and Muslims in their groups - a broader group to preach to.

Letting them come to the meetings and having an exchange of views with them is one thing. Letting the non-Christian student invite all his non-Christian friends is good too. Like you said, preaching to more people.
But letting them all vote a non-Christian into leadership of the club, well, that defeats the whole purpose of having a Christian club then, doesn't it?
And it's not just a Christian issue. Christian students would have a free hand to do the same thing to a Hindu/Muslim/Jewish club. Muslim students could all come to a Hillel meeting, vote themselves into leadership, and start talking about freedom for Palestine.



A student organisation can't exclude students from membership or leadership positions. If a club cannot exist in that framework then they shouldn't be funded with student money or given free use of facilities at university expense.
 
2012-05-08 12:08:37 PM

Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.

under what circumstances would the black student organization elect a white guy that they don't want running their organization to run their organization?


so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried, not the tacit "no way it'll happen in any case so let's just wink and nod and let an atheist run for President of our group knowing full well that he won't be elected"?

It's farking stupid. This is not an equity thing. An equity issue would not recognizing a religious group's organization on campus. No one is hurt if a Jew isn't President of the College Methodists or a WASP is chairman of the Vanderbilt Asian organization.
 
2012-05-08 12:09:09 PM

Bevets: mysticcat:

Nashvillian here: The problem with the Vandy policy is that it takes inclusiveness to the point of absurdity. Telling a Christian group that they must allow atheists in the group and must allow them to run for leadership undermines the reason for the groups existence. The same could apply to feminist groups, gay groups, etc.

The real kicker is this, however. The rule does not apply to fraternities or sororities. They can continue to be as exclusive as they want.

cman:

On one side, the group has freedom of association. On the other side, the college has a right to enact anti-discriminatory rules.

Doesnt freedom of association assume freedom to discriminate? Suppose I get 50 of my friends to join a campus group of 20 atheists and I am elected president of the group (50/20 vote). If you were in the group of 20, would you think this is fair?


Hey, if you want to put "President, Atheist Society" on your resume, get out there and make it happen.

The only catch is that there's no way you have that many friends.
 
2012-05-08 12:11:06 PM
I'm going to side with the university on this one. Non-discrimination only means that you can't deny someone membership or give them the chance to pursue leadership. While that potentially means that some trolls could infiltrate an organization or two, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that much success would be had since the only way to guarantee an election rigging would be to be intimately familiar with the group.

Greek organizations are exempt because federal law explicitly gives an exemption to them in Title IX as well as the NIC/NPHC force all member organizations to a policy of non-discrimination.

/Greek alum
 
2012-05-08 12:11:21 PM
It's a private institution. STFU or move off campus. Problem solved.

Yes, in a fantastical possible scenario, a hundred Christians could join some atheist organization, run for leadership positions, and then change the entire path of the organization. I would think they are jerkoffs wasting people's time just to be jerkoffs. Then, I would leave the organization and form a different organization.

As it stands, I don't see why "it's just not fair that icky non-believers get to join and run for leadership positions" is a valid criticism.
 
2012-05-08 12:11:21 PM

skullkrusher: so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried, not the tacit "no way it'll happen in any case so let's just wink and nod and let an atheist run for President of our group knowing full well that he won't be elected"?


Yes, in the same way that making it illegal to not hire people based on race is very different than requiring quotas of certain races. Were the two situations you describe equal, it wouldn't be a problem to disallow any party but the two major ones from even fielding candidates for national elections since we know full well that minor parties won't be elected.
 
2012-05-08 12:13:30 PM

mysticcat: Telling a Christian group that they must allow atheists in the group and must allow them to run for leadership undermines the reason for the groups existence.


Though there's probably some more basic issues if an atheist can WIN such a group's election....
 
2012-05-08 12:14:50 PM

bulldg4life: As it stands, I don't see why "it's just not fair that icky non-believers get to join and run for leadership positions" is a valid criticism.


if the purpose of your organization is to promote a cause, why should you be forced to accept people in to your organization who do not promote that cause? doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of an issue-based organization?
 
2012-05-08 12:16:17 PM

abb3w: mysticcat: Telling a Christian group that they must allow atheists in the group and must allow them to run for leadership undermines the reason for the groups existence.

Though there's probably some more basic issues if an atheist can WIN such a group's election....


again that basic issue could be as simple as a bunch of kids from the atheist club joining the christian group and voting themselves into leadership positions.
 
2012-05-08 12:17:00 PM
I love how the "Small Government" GOPers are arguing for a Big Government solution against Vanderbilt.
 
2012-05-08 12:17:12 PM

skullkrusher: sure, when that discrimination is necessary for the purpose of the organization. Or do you think Rabbi Saul Berkstein should be eligible for the Bishop's job in the Archdiocese of New York?


Well, you have to remember that Vanderbilt is a private institution drafting regulations for organizations that exist as part of itself. So it would be like saying that the Rabbi should be eligible to be the bishop of New York after the Pope said that you can't require someone to be catholic for them to be a priest.

And if the archdiocese didn't like that, they would be perfectly able to split off from the pope and form their own denomination - but they'd no longer be able to hold services at the cathedral free of charge.
 
2012-05-08 12:17:34 PM
In other words, the hypocrites believe that Congress should stay out of the business of private groups and individuals - until those groups and people make decisions which Congress disagrees with.

Congress lifts nary a finger when a private Christian university requires that its students and even employees attend chapel and exemplify Christianity, but is outraged - OUTRAGED when a secular private university limits the ability of its subsidized clubs to discriminate.

Here's an idea - why doesn't Congress mind its own business? If Christians find Vanderbilt's policy to be intolerable, there are plenty of other universities to choose from.

/why would a non-Christian WANT to join a Christian interest group on campus?
 
2012-05-08 12:17:39 PM

thomps: if the purpose of your organization is to promote a cause, why should you be forced to accept people in to your organization who do not promote that cause? doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of an issue-based organization?


Allowing them to join is not the same as being forced to bend to their will...
 
2012-05-08 12:18:15 PM

skullkrusher: Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.

under what circumstances would the black student organization elect a white guy that they don't want running their organization to run their organization?

so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried, not the tacit "no way it'll happen in any case so let's just wink and nod and let an atheist run for President of our group knowing full well that he won't be elected"?

It's farking stupid. This is not an equity thing. An equity issue would not recognizing a religious group's organization on campus. No one is hurt if a Jew isn't President of the College Methodists or a WASP is chairman of the Vanderbilt Asian organization.



As someone who paid a student activity fee, it would bother me if I was banned from using something I paid for. However, as I have no interest in a christian organisation, I never joined the ones available on my campus even though they would have allowed me. As for some other group hijacking an organisation, every org has a mission statement/purpose. They receive student money and free use of campus facilities to further that mission. If an outside group were to get into power they would have to further the same mission or the club would be disbanded and a new group would form. They could repeat it, but then it might become harassment and they might be ejected from the school.
 
2012-05-08 12:18:17 PM

skullkrusher: sure, when that discrimination is necessary for the purpose of the organization. Or do you think Rabbi Saul Berkstein should be eligible for the Bishop's job in the Archdiocese of New York?


If Saul Berkstein has the credentials required (education, ordination, experience, etc. and is willing and capable to perform the duties of the Archbishop (teaching and preaching the catholic faith) then, yes.

Do you have some way to tell what people believe deep in their heart?
 
2012-05-08 12:19:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: sure, when that discrimination is necessary for the purpose of the organization. Or do you think Rabbi Saul Berkstein should be eligible for the Bishop's job in the Archdiocese of New York?

If Saul Berkstein has the credentials required (education, ordination, experience, etc. and is willing and capable to perform the duties of the Archbishop (teaching and preaching the catholic faith) then, yes.

Do you have some way to tell what people believe deep in their heart?


Rabbi Saul isn't a Catholic.
 
2012-05-08 12:20:10 PM
The more "right" your religion gives you an excuse to be an obnoxious jerk is equal to the amount of right I have to bust you in the face for being a religious obnoxious jerk.
 
2012-05-08 12:20:58 PM

fracto73: skullkrusher: Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: I bet the black student organization doesn't want to be run by a white guy too. Ya know why? Cuz that would be farking stupid.

under what circumstances would the black student organization elect a white guy that they don't want running their organization to run their organization?

so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried, not the tacit "no way it'll happen in any case so let's just wink and nod and let an atheist run for President of our group knowing full well that he won't be elected"?

It's farking stupid. This is not an equity thing. An equity issue would not recognizing a religious group's organization on campus. No one is hurt if a Jew isn't President of the College Methodists or a WASP is chairman of the Vanderbilt Asian organization.


As someone who paid a student activity fee, it would bother me if I was banned from using something I paid for. However, as I have no interest in a christian organisation, I never joined the ones available on my campus even though they would have allowed me. As for some other group hijacking an organisation, every org has a mission statement/purpose. They receive student money and free use of campus facilities to further that mission. If an outside group were to get into power they would have to further the same mission or the club would be disbanded and a new group would form. They could repeat it, but then it might become harassment and they might be ejected from the school.


why would that be harassment? Students being involved in changing student groups. A cadre of Catholics talking over the LGBT organization to stop their advocacy for gay marriage, changing the charter. Sorry, can't stop them. Vanderbilt is well within their rights to make such a requirement. I just think the requirement is silly.
 
2012-05-08 12:21:59 PM

thomps: again that basic issue could be as simple as a bunch of kids from the atheist club joining the christian group and voting themselves into leadership positions.


The organization could have organizational laws related to length of time before seeking leadership positions, regulations on organizational activities, and half a dozen other things...right?

Again, yes...40 nitwits could join some group and screw it over. When that happens, I'll be happy to condemn those nitwits and I wouldn't see any problem with original organizational members petitioning the University for special consideration for reorganizing purposes.

However, that random scenario doesn't rise to the level of discriminating against people.
 
2012-05-08 12:21:59 PM

Karac: Well, you have to remember that Vanderbilt is a private institution drafting regulations for organizations that exist as part of itself.


yes

Karac: So it would be like saying that the Rabbi should be eligible to be the bishop of New York after the Pope said that you can't require someone to be catholic for them to be a priest.


right. That would be stupid too
 
2012-05-08 12:22:47 PM

indylaw: /why would a non-Christian WANT to join a Christian interest group on campus?


When I was going to the University of South Carolina the Fellowship of Christian Atheletes had the only ultimate frisbee league on campus, and you had to be a member to get on a team. Plenty of people joined up to be able to play, would go to meeting that dealt with the league, and would rarely (if ever) go to services. Strangely enough, the athiests never tried to take over the FCA.
 
2012-05-08 12:22:52 PM

sprawl15: Yes, in the same way that making it illegal to not hire people based on race is very different than requiring quotas of certain races. Were the two situations you describe equal, it wouldn't be a problem to disallow any party but the two major ones from even fielding candidates for national elections since we know full well that minor parties won't be elected.


or like, excluding people who aren't US citizens from being President. Silly rules like that.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report