posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by blupblup
I'll put this as simply as I know how. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. You and BH can hold the belief that it's alright to
discriminate against "Christians" all you like. (I put that word in quotations because that's the only religion BH seems to enjoy seeing being
discriminated against) You are wrong, but you can have that belief. But, when you flat out deny that discrimination against someone because of their
gender, sexual orientation or race is somehow different from discrimination because of their religious belief... you are just being blatantly
disingenuous and it is a ridiculous waste of time for anyone to try to argue with such an illogical position.
In this case, there are four Christian student groups placed on "provisional status" by the university, along with nine others (eight of which they
say are "non-religious"), which for whatever reason the identities the university is not releasing.
Four student religious organizations at Vanderbilt University may be in jeopardy following a review by the school’s administration that takes
issue with the groups requiring their leaders share the groups’ core religious beliefs.
The Christian groups in question — Graduate Christian Fellowship, Christian Legal Society, Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Sigma Phi Lamda —
were placed on provisional status in April after the Office of the Dean of Students concluded that the organizations were not in compliance with the
university’s nondiscrimination policy.
The noncompliance issue is the same for the four groups. Each group’s constitution contains a clause which restricts leadership positions to
individuals who share the group’s core religious beliefs.
"Core religious beliefs". Hmm. Why can't a "religious" organization demand their leaders share the "core religious beliefs" of the organization? The
answer is they most definitely should be able to do so. As a matter of fact, the SCOTUS just agreed with that concept in "HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC", regarding the "ministerial exception".
The same holds true for a black student organization being able to exclude a white guy from holding a leadership position. He would not share the
"core beliefs", culture and principles to effectively lead. How many times have we all heard the phrase "It's a black thing"? There is nothing wrong
with that statement and often times it is very accurate. Well, in this case, it's a Christian thing, as far as these organizations are concerned.
Is anyone else just a little curious about the eight "non-religious" organizations accused of having "discriminatory" clauses in their constitutions?
I'd say that would shed a whole lot of light on the situation.
So, to state it more succinctly... Yes. It is.
edit on 2-2-2012 by WTFover because: (no reason given)