@JonEricson I don't see anything in that critique which in any way differentiates religious groups from QUILTBAG groups or the Secular Students Alliance. And the claim at the end of the first paragraph that freedom of religious expression is threatened is clearly ludicrous.
Basically, this looks to me like yet more "special rules for religious people" gumph, and I've yet to be shown any reason to see it differently.
@TRiG It doesn't and neither did the previous policy in which such groups could chose their leadership freely. But the previous policy had the advantage of being sensible and the currently policy has the distinction of only being a bother to small number of religious groups.
@JonEricson Ah. So this is quite simply yet another case of religious groups wanting special laws because they're so special. Move along. Nothing to see here.
That's an interesting idea, fasting from Thursday to Sunday. Of course, in most churches that follow the liturgical calendar, we've been fasting to some degree since Ash Wednesday--but not to the extent I think you're talking about.
Agreed. Tenebrae really helps emphasize the low points of the week, reminding us that the celebrations of Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday are not the whole picture.
Speaking of unintended consequences, the administration's policy has so far only served to decrease the number of plans that offer contraception. Xavier University just announced they will no longer provide contraception coverage to their faculty and staff.
@BruceAlderman Sorry. I was searching for the reference.
"In the CLS v. Martinez decision, the court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups. But SDSU’s policy only denies that right to religious student groups, which ADF says is unlawful discrimination based upon a group’s viewpoint."
I think the policy has been on the books for a while, but was not enforced except against the sorority and the fraternity. Now the university says it will enforce it everywhere.
I still can't find the brief I saw earlier that spelled it out.
"Here, SDSU has stipulated that all student groups may exercise their associational rights, except religious groups. ADX and AGO thus seek parity with other groups in relation to the exercise of associational rights, not a preferential exemption. "
But the University expanded the policy to all groups before the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
@JonEricson I see. So to clarify, it looks to me like the issue is whether the group can set qualifications for its leaders (or its members). The school's policy does not prevent the groups from electing their own leaders, but does prevent the group setting its own qualifications for those leaders.
@BruceAlderman Precisely. In practice, most groups will silently exclude people who don't belong. (I imagine that if you are not a Republican, you won't be elected to an officer position in the Republican club.) But they can't explicitly exclude people.
And of course, a group can do what it wants if it doesn't accept recognition.
@BruceAlderman Well, when I was a member of the UCLA chapter, we made that choice. (The Statement of Faith requirement, oddly, was not an issue at that time.)
I attended a Christian college, and the school itself faced conflicts with taxpayer funding. Most Christian schools have a chapel on campus, and have daily chapel services. At some schools, these services are mandatory; but if the school wants state funding, it can't require chapel attendance.
Which is reasonable, because the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for our religious services.
But many Christian schools have had to weigh the pros and cons of keeping their religious instruction vs getting vital public funding.
@BruceAlderman I can see how this would violate the establishment clause. But these university policies seem to violate the free-exercise clause. To be honest, there's almost no chance that these groups get anything out of being recognized except being able to use the university logo and hold meetings on university property.
I don't see how it violates the free-exercise clause. As far as I can tell, nobody is stopping the group from meeting. Rather, the school is just not providing them a meeting place; the group must find a place on its own.
@BruceAlderman At UCLA, there was a possibility of a small amount of funding for limited and approved purposes. We didn't give up much if anything in the way of hard cash. I'm not sure how to read the SDSU funding policy: sll.sdsu.edu/studentorgs/funding.html
Because Christian student are not "underrepresented in the SDSU population because of educational and social disadvantage", my guess is that funding would be very minor.
Eschewmenical Blog Room
Eschewmenical Blog Room