California attempts to export tolerance

[Adam White]

Except, the earth isn't flat.

I think a better analogy would've been something along the lines of a Jewish students' group being required to allow gentiles to join and hold leadership positions.

[Tacachale]

Except, the earth isn't flat.

I think a better analogy would've been something along the lines of a Jewish students' group being required to allow gentiles to join and hold leadership positions.

Yes, that would be a much better analogy. And in almost all states, Jewish student groups have to be open to non-Jews (and everyone) if they want funding. If they didn't, they would probably not expect to receive funding. Intervarsity et al are used to playing by these rules in all those states; California just went the extra step of denying them access to indirect benefits unless they tow the line. The leadership question just seems an odd place for InterVarsity to draw the line to me.

[Adam White]

Except, the earth isn't flat.

I think a better analogy would've been something along the lines of a Jewish students' group being required to allow gentiles to join and hold leadership positions.

Yes, that would be a much better analogy. And in almost all states, Jewish student groups have to be open to non-Jews (and everyone) if they want funding. If they didn't, they would probably not expect to receive funding. Intervarsity et al are used to playing by these rules in all those states; California just went the extra step of denying them access to indirect benefits unless they tow the line. The leadership question just seems an odd place for InterVarsity to draw the line to me.

I prefer a secular approach and think maybe the best way to deal with these sorts of things would be for no public university to fund or even officially recognize any religious organization. On the other hand, religion is a big part of being human for a lot of people - it's a cornerstone of their cultural identity, etc - so maybe recognizing this and allowing the organizations to exist as they are (and receive official recognition and possibly funding) isn't unreasonable, presuming they are not receiving any sort of preferential treatment.

[spuwho]

But many evangelicals base their articles of faith with something that has to represent a lifestyle commitment as well. That lifestyle commitment is merely a reflection of what is happening in ones heart.

Yet 4 out of 5 of them voted for a twice-divorced, thrice-married casino operator know for blatantly lying and ripping people off. Why is it so important to them not to have a gay person in their club, yet they have no problem selecting a person like that to lead them?

And we're supposed to take them seriously about their "lifestyle commitment"?  Please.

I generally have a more laid back attitude about this, finehoe, but I agree. No evangelical who voted for Trump can be automatically taken seriously again.

Everyone is different Finehoe and most definitely not perfect. Many ascribe to excel in their faith. Some do very well at it some dont.

Intervarsity simply want student leaders who are secure in their aspirations of faith and understand what it means to them.

I can understand why you can see the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the general aggregate called "Christianity". I am not blind, I see them too.

When Paul of the Biblical New Testament went to Ephesus to speak, no one could hear him in the marketplace because, the guy was too short.  So he took a basket, flipped it over and stood on it to speak. I think Intervarsity just wants to have a chance to be heard. The choice to listen is up to individual.