For the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations. Most of these organizations charters did not permit LGBT leadership due to its inconsistencies with their statements of faith. With universities also carrying a "zero tolerance" policy towards discrimination, these groups have been losing registrations across the nation as they are removed. Campus Life, Campus Crusade for Christ, Muslim Student Association, InterVarsity, Brothers of Islam have all been losing their status as student organizations.
To counter this trend, several states passed religious freedom laws which permitted these organizations to maintain thier existance on campus without attempts to change their charters.
Here comes California. The General Assembly passed a law in 2015 which took effect on 1/1/17 that bans any California state school from.participating at another state public school where there is not reciprocal LGBT rights.
Bring forward to today. After months of negotiation Cal and Kansas have announced that the AG of California will not permit them to sign a home/away sports agreement.
Several states now fall in the crosshairs of the California law. California schools will be banned from playing in those states.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18644160/california-golden-bears-cancel-talks-series-kansas-jayhawks-lgbt-law (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18644160/california-golden-bears-cancel-talks-series-kansas-jayhawks-lgbt-law)
*Shrugs*
If that's what California wants good for them. If they can't find any out of state opponents because of it that's their problem.
Quote from: spuwho on February 11, 2017, 02:56:46 PM
For the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations.
What is the source of this statement?
When the first line in piece is an obvious falsehood (or as conservatives like to call them "alternative facts") how can what follows be taken seriously?
Quote from: spuwho on February 11, 2017, 02:56:46 PM
To counter this trend, several states passed religious freedom laws which permitted these organizations to maintain thier existance on campus without attempts to change their charters.
Another untruth. "Religious Freedom" bills are about LGBT discrimination. Period.
Why shouldn't an organization have the right to their own beliefs? Or are you opposed to it because it's on campus?
Quote from: finehoe on February 12, 2017, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: spuwho on February 11, 2017, 02:56:46 PM
For the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations.
What is the source of this statement?
When the first line in piece is an obvious falsehood (or as conservatives like to call them "alternative facts") how can what follows be taken seriously?
Sorry Finehoe, its not some alt-right, conspiracy driven, conservative drivel.
Here is a copy of Vanderbilts response to Intervarsity;
http://vanderbilt.edu/about/nondiscrimination/intervarsity-letter.php (http://vanderbilt.edu/about/nondiscrimination/intervarsity-letter.php)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september/wrong-kind-of-christian-vanderbilt-university.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september/wrong-kind-of-christian-vanderbilt-university.html)
At Cal State Long Beach
http://www.daily49er.com/news/2014/09/22/intervarsity-christian-fellowship-loses-official-csu-status/ (http://www.daily49er.com/news/2014/09/22/intervarsity-christian-fellowship-loses-official-csu-status/)
http:// www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/380541/ (http://%20www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/380541/)
Wright State University
https://www.thefire.org/cases/wright-state-university-christian-group-banned-from-campus/ (https://www.thefire.org/cases/wright-state-university-christian-group-banned-from-campus/)
Slate spoke out on the situation and quoted a court case that came to the SCOTUS.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/11/christian_groups_want_public_colleges_to_subsidize_their_anti_gay_discrimination.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/11/christian_groups_want_public_colleges_to_subsidize_their_anti_gay_discrimination.html)
Enjoy your research!
Quote from: spuwho on February 12, 2017, 02:42:48 PM
Sorry Finehoe, its not some alt-right, conspiracy driven, conservative drivel.
I guess it's just a figment of your imagination then.
Vanderbilt isn't a public university. However
Quotethe nondiscrimination policy does not target religious groups. We have repeatedly said that we want religious organizations to remain and flourish at Vanderbilt, that we encourage all such groups to qualify for RSO status, and we have no intention of excluding non-registered student organizations from our campus. We are pleased that more than two dozen religious organizations have subscribed to the nondiscrimination policy and ...(b)y the same token, we have denied RSO status to at least one non-religious organization that sought to impose non-religious belief-based requirements for leadership positions.
Cal State Long Beach didn't "ban" the religious group.
QuoteInterVarsity will not be banned from campuses, nor will students be discouraged from joining. The group can preach on campus and distribute evangelical literature. Actually, this "catastrophic" threat to religious liberty will mean only one thing for InterVarsity: No longer will the group be permitted to receive benefits (namely, funding) from the public school system.
Wright State
Quoteagreed to grant an exemption to the CBF. The CBF received official recognition soon after.
These quotes all come from your own links. As I said, the idea these organizations were "banned" is an obvious falsehood. What is your motivation in spreading such misinformation?
I guess its a matter of perspective.
I know what I read.
Are you agreeing with California's direction, or just the contextual remarks?
Quote from: spuwho on February 12, 2017, 10:44:27 PM
I know what I read.
Do you? Because you still haven't produced any evidence that backs up your claim that for the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations.
Quote from: spuwho on February 12, 2017, 10:44:27 PM
Are you agreeing with California's direction, or just the contextual remarks?
I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other. California can do what it wants.
Banning them from campus? No.
Banning them from the being recognized as a university affiliated student organization? Yes.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 13, 2017, 09:56:36 AM
Banning them from the being recognized as a university affiliated student organization? Yes.
No bans. Some universities have decided that since
all students pay fees, then student organizations that accept those fees must accept
all students. That's a far cry from methodically banning religious student organizations.
Quote from: finehoe on February 13, 2017, 10:10:53 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 13, 2017, 09:56:36 AM
Banning them from the being recognized as a university affiliated student organization? Yes.
No bans. Some universities have decided that since all students pay fees, then student organizations that accept those fees must accept all students. That's a far cry from methodically banning religious student organizations.
That's what he said, basically.
Quote from: stephendare on February 13, 2017, 10:20:32 AM
not really.
any student organization not open to all students would be similarly treated. Not because they are affiliated with a religious group, but because they are non inclusive. Plenty of inclusive christian groups on campus that did not get non affiliated.
I see your point and agree, but the original statement in the article was about 'religious groups' per se.
Discussing other non-religious groups inclusivity may parallel the topic, but it's not what this article's focus is about.
Quote from: stephendare on February 13, 2017, 10:20:32 AM
not really.
any student organization not open to all students would be similarly treated. Not because they are affiliated with a religious group, but because they are non inclusive. Plenty of inclusive christian groups on campus that did not get non affiliated.
That's exactly how I read Non Redneck Westsider's comment. Any non-inclusive organization can't be officially recognized by the university.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 13, 2017, 10:26:25 AM
...but the original statement in the article was about 'religious groups' per se.
Discussing other non-religious groups inclusivity may parallel the topic, but it's not what this article's focus is about.
No it wasn't. The original article said that California wouldn't let it's college sports teams travel to
states that allow LGBT discrimination (think North Carolina). It didn't say a word about what individual universities do with their student organizations, religious or not.
And in any event, the statement "for the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations" is patently untrue.
Quote from: Adam White on February 13, 2017, 10:37:33 AM
Any non-inclusive organization can't be officially recognized by the university.
And what does that have to do with bans?
Quote from: finehoe on February 13, 2017, 10:40:23 AM
Quote from: Adam White on February 13, 2017, 10:37:33 AM
Any non-inclusive organization can't be officially recognized by the university.
And what does that have to do with bans?
I don't know what you're talking about. I was referring to NRW's comment. He used 'ban' in the sense that there is a prohibition on non-inclusive groups being recognised by the university.
Quote from: Adam White on February 13, 2017, 10:41:45 AM
I don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe you should read the thread from the beginning then.
Quote from: finehoe on February 13, 2017, 10:46:29 AM
Quote from: Adam White on February 13, 2017, 10:41:45 AM
I don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe you should read the thread from the beginning then.
I honestly wonder if you even bother trying to read and understand these comments. You're so busy looking for a fight that you can't recognise when people are FUCKING AGREEING WITH YOU.
Rofl... ;D ::)
Quote from: finehoe on February 13, 2017, 10:38:04 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 13, 2017, 10:26:25 AM
...but the original statement in the article was about 'religious groups' per se.
Discussing other non-religious groups inclusivity may parallel the topic, but it's not what this article's focus is about.
No it wasn't. The original article said that California wouldn't let it's college sports teams travel to states that allow LGBT discrimination (think North Carolina). It didn't say a word about what individual universities do with their student organizations, religious or not.
You're right. Apparently I had already moved on from the gist of the original post to the specifics Spuwho provided in response to your claim:
Quote
And in any event, the statement "for the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations" is patently untrue.
And based on what I've read in those articles, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion unless you're just being persnickety with your interpretation of the word 'ban' and the lack of impact that the lead sentence would have if 'religious' was replaced with 'non-inclusive'. Just because it covers more than religious groups doesn't make the statement any less true.
A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.
Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.
California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez), where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.
What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?
Quote from: stephendare on February 13, 2017, 11:09:08 AM
Of course, Im pretty sure that NRW was also talking about the notion of a religious ban.
Nope. I'm not sure how you extrapolated any of that to mean a ban on religion.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 13, 2017, 11:20:23 AM
A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.
Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.
California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez), where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.
What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?
Excellent recap Tach.
These groups don't reject LGBT's outright. Their statement of faith says that if you want a leadership role in the organization, you must agree with said faith statement. If you claim to be an LGBT, you can still participate, you just can't have a leadership role.
These orgs tried to amend their charters to meet the schools requirements, but the "no tolerance" dictum mandated no exceptions in their charter, it must be open to everyone, including in leadership.
Back to basketball, some state religious freedom laws over ruled the public universities desire to have no exceptions to the campus organization rules. So these organizations continue to exist outside of California. (like Kansas)
That is where the relationship is.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 13, 2017, 11:01:32 AM
Quote
And in any event, the statement "for the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations" is patently untrue.
And based on what I've read in those articles, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion unless you're just being persnickety with your interpretation of the word 'ban' and the lack of impact that the lead sentence would have if 'religious' was replaced with 'non-inclusive'. Just because it covers more than religious groups doesn't make the statement any less true.
I come to that conclusion because of the word "methodically". Spuwho began his post by saying that public universities have been acting
in a systematic way to ban student
religious groups. Neither anything he has posted since, nor anything you have said, presents any evidence that this is actually the case.
Quote from: spuwho on February 13, 2017, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 13, 2017, 11:20:23 AM
A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.
Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.
California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez), where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.
What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?
Excellent recap Tach.
These groups don't reject LGBT's outright. Their statement of faith says that if you want a leadership role in the organization, you must agree with said faith statement. If you claim to be an LGBT, you can still participate, you just can't have a leadership role.
These orgs tried to amend their charters to meet the schools requirements, but the "no tolerance" dictum mandated no exceptions in their charter, it must be open to everyone, including in leadership.
Back to basketball, some state religious freedom laws over ruled the public universities desire to have no exceptions to the campus organization rules. So these organizations continue to exist outside of California. (like Kansas)
That is where the relationship is.
I believe the organizations exist in most states except California. I think most states are like Florida, where the groups can register but aren't eligible for fee funding. California is the one that's been in the news the most for the restrictions on the clubs, but there may be others. There are only a few that have "religious liberty" exemptions like Kansas (I believe you're correct, Kansas' law was against the wishes of the universities themselves), and then North Carolina which has HB2, which is where UC Berkeley's beef with them lies.
I can't conceive of how InterVarsity and company would allow LGBT people to join but insist on not allow them into leadership positions, especially as it hurts their standing on campus. I expect this is some kind of nationwide directive that doesn't take account of the local conditions in California. Seems very short sighted.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 13, 2017, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: spuwho on February 13, 2017, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 13, 2017, 11:20:23 AM
A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.
Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.
California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez), where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.
What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?
Excellent recap Tach.
These groups don't reject LGBT's outright. Their statement of faith says that if you want a leadership role in the organization, you must agree with said faith statement. If you claim to be an LGBT, you can still participate, you just can't have a leadership role.
These orgs tried to amend their charters to meet the schools requirements, but the "no tolerance" dictum mandated no exceptions in their charter, it must be open to everyone, including in leadership.
Back to basketball, some state religious freedom laws over ruled the public universities desire to have no exceptions to the campus organization rules. So these organizations continue to exist outside of California. (like Kansas)
That is where the relationship is.
I believe the organizations exist in most states except California. I think most states are like Florida, where the groups can register but aren't eligible for fee funding. California is the one that's been in the news the most for the restrictions on the clubs, but there may be others. There are only a few that have "religious liberty" exemptions like Kansas (I believe you're correct, Kansas' law was against the wishes of the universities themselves), and then North Carolina which has HB2, which is where UC Berkeley's beef with them lies.
I can't conceive of how InterVarsity and company would allow LGBT people to join but insist on not allow them into leadership positions, especially as it hurts their standing on campus. I expect this is some kind of nationwide directive that doesn't take account of the local conditions in California. Seems very short sighted.
InterVarsity (as an example) have articles of faith by which the organization stands by. Those articles of faith are based what most evangelicals hold as the basis of their beliefs. I am not here to argue for or against the foundations of sin. The God of Abraham is the only one who can judge. 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. If you don't like it or disagree, its pretty simple, don't join!
In the case with the public universities, they wanted InterVarsity and their ilk to remove any and all articles of faith and the lifestyles that are an extension of them. Which over course would have turned the organization into nothing more than the Theosophical Society, where everyone talks about religion, but gains no further understanding of it means to them.
InterVarsity's argument is that public universities are and should be pluralistic in the organizations they allow to function on campus facilities and be able to list themselves as a formal student run organization. If an LGBT student is studying religion, evangelicalism or is just curious , they are free to join InterVarsity and participate and learn all they want. If they lose interest, they can drop out at any time.
I mean, why would an organization whose charter is to promote the exploration of space be run by someone who believes the earth is flat? Clearly the Space group would have something in their charter that says, "hey, if you want to run this student group, you gotta believe in outer space"
Except, the earth isn't flat.
Quote from: spuwho on February 13, 2017, 02:36:19 PM
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.
Quote from: bencrix on February 13, 2017, 02:55:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on February 13, 2017, 03:33:17 PM
Quote from: bencrix on February 13, 2017, 02:55:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 13, 2017, 03:48:16 PM
Quote from: Adam White on February 13, 2017, 03:33:17 PM
Quote from: bencrix on February 13, 2017, 02:55:48 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 13, 2017, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: finehoe on February 13, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: spuwho on February 13, 2017, 02:36:19 PM
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.