Saturday, April 17, 2010

The Fate of Campus Ministry in America

On April 19, The Supreme Court will decide whether campus Christian groups, such as Navigators and InterVarsity, can exist as official groups when in light of the fact that they require certain beliefs and behaviors of their members. This is another choice between liberty and tyranny. The trends recently have been moving in the wrong direction. This is a freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue that should have never even come to the court.

4 comments:

Ken Lewis said...

Gary Cass says:

Christian bashing, the last acceptable form of bigotry in America, is alive and well and growing more intense and hysterical by the day. For decades, desperate secularists and cultural elites have stereotyped and marginalized conservative Christians in an effort to stop their growing influence on American culture. And the defamation of Christians by “progressives” is only getting worse. "

He is right.

This is indeed a freedom of religion and freedom of speech issue but I fear it is a losing issue. The haters simply want Christians to shut up ... before they are led to slaughter.

Sarah said...

If the court disallows campus ministry groups to remain as "official campus groups" based on the fact that they require certain beliefs and behaviors, then corporations and public schools shouldn't have permission to enforce their employee/student codes of conduct. Better yet, the court would punish a group for the enforcement of certain beliefs and behaviors while they utilize certain beliefs and behaviors to persecute another group. This is just as absurd as Dawkins' religious teaching and child abuse rant.

Dr. Polhemus said...

I am honestly confused.

The Manhattan Declaration is very clear that organizations should be allowed to exclude those who do not share the organization's values. Doesn't that apply to Hastings College of Law, which wishes to exercise its freedom of association by excluding groups that exclude gays?

The Christian Legal Society certainly can exclude gays, but why should Hastings have to associate with them? Do you have to be a religious group to have freedom of association? Do you forfeit your freedom of association rights if you receive federal money?

Please help.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

The case has nothing to do with "another choice between liberty and tyranny", but rather how two desirable Constitutional goals that are in conflict can be reconciled: non-discrimination versus freedom of religion.

This is a freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue that should have never even come to the court.

On the contrary, the case is precisely the kind of issue the Supreme Court is poised to decide, since two appeals courts differed on their decision. Why do you think otherwise?