Calling Brandon

Calling Brandon

Bob
Bob

March 23rd, 2012, 3:35 pm #1

Brandon, what the hell is going on in Nashville?! I hear that Vanderbilt University has enacted a policy that campus organizations must admit anyone who wishes to join. The policy seems aimed especially at faith-based groups, who are being required to admit anyone, including atheists, who wish to join. And, not only admit them to the group but accept them into leadership positions. For example, the Association of Christian Athletes is then required to admit an atheist into leadership. Here is a link:

http://wpln.org/?p=35268

Due to Title IX, fraternities and sororities are exempted from having to admit the other gender into their group. But otherwise, all other groups have to have this open-admission policy or they cannot operate on campus.

Now, I realize that Vanderbilt is a private institution, but I don't think this policy can be allowed to stand. As students have pointed up, what is the purpose of having a faith-based group if that group is led by someone who denies and denounces all religious beliefs?

I'd like to see black studies or cultural groups react have to admit a KKK member into their ranks. Or, a women's studies group have to admit men into leadership who say things like, "You all need to get back in the kitchen and learn to cook!", and call them "babe" and "broad". How about scientific based groups having to provide leadership roles to people who deny evolution and insist that Creationism is the only viable course of study. I think if people turned this thing against enough groups, and not just those of faith, the University Administration would either have to be more blatant in their anti-faith agenda or throw the whole thing out.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 23rd, 2012, 4:22 pm #2

Haven't heard from Brandon in a while. Maybe he pop in like Jenn has done. But I just recently heard on the radio that atheists are becoming more militant- saying that they are discriminated against in various ways- like they are forced to subsidized other people's religion by paying more taxes because churches pay none. Guess they have a point there.
. . . . .
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 23rd, 2012, 5:01 pm #3

One could say thesame about people who don't have children, yet their taxes go to pay for schools for other people's children. One could say the same about people who don't drive, that there taxes are taken to provide roads for others who drive. Yu could say the same about people who are younger, whose elder relatives have long-since passed, or whose families were never stricken by disabilities . . their taxes go to pay for health care services for elderly and disabled. I think you could say the same about people who distrust the scientific method, yet their tax dollars are taken to fund research that they don't think should be done or that they think has no validity. You could say the same about pacifists that oppose all or most wars, yet their taxes are used to wage wars. I think there are things that each of us have seen our tax monies spent on that we do not use, benefit from or we even oppose, yet the money gets used like that anyway.

As for the "militant atheists", I have said here before that I think it is time for the great majority of Americans who are Christians to rise up and take action, forcefully if necessary, to defend their right to public expressions of their faith and to be respected by others. Many Christians would resist this because they don't feel that use of force is what God would want for them to do. And, we all know that atheists would love to taunt Christians who acted-out by saying, "Some faith you have there . . assaulting people! Your religious is a farce!" But, I think any group can only be pushed so far.

People don't tend to mess with Jews because, as a group, they wield wealth and power and can crush anyone they wish. People don't tend screw with Muslims because, as a group, those people will physically attack you, blow you up and/or put a bounty on your head. Only with peaceful, timid Christians do non-believers feel safe in attacking . . we won't do much more than ask you to stop. Well, I think this pussy-footing needs to stop. Christians need to come togetgher to DEMAND fair treatment or their persecutors will suffer harsh consequences. Forget appealing to fairness . . all some understand is force and pain.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 23rd, 2012, 7:42 pm #4

I guess their point is that religion is constantly being pushed at them- it's on their money- it's in their country's pledge of allegiance, it's on their radios and TVs, it dominates many holidays and so forth.
. . . . .
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 24th, 2012, 9:37 pm #5

Has anyone been forced to believe anything or to pray? No. There are long-standing religious traditions in our country that didn't seem to bother anyone until rather recently. There are many things that bother me about our country, but I must tolerate those things. I'm sure there are religious people who tire of seeing TV with constant sexual jokes and innuendos, but they are simply told "Don't watch." Why isn't everyone being required to utilize tolerance of the beliefs and wishes of others, so long as THEY aren't force to believe or act the same? Why is some people's intolerance the rule now?
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 24th, 2012, 10:22 pm #6

Would you have a problem if our money had "In Muhammad We Trust?" printed on it?
. . . . .
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 25th, 2012, 2:33 pm #7

If I grew up in a predominantly Muslim country, but was not a Muslim myself, would I have a problem if the money had "In Mohammed We Trust" on it? Probably not.

1) I grew up with money having that inscription, so it wouldn't be foreign at all to me, even though I don't subscribe to that faith. I don't usually look at money that closely and would probably forget what was on it, as I do now.

2) If I weren't forced or pressured to adopt the Islamic faith and were free to choose to believe or not as I wished, the fact that I am surrounded by adherents to that faith and their practices would not threaten me -- to each their own.

3) If, as in U.S., the laws of that country were not too closely tied to religious teachings, I would abide by the laws there as I do here (note that there are many things in U.S. that are unethical to do -- not what a Christian should do -- but yet are still legal).

4) Despite exceptions to the contrary, the teachings of most major religions support mostly positive behaviors that are good for societies and good for individuals. Honesty, loyalty, sincerity, industry, self-sacrifice, compassion for and service to others. What is not to like, whether it be my particular faith or that of another?

Not only wouldn't I have a problem in that situation, I wouldn't try to denigrate and deny the predominant faith in this hypothetical country, unlike some in U.S. who have imposed their will on our Christian majority. I call what they do "intolerance".
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 25th, 2012, 3:54 pm #8

Bob, doesn't our Constitution say the government will make no laws establishing a religion? Wasn't it to escape that sort of thing the reason the Pilgrims came to America? But the government does quite clearly promote one religion over others and you say it's OK to discriminate against other religions (or no religion). A lot of hypocrisy here.

. . . . .
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 25th, 2012, 8:12 pm #9

Nat: In what way has our government established an "official religion"? I think a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" does honor some of the wishes of those people. So, allowing "God" to appear on money or other public spaces simply reflects that most Americans believe in God, be they Christians, Jews, Muslims or what have you. That isn't establishing an official religion . . those are different religions. And designating a holiday time in late December doesn't establish an official religion, as Christmas, Hannukah and Kwanzaa are celebrated around that same time, it doesn't signify just one religion (Islamic holidays follow the lunar calendar, so the dates change -- but Muslims are free to schedule time off from work as they wish, and their willingness to work throughout December could be seen as a plus to organizations that must maintain staffing daily).

So, what is so hypocritical about any of this? The Constitution states that there will be no establishment of an official religion, and none has ever been established. Allowing people to follow religious teachings or to abstain from such is not establishing an official religion. It is simply being tolerant of differences and respecting diversity, is it not? Respecting the beliefs of others is part of respecting diversity.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 25th, 2012, 9:32 pm #10

Bob, when you pick the deity of one particular religion you are disparaging the deities of other people who may also be tax paying citizens of the United States. They may be Buddhist who worship Buddha or Hindus who worship Shiva. Why must they be forced to use money that pays homage to a deity they don't believe in? Why should there be mention of any deity on money? Money is secular instrument of commerce and has nothing to do with religion.




. . . . .
Quote
Like
Share