Yeah, damned Christia---hey, wait a minute, that's me.

Dean, having Christians around is also a blatant violation of freedom of religion. In oh so many ways, them Christians are clearly guilty of doubleplus ungood spiritcrime...

Though don't worry, in the final version of Newspeak, "spirit" will refer only to such as spiritous liquors, just as "free" will refer only to such as "free from lice."

Those idiots wouldn't recognize my "Campus Crusade for Cthulhu" group either. Discrimination!

Remember, those who worship Him will be eaten first.

Ah, the Christians, we are a problem, are we not? Some of us have different political views from those sanctioned for Christians to uphold.

Unlike some judges, some of us do not define religion as the act of ramming our moral and religious views down others' throat by the strong arm of the state. Maybe they think that because the judges in question cannot hold a particular moral or ethic belief without enshrining it into law? Just a thought.

Of course, there are some out there who would refuse to call me a Christian. Come to think of it, Dr. Samuel Johnson did not think the Calvinists were Christian, but would not deny myself such a label.

Interesting how, when some people talk of Christian views or Christian conservatives or Christian this or that, or are defending Christians generically, they usually have a certain definition of Christian and a certain type of Christian in mind. It may vary a bit what that group includes, but it really is not merely Christians as a group, but a segment of them.

Ah, the Christians, we are a problem, are we not? Some of us have different political views from those sanctioned for Christians to uphold.

Unlike some judges, some of us do not define religion as the act of ramming our moral and religious views down others' throat by the strong arm of the state. Maybe they think that because the judges in question cannot hold a particular moral or ethic belief without enshrining it into law? Just a thought.

Of course, there are some out there who would refuse to call me a Christian. Come to think of it, Dr. Samuel Johnson did not think the Calvinists were Christian, but would not deny myself such a label.

Interesting how, when some people talk of Christian views or Christian conservatives or Christian this or that, or are defending Christians generically, they usually have a certain definition of Christian and a certain type of Christian in mind. It may vary a bit what that group includes, but it really is not merely Christians as a group, but a segment of them.

Weird thing happened, and it posted twice. My error. Still do not know what happened.

Its called libertarian doublespeak.

The article also misses the point in pointing out the "misunderstanding of the nature" of the legality of the situation. The SBA did NOT misunderstand. They had plenty of advice from their faculty advisor (a law professor), the Dean of the Law College, AND the official university council. They knew very well that what they were doing was illegal and discriminatory. They just didn't care. I suspect that they are under the mistaken impression that they are above the law.

We must not allow deviant ideas, political, religious, or sexual, to be expressed. Controversial views might offend someone, or they may encourage individuals to deviate from the prescribed norm of Society. If allow Christians to flaunt their lifestyle in public, then Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Shintoists, Native Americans, Asatruars, and Anti-Communist Atheists such as Objectivists will demand the same right. If we allow Monotheism, then these Christians will demand the right to believe in a Trinity, and then Polytheism will be next. MAYBE, just MAYBE, we'll allow these deviants to practice their weird lifestyle in the privacy of their own homes, though, as Justice Scalia has said, there is no Constitutional right to privacy. These deviants have an agenda to corrupt our children. We dare not legitimize their lifestyle, we must not allow them to marry or to own pets, or else, as Senator Santorum has warned, they will soon be marrying their dogs. We must set a good example for our children and do as the good citizens of Rhea County, Tennessee, wanted to do: ban them altogether. This is not hate or bigotry, for, as you all know, hate speech has been banned. If we don't use bad words like "hate" or "kill" or "God" or "sex", then no bad thoughts (thoughtcrimes) will be thought and no bad things will ever happen. We must make everyone equal, alike, the same. Eliminate all differences, all divergence, all deviance.

Big Brother is doubleplusgood.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that a private university with roots in the Catholic church and the Jesuits is actually trying to discriminate against a Christian group? I realize it's the SBA and not the university itself which is doing the discriminating. But with the president unresponsive to the dispute it's the same as tacit agreement, IMO.

Okay, I'll confess: I've been known to pray to God, in Jesus' name, in the privacy of my own home; in fact, sometimes even while lying in bed in the privacy of my own bedroom!!!

Fortunately I live nowhere near Gonzaga University, so perhaps my activities will not set off their "Early Warning" radar system.

However, since my personal library includes a good roomful of theology books, I expect the fire department to arrive any time, to burn down my house.

Why are so many people/institutions in Spokane being stupid?

It being my home, I find myself increasingly embarassed about some of the crap going on here (like that stupid attack piece on President Bush run last Sunday in our local paper, and the kids suspended from school for bringing 1"-long GI Joe plastic guns to class).

I'll see what I can do.

I mostly think you're building up a bunch of straw men to knock down, Libertarian. A common occurrence when it comes to self-described libertarians and religion.

I also note that I've yet to meet a libertarian who wasn't absolutely dedicated to ramming his personal values down other people's throats, all while claiming to hate others who do just that. ;-)

But what on Earth does any of this have to do with the Georgia Law School? Can't you take out your issues with Christians who disagree with you on which values should be forced down people's throats and which shouldn't in some other place? This is about discrimination, not theological debates. :-)

I am awaiting the same fate as Paul! I feel so bad about the fire department and I imagine some of those firemen are putting out fires in their own homes for saying the same prayers as Paul and I do.

Oh dear me, I will just have to go pray now for all of us. Be silent please.

Sorry, Dean, no straw men here except of your own making. You obviously did not know what I meant by my reference to judges. Some of the ones I referred to were not conservative, but liberal, supposedly. Look at recent cases you have discussed, and you will understand.

What values am I ramming down anyone's throat, Dean? Of course, you do not understand such an attitude, or prefer not to, do you? You are the one that brought up Church and state.

My last point is still standing. I shall state it specifically. Most references to generic Christians, in Christian conservative, Christian values, or in defending Christians, they mean Evangelicals specifically. This is not getting involved in what values to ram down others throats, because the state should not get involved in such disputes. It is not taking theological disputes here. One should use labels that are honest.

I don't know about the other self-labeled libertarians you've met. Yes, this was about discrimination, but you brought up the other issue in the blog, and I had to address it.

If it is a state school, no, they should not be allowed to discriminate by denying them incorporation as a student group. I believe that I am consistent on that point. Georgia State Law School is wrong. Got that? To do otherwise is the state taking sides. However, others were doing just fine on this.

The real division is between statists and individualists, not conservatives and liberals. There are plenty of so-called libertarians who are really only modern in their theology or morality, Bob Packwood, not Harry Browne. However, there is plenty of behavior I do not approve of that I say that the state does not have the authority to outlaw. It seems that you are on the other side of the division.

*sigh* As a Zag graduate, I feel obligated to apologize that (SOME OF) THE FACULTY AT MY UNIVERSITY IS A BUNCH OF DUMBASSES!

(The "some of" is a necessary addenda because of the presence of several anti-idiotarian types. Note that this does not include the president or the head of Campus Ministry... strange how most of these types of problems started after they were hired to 'increase diversity.')

And Nathan? We had two sayings on campus for why Spokane was the way it was... one was "Resting on the laurels of Expo '74." The other was "Spokane is a small city that still wants to be a town." You put the two together and it pretty well sums it up; Spokane tries to work as a small town while failing to plan for the future, and the result is that they ban fireworks and one-inch plastic guns.

(P.S. Not to dis your hometown. It was a great place to go to college, but it is a cultural "island" that gets no major input from any other area (and is used as a test market because of this) and sometimes, it ferments.)

It's not the first time that Christian groups have been viewed with disdain while humanist groups tend to thrive.

On the other hand I don't see how a non-Christian would come to be in the leadership of a Christian group. I don't see why they would even want to be associated with Christians, unless free food was an offering. We all know how free food draws college students like flies to honey.

Honestly is the Christian group worried about spies...people infiltrating their organization and brainwashing them into thinking abortion is good. That is the problem of many Christians today. They think that they have to be exclusionists. Definitely not what Christ intended.

Rick,

The problem is not infiltration, but leadership standards. I want my church's leadership to be Christian. Is that hard to understand?

Yours,
Wince

Wince:

I want my church's leadership to be Christian. Is that hard to understand?

Unfortunately, for some people that evidently is hard to understand. :-)

Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy:
"Gonzaga's treatment of these two Christian groups is outrageous at a university that claims to welcome students of all religious and moral beliefs."

If that's Gonzaga's come-on, I'd like to see which groups are deemed worth funding. (No one needs to enlighten me, BTW; I can guess.)

Paul,

Thanks. You know, I've often enjoyed your comments, but I almost never react to them. Why? Nothing to refute.

Hmm.

Yours,
Wince

Libertarian, your complaint that the definition of "Christian" is difficult can be fairly easily solved.

Paul, check me on this, ok? :)

Roman Catholics have to be baptized into the church, learn/accept the liturgy, etc. Point being it's more procedural than with Protestants.

Protestants have to accept Jesus as their personal savior.

Greek Orthodox I can't say. :)

Are there any other questions?

All foolishness aside, Libs, WTF does your original post have to do with a university severely and unjustly preventing free association on campus? The situation across the country is very simple: anything associated with the word "Christian" is anathema (oh, the irony) to university officials.

Kinda like anyone who tries to start up a conservative group these days, too...

Casey, the original post had to do with the comment on church and state that was made. That is what it had to do with. I had to reply. Others were just doing fine with the other part. I prefer people to be honest about what they mean with the labels they give.

You are referring to when a university denied the college Republicans recognition, were you not? I oppose universities prohibiting a group because they do not like the message of the group in question. It goes completely against the idea of the free market place of ideas. The idea of a university suppressing what it has so declared to be dangerous ideas is contrary to the very notion of an university.

My own view on this issue? Most likely it is the conservative, not the Christian part, that the SBA did not like. I doubt if, had they been espousing a form of Christian political philosophy in keeping with that of Leonard Boff, they would have been suppressed. It really is about stopping dangerous ideas. Steven Malcolm Anderson is right on again, not surprisingly!