Vanderbilt Says Christian Club Can’t Require Leaders to be Devout Christians

[Conservative]

Vanderbilt Says Christian Club Can’t Require Leaders to be Devout Christians | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Vanderbilt University has informed a small Christian student organization that it will no longer be recognized as a student group because it requires its members to have a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, according to email correspondence provided to Fox News.

According to email correspondence from the university, the group’s constitution was not approved because the university took issue with a requirement that leaders have a “personal commitment to Jesus Christ.”

“Please change the following statement in your constitution,” a university official wrote to the group.

The original statement read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, personal commitment to Jesus Christ, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”

The university directed the group to change the statement to read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”

This would require that the group allow an atheist to be leader... or a buddhist...etc etc etc. Yes, it's highly unlikely that any of those would get voted into a leadership position, it's the principle of the thing... requiring it be allowed to begin with.

Now, before people start whining, in the same light, it would be wrong for a Buddhist or Atheist or whatever group to be required to allow a devout Christian to be leader.

Again, we all know these are highly unlikely to ever occur. It's the principle of the thing.

 

[Ariux]

Liberals are intolerant bigots, to be sure. But, couldn't this group play the liberal's game, and allow "anyone" to be leader, as long as they swore to uphold the mission of the group (promoting Christianity). A fag or an Atheist would be incapable of upholding the mission of the group. Further, no one should be allowed to become a leader of a Christian group without the consent of the other leaders, who are already Christians, which should be enough to preserve the Christian leadership of the organization. (It would be entertaining, to say the least, to see some Jew school require a Christian student organization to have a faggot Atheist as a leader.)

The GOP needs to work on a bill to cut off federal money from going directly to any school that discriminates against student organizations on the basis of religion.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Liberals are intolerant bigots, to be sure. But, couldn't this group play the liberal's game, and allow "anyone" to be leader, as long as they swore to uphold the mission of the group (promoting Christianity). A fag or an Atheist would be incapable of upholding the mission of the group. Further, no one should be allowed to become a leader of a Christian group without the consent of the other leaders, who are already Christians, which should be enough to preserve the Christian leadership of the organization. (It would be entertaining, to say the least, to see some Jew school require a Christian student organization to have a faggot Atheist as a leader.)

The GOP needs to work on a bill to cut off federal money from going directly to any school that discriminates against student organizations on the basis of religion.

It is not discrimination just because a Christian group wants to uphold Christian principals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This would require that the group allow an atheist to be leader... or a buddhist...etc etc etc. Yes, it's highly unlikely that any of those would get voted into a leadership position, it's the principle of the thing... requiring it be allowed to begin with.

Now, before people start whining, in the same light, it would be wrong for a Buddhist or Atheist or whatever group to be required to allow a devout Christian to be leader.

Again, we all know these are highly unlikely to ever occur. It's the principle of the thing.

What exactly is it you’re objecting to?

Vanderbilt is a private university, not subject to First Amendment restrictions.

And even if one could successfully argue Vanderbilt is subject to the Constitution, as a result of its receipt of Federal funds, for example, the Supreme Court has ruled that state universities’ nondiscrimination policies are Constitutional, that they in no way violate freedom of association, religious expression, or freedom of speech. See: CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ

You may admonish the university as a consequence of its ‘principles,’ but your only other recourse would be to not send your children to Vanderbilt.

 

[Conservative]

This would require that the group allow an atheist to be leader... or a buddhist...etc etc etc. Yes, it's highly unlikely that any of those would get voted into a leadership position, it's the principle of the thing... requiring it be allowed to begin with.

Now, before people start whining, in the same light, it would be wrong for a Buddhist or Atheist or whatever group to be required to allow a devout Christian to be leader.

Again, we all know these are highly unlikely to ever occur. It's the principle of the thing.

What exactly is it you’re objecting to?

Vanderbilt is a private university, not subject to First Amendment restrictions.

And even if one could successfully argue Vanderbilt is subject to the Constitution, as a result of its receipt of Federal funds, for example, the Supreme Court has ruled that state universities’ nondiscrimination policies are Constitutional, that they in no way violate freedom of association, religious expression, or freedom of speech. See: CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ

You may admonish the university as a consequence of its ‘principles,’ but your only other recourse would be to not send your children to Vanderbilt.

why are the principles of the university important enough to up hold, but not the principles of the group in question?