School club supports abortion — now it’s gone
July 23, 2009 by Carin FordPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Student Life
When a university decided to oust a club for supporting abortion rights and same-sex marriage, it didn’t expect to face trouble from this unlikely source.
Liberty University may be looking at an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – if the Arlington County Democratic Committee has anything to say about it.
Problems began when the Lynchburg, VA school dropped formal recognition of the College Democrats club last month.
The administration pointed to the club’s support of abortion rights and call for the repeal of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as the basis for its decision. These views – among others – are contrary to the beliefs held by the university.
In response, the county’s Democratic Committee wants the IRS to see if dropping the club violates the private university’s tax-exempt status.
Tax-exempt institutions aren’t allowed to show preference to one political party – and the College Republicans club remains in good standing at the school.
In the meantime, the College Democrats can continue to meet on campus. But they can’t receive school funding or use Liberty University’s name.
Should a college be able to ban a club based on its views about abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Tags: Arlington County Democratic Committee, College Democrats, Internal Revenue Service, Liberty University
Loading ...
June 10th, 2009 at 10:50 am
If a school cannot put its faith into practice then it might as well shut its doors. Yes, a Christian University should be able to ban a club that promotes sinful practices without fear of the federal government penalizing it. And if the federal government does remove the school’s tax exempt status, then the school should continue it’s practice unaltered and with greater zeal.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Liberty University is a private school and should be free to set and enforce its own standards of conduct. Students choose to attend knowing, in advance, the Christian mission of the instiitution.
Liberty should be free to expel these students if they continue to battle the mission and goals of the university. I cannot imagine how embarrassed the parents must be.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
No place that practices discrimination for religious reasons should be considered a university in the modern meaning of the term, that is, the 19th century Humboldtian university spread throughout the world. Yes, these institutions may have the legal right to dictate and enforce their own standards, but banning members of the community based on religious beliefs makes them no different than the most radical extremist Madrasahs (by the way, also considered universities in the old meaning of the term) that profess the end of the non-Muslim world.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
A University is a place of learning and exchange of ideas and should never suppress free-thinking by students. This is similar to Communism and Fascism.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“Liberty” “University” should not only lose tax except status, they should be stripped of their name based on their hypocritical acts. They practice neither Liberty, which includes the Freedom of Expression, nor are they a University – real Universities encourage the Free exchange of Ideas. Perhaps Christian Taliban Indoctrination Center is a better name for this shameful Dark Ages enterprise. It’s heartening to see that some of their students believe in Truth and Freedom.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Using the same logic that some of you apply to this situation, they may as well allow a club that supports pedophiles and axe-murderers. Not everything should be allowed under the name of free-speech. Some things are just wrong and the university should take a stance against it. Abortion is a disgusting practice and those who can’t see this have been indoctrinated by their liberal educators and politicians to think this is a “choice.” Why not just off the troubled children, too? Hey, wouldn’t we be better off without all those drug-addled boys with ADD in our schools? Thankfully, there are few children with Down Syndrome now that we test for this and eliminate such nuisances.
If America becomes this Orwellian society, which is where we are headed, then I’ve had enough. Same-sex marriage is a tougher issue, but abortion is simply murder. It is the most unnatural thing to rip life out of one’s womb. Oh my God… are you all blind?
June 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
To David Broyles: Amen.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Imagine the stink that some people would raise if other universities were forced to teach Christian doctrine. Why is it that liberals are free to express their beliefs anywhere and anyhow, but Christians need to accept it or be labeled as narrow-minded? Liberty is a Christian institution, and the students who attend there are expected to support the tenets of the Christian faith, which includes the sanctity of all life created by God. If the students don’t agree with the University, they are free to practice their beliefs elsewhere.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
This school should lose its tax-exempt status and lose the University status and be dropped to Liberty College. If they don’t have the tax-exempt status any longer and can only be a college, they can practice what they preach even though it is pretty short-sighted and filled with ignorance and hate. I am all for religious freedom, but not at the government and taxpayers expense.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
As it has already been mentioned in these comments, Liberty University is a private college and it is not inconsistent for this school to withdraw support from one of its student organizations if that organization actively opposes the clearly stated mission and aims of the University. The same would be true for any other college or university. My guess is that the real issue here is not whether a school has authority over the nature of its student organizations (which they clearly do have) but that people who are in favor of abortion and legally recognized homosexual marriage find it detestable that a university could exist which has a strong stance against these issues, for religious purposes or otherwise.
While I do not agree with all the positions of Liberty University, I think it is a gross mischaracterization, approaching on libel, to equate this school to the Taliban, fascists, and extremist Madrasahs. In the first place the true Christian faith, as contained in the Bible, has never encouraged terrorism, hatred based on race, sex, or religious belief, or the use of violent means to spread the Good News, aka the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While there are countless examples throughout history of Christianity being twisted to serve the selfish desires and ruthless aspirations of evil men and societies, I doubt you will find Liberty University to be encouraging anything of that sort.
For my part, I commend Liberty University for holding to its aims and mission, especially in a situation in which the leaders of the school undoubtedly knew that their decision would result in the reproach of the academic world. For this college to continue supporting this student organization would be interpreted by all as condoning the organization’s pro-abortion, pro-homosexual stance, and this is entirely contradictory to the school’s position on those issues.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
If the Arlington County Democrats really want to make the claim that to be a Democrat means one must not only support abortion and same-sex marriage but also actively advocate for them, they are free to do so. It is the only way their claim that it is the party that is being discriminated against makes sense, rather than these views which are neither monolithic within their party nor unique to it (if the College Republicans were to begin to use school funds to advocate for the same positions they surely would be censured as well). That a university would opt not to fund a student group which has chosen to undertake programs which are antithetical to its mission does not strike me as particularly controversial. I can’t imagine my own campus opting to fund clubs which, regardless of their mission/identity, actively advocate book burning, white superiority, etc. And rightly so.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Why not ask the babies who were aborted?
June 10th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
If they don’t want dissension then the University should make a point of advertising this fact is BOLD letters when students apply for admission.
If the University won’t let these students exercise their right to free thought then they should offer them a tuition refund and let them have the chance to apply to a more open-minded and diverse university.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Great comments by Barbara, Colin Hobbs, and Robert. While I might not agree with Liberty’s ideas, the school was founded as a Christian school with definite ideas and goals in mind. The students should know this when they come in and the school should be able control the student organizations when they extoll issues which are against the schools principles. And certainly you do not have to be pro abortion and pro gay marriage to be a Democrat.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Every University has the right to judge the compatibility of its identity with organizations that employ its name, resources, etc. Look, any State University would have every right to disallow a university-recognized KKK Club if it valued racial tolerance, and judged the Club’s identity was fundamentally incompatible with the University’s own ethos. And I would say Liberty’s view of abortion is closely analogous to the racist and hateful ideology of the KKK. To say that such a judgment is one step short of pan-Islamic fascism is just irresponsible talk. To take away their tax-exempt status b/c of this decision is frightening precedent as a coercive measure to deconstruct the right to self-determination in constructing their identity as a *private* institution.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I believe upon admission to the University, the students were made aware that it was a “Christian” school they were in, subject to the terms, conditions AND beliefs of the school. Being a lesbian myself, I don’t even feel the kids have a right to complain about the school’s position. There are plenty other schools available that are not labeled “Christian.” It really IS still a “free country” and institutions ARE allowed to set their rules as they see fit, just as are the students who decide to apply there or not. On a personal level, I believe you can still be “Christian” as well as gay, but I would not apply to a “Christian” school out of respect for their ideals and beliefs, even if I may not agree with them.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Is it just me or are you ALL missing the fact that the club has not been disbanded or eliminated?
The University cannot follow its mission statement and purpose of existing if it financially supports or endorses a group that has views diametrically opposed to their own. You can project all sorts of behaviors and attitudes to them, but what they have done is nothing other than to follow their own published mission statement. Why all the hateful name calling has to be added to commentary is beyond me, it does nothing to advance the writer’s point, and in fact, diminishes it. I guess it is a stretch to expect most commenters to understand the tenets that Jesus set forth. Compromising with those who would justify behaviors that are detestable is not ony ill advised, it is un- American, or used to be. (Now I will use a comparison for shock value) How many “liberals” would go along with Adolph Hitler’s ideas as when they were first put forth and not fully disclosed? More than you would like to admit.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
As a private university they should have a right to ban or encourage groups as defined by their beliefs. Students who attend are choosing to do so and should accept any restrictions those beliefs and guidelines imply. This is not a repression of free speech or indoctrination. It is simply a decision to financially support only those groups that adhere to the beliefs the school was founded on. A simple solution would be to remove funding from both political groups. Thus eliminating the discrimination issue.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
A religious school’s tax-exempt status should not depend on some governmental standard of political correctness, but solely on its religious affiliation and mission. Provided that Liberty University (ironic name) and its students forfeit any claim to any form of federal support, it should have the right to set its own standards for liberty of thought and expression, On the other hand, taxpayers should not have to pay for any activities or programs associated with this blatantly partisan and discriminatory institution.
While I am in complete sympathy with its Democratic minority, and wish them luck in their efforts to change evangelical culture, they are free individuals who chose to enroll at this Christian madrasah. Their political liberties remain undiminished, but a private university is not a public square.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Andrew,
That is essentially David Horowitz’ argument. His is also silly.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The practice of one’s belief’s is protected by the constitution. This includes the right of an organization – here a university – to hold to it’s beliefs. Students have a choice to attend there or not. Our society needs to remember that separtation of church and state is only half the amendment – the other half is that the goverment will not abridge the right to practice.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
So many people seem to be missing the point here.
The law is that a tax exempt university can not show preference to one political party. Liberty University provides support, both financial and otherwise, to their College Republicans club. They have ousted their College Democrats. This is clearly showing preference to one political party.
It is 100% their right to not support the college democrats club. That is not the question. The question is should they retain their tax exempt status. Under the existing law, they absolutely should not.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
There’s no problem with this. Liberty is a private, religious university and has a lot of leeway as such. They have not discriminated against a political party but the views espoused by the club, which is funded by the university.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
If the students at this school are required to believe in that school’s pagan superstitions as a pre-requisite of admission, then they must follow the pre-established policy of the school.
However, if the admin of the college notified the club about this requirement after fact, then they are out of line. If the school has requirements needed to follow in order to remain tax-free, then they need to follow the rules that are pre-established just like their students.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
What a deceptive title!! The group isn’t gone! And while some here want to strip the school of the title of University because “real Universities encourage the Free exchange of Ideas”, these people miss the point. The university is choosing which points of view that it will financially support. Not what can be said. These students still have all their freedoms. Just not the bene of doing it with the money of their opponents! Should they retain their tax exempt status? That depends – are there other political parties receiving funds? Do the College Libertarians receive funding? If so, then no. They have not violated their tax exempt status because they would not be showing preference for one party. But because of poor journalism, we don’t know.
Personally, as a Christian, and a conservative, I find it irritating that the college is funding any groups. I will be paying tuition for my kid’s education. Not his recreation.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Derec is right. If Liberty wants to stop supporting the College Dems, then they either have to forfeit their tax exampt status, or likewise stop supporting the College Republicans organization to maintain an apolitical stance. A secular private college that pays taxes could do what Liberty has done, but not a tax-exempt religious school.
If they had banned an organization called “Pro-Choice Students” or “Students Against Homophobia” then they would have a legitimate claim, as those organizations would be obviously against the schools mission, and are not specifically political. However, a group calling themselves “College Dems” IS a political organization, and regardless of what their personal stances are as individuals, the fact remains that one does not NEED to be pro-choice, or pro-gay marriage in order to self-identify as a Democrat. There are plenty of other issues in the Democratic platform that do not specifically infringe on the missions of a religious university. In fact there are even a few that support their mission.
This is an easy case if it goes to court. Liberty will lose. The easiest course of action would be to stop funding the College Republicans as well. Student orgs can easily fund themselves through fundraising activities. I did it for 3 clubs when I was in school.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
This is another perfect example of the liberal left crying about their spilt milk when some one of faith stands up against them. You don’t here them crying whenever the Fairness Docterine gets brought up. There a plenty of public Universities that open their doors to what ever secular thought process one may want to express. Withdraw from Liberty and transfer some where else.
Just a word of caution to all of you who are speaking in support of Liberty University. You may find yourselves being branded as a “Right Wing Extremist” with militant tendencies.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“Is it just me or are you ALL missing the fact that the club has not been disbanded or eliminated?”
In essence, yes, they have been disbanded. They are not allowed to use the universities name, or receive funding from them, and thus they have been essentially reduced to a bunch of people sitting around talking about stuff, which any group of people has a right to do anywhere in this country. The university has disallowed them from being an official entity, while the College Repubs remain one. Both are political organizations, but one is being given sanction to exist while another is not. It clearly violates the law.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The university does have the right to not support any organization that they see as going against their viewpoint. However, the US government has the right to revoke tax exempt status for any organization that refuses to not allow freedom of speech. Simple, get rid of the group, loose tax exempt status.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
First, the existence of a club does not in anyway force Liberty to “teach” the positions held by the club.
Second, liberal universities do have Christian clubs. Those clubs, however, can be required not to discriminate in terms of their memberships.
Third, the issue here is not the idea of a club that advocates abortion rights, but that the University supports one political party, but not another. Of course, this violates the IRS rules on tax-exempt status. You cannot use tax-free money to advocate for a particular party.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
“They have not violated their tax exempt status because they would not be showing preference for one party. But because of poor journalism, we don’t know.”
The article does not suffer from poor journalism (not in the way you describe anyway). You suffer from “not reading the whole thing” syndrome. The article clearly states that the College Republicans group is still an official group, and as such is entitled to funding from the school.
“Personally, as a Christian, and a conservative, I find it irritating that the college is funding any groups. I will be paying tuition for my kid’s education. Not his recreation.”
Student Life programs are part-and-parcel of any college or university. You clearly have never been to either, or you would realize the value they have for students, not only in terms of the sense of community they build, but also the sense of responsibility and initiative they instill in those students who organize them.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Here’s an idea. If you don’t like Liberty University, don’t send your kid/money there.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Choice and Gay Marriage are issues that not only Democrats and Republican disagree on, but Christians as well. It is not an inheirant element of a Christian College to be opposed to these issues. Liberty University is a conservative Christian college, so if it takes up political advocasy, then it can pay taxes like ALL other political groups.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I’m tired of the anti-abortion people. Get over it. It is a medical procedure that is most often performed to save the life of the Mother or because the fetus is in extreme duress. It is usually a situation that it is needed.
Same sex marriage should be fine. It is basic civil rights. The right to collect partners SSN, the right of adoption, the right to particapate in the family medical leave act.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
A university that calls itself Christian models itself upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. Would Jesus ban or exclude people because of their sexual orientation? I think NOT. Would Jesus Christ invite those who are placed on the margins of society to the table? YES, indeed! Christ’s love and practice of inclusion is what we, who call ourselves Christian, should be practicing. Exclusion and refusal to engage with those who see and think differently is anti-Christian.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I believe it’s called freedom of religion!
June 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
If it does not allow free expression, it simply is not a university, They cannot pretend to receive tax-exempt status if they do not respect the First Amendment.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I think most of the ‘postees’ are missing the point. The initial question (Does Liberty have the right to…) is not the right question to ask. The simple answer there is yes, they do. Colelge administrations can do as they see fit. Period. The CORRECT question to ask is , “Is this act a violation of federal code for tax exempt status” and again, the answer is simply yes. Liberty can ban whatever speech they choose to ban, but certainly they do so understanding the reprecussions such as loss of TES and potentially federal aid support (like financial aid dollars). Its not nearly as complicated, or political, as people want to make it.
Now if you want to discuss whether Liberty SHOULD ban speech… well, thats a different discussion.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
The university ousts a Democrats club because they support abortion, but continues to support a Republican club, whose political party affiliation supports war and torture? Christian values, really?
June 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
itsalljustaride:
I actually DID read the whole thing. If the university is supporting MULTIPLE parties, it is not favoring ONE party.
And
If they don’t want to just “sit around”, they can do what MOST Christian groups do in secular universities: get outside funding. Many, if not most college universities will not fund Christian groups.
Lastly –
“Student Life programs are part-and-parcel of any college or university. You clearly have never been to either, or you would realize the value they have for students, not only in terms of the sense of community they build, but also the sense of responsibility and initiative they instill in those students who organize them.”
LOL!!! I am a physicist who works at an Ivy League University. I am well aware of their “value”.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Apparently itsalljustaride doesn’t understand tax exempt status. If you are declaring tax exemption because of a church affiliation, the institution is not allowed to take a side in politics. Therefore, if there is a Republican club supported by the institution, other political clubs must be supported by that same institution. If the university is private and doesn’t support academic freedom, liberty of thought and expression and makes a profit – then it does not qualify for tax exemption either.
As far as the discussion on these important issues goes – I support Liberty College’s right to believe what they want, I used to be on the Board of Directors of the Alameda County Chapter of the ACLU. However, I don’t want any part of the government -whether it’s loans or tax exemption, etc. – to support Liberty. Once they are out of the political arena and open their doors to all points of view, then I support them again.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“Liberty” University should not be able to ban the College Democrats (and continue to recognize the Republican club) if it wishes to retain its tax-exempt status. Period. If they want to discriminate, let them be truly “private” and stop feeding at the public trough.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Joseph, where do you get that they are supporting multiple parties- only the Republicans are still supported. And all the secular schools my husband and I have been affiliated with supported Christian groups.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I always find it interesting that as soon as people don’t agree on a subject they start insulting each other on points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am neither liberal nor conservitive(believe it or not there is something in the middle) and find it interesting that these titles are flung around as insults. They are just points of view.
The article is slightly sensationalist and does take a stand on the side of the democrats which could have been better. The students should follow the ideals set up by the institution they have chosen to attend. Also the University needs to follow the letter of the law. All students should be given this ideological stance up front and in full. The rules for tax status are also not optional. Give all groups equel treatment under these laws as they are set out (this includes not just these 2 groups but all student organizations) or withdraw from tax exempt status.
Every person and group in this counrty is allowed to express thier own views as they see fit. If you choose to participate in a group you must make a personal choice about what you will do as an individual.
Remember matricuation in this institution is optional.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I think a religious school has the right to ban a club that supports views that are known in advance to be determined to be against the mission of the school. I don’t think it is a generally good idea, but I will give them that right.
I am more troubled here by the banning of a poltical club–and retaining the other political party’s club. That seems partisan.
But maybe Liberty U. should allowed to be partisan. If they want to reduce their “Christiianity” to a political action committee of the Republican Party let them do so. There is already evidence that many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are growing weary of partisan Christianity. I think the course Liberty is on will result in fewer and fewer people interested in their program. I was surprised there would be students there with the views on abortion and gay rights that were described. It is good for Liberty to have that debate. Their constiuency is starting to leave the school behind.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Thankfully, there are few children with Down Syndrome now that we test for this and eliminate such nuisances. Huh, Mr. TheFly, how do you think they eliminate those “nuisances?” Abortions, obviously.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I am not saying that they are or are not supporting multiple parties. My original point was, that the article does not say whether or not there are even any other parties on campus – forget about whether they are funded or not. It leads the reader to the conclusion that “ONLY the Republican Party is supported” – which may well be the truth. My point was that this is relevant to the article, but this is not reported.
Two universities that I attended refused to fund Christian clubs – and I have spoken with representatives from Christian groups who have repeatedly run into this. Yes, it is anecdotal. I don’t have numbers – just what I have perceived from my own experience, and from conversations.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
There are two issues here and as usual are getting intermingled. One: Financial support provided to one political group but not the other. This is a legal issue which could be a display of favoritism. Two: The issues the group supports going against the policies of the University. I think, as was mentioned before, if the group was some other group besides a political group, it would be a justified by the University to disband the organization as it goes against their mission or teachings. Both sides have spun explaining the issue to satisfy their claim.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
So if one were to start a political party called the “Demoscratic Party”…and if that party had positions of being pro-communism, pro-murder, pro-Nazi-racist. Would it be proper that Liberty forfeit tax exempt status for deciding not to fund the Young Demoscrat’s Club? Conversely, would not Liberty be pummeled in the press if they decided to fund the club so as to be non-discriminating?
Liberals need to get a grip. “Discrimination” is nat a bad thing, it is often a necessary endevor. A person is discriminating (and rightly so) when they avoid a large butcher knife wielding person with a crazy look on thier face. An organization is discriminating (and rightly so) if they choose not to fund a club whose ideals agree with those of Adolph Hitler. Discrimination, like many endevors in life, depends upon context. There is a fundamental liberal hippocracy that underlies this story…Liberals, with all thier spouting about equality, neutrality, and openness of mind are very often the epitomy of closed minded, head in the sand, ignorance that they supposedly abore.
Just for the record, if the young Democrat’s want to have a SPONSORED (aka, funded) club at Liberty they could simply revise their mission statement so as not to include proactive support for the murder of children and the union of homsexual couples. I am sure Liberty would support a Democratic club with a mission of supporting the plight of single mothers and children from broken homes.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Apparently Emily Montan doesn’t understand quotation marks.
The person I was quoting, and the person whose ideas you rightfully oppose is Joseph. Not me.
I hate sites with no quotation engine. It ends making people think I’m espousing the lousy logic I’m trying to comment on.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Joseph, I think your views on university life, regardless of where or in what capacity you may be related to it (though the fact that you rush to throw out some alleged high status affiliation honestly sets off a BS alarm), are sadly mistaken. Every university I have known has funded Christian groups. My own university has tons of them. Why I have no idea (their missions and memberships overlap to no end, and we aren’t an overly large school either), but most of them are funded. The ones that aren’t are those who have chosen to restrict membership in some way. They still have the right to meet on campus, and use campus buildings and rooms for official events, they just don’t receive funding.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Also, Joseph
“If the university is supporting MULTIPLE parties, it is not favoring ONE party.”
Wrong. This isn’t about how many parties they support. If they discriminate against one, then they have violated tax law. They can’t pick and choose, no matter the numbers. I would think an Ivy League physicist would know better than to advance such an obviously illegitimate position.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
The question is whether Liberty University students should remain eligible for government funded loans and grants. Bob Jones University does not accept government funding of any kind, so it should obviously not be subject to the same rules as universities that accept government funds. If you are going to accept money from the government, you should also accept its rules. I think Liberty should probably lose its eligibility for government funding, if other campuses like it, are also not eligible for government money.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
As a private university, Liberty is perfectly free to have student rules that state that they will not recognize (or fund) student groups that take positions in conflict with the tenets of the university. I’ve seen plenty of cases of student groups being delisted due to conflict with student rules, usually a religious student group at a public university. The Student Democrats at Liberty are still perfectly free to advocate their position. They just cannot do it with university funding or use the university name, meeting facilities, etc. I do not see a tax status issue since the news accounts make it clear that the delisting was due to specific positions, not due to political affiliation. If the Student Democrats at Liberty disassociated themselves from Democratic Party positions in conflict with Liberty University values (pro-life Democrats still exist), then Liberty could be accused of political discrimination.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I wonder what is stopping this school from someday banning a club based on Asian American culture or a women’s group. I don’t agree with Liberty’s choice but feel that people who go to a private college do to a degree have certain expectations about what kind of curriculum and environment they enroll in. However no one likes a hypocrite. How can a school who is asking for the Government to fund them and allow them to have their own personal religious freedom ban a club doing just that. If this school wants to have these powers over their student body they should find another source of funding. I’m paying taxes for everyone to have a right at freedom of speech and assembly even if it isn’t one I’d choose to belong to.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Contrary to their name, Liberty University believes in anything but liberty. Another Christian based organization teaching hate when they should be teaching tolerance and understanding.
Judge and ye shall be judged. (From The Bible, Matthew 7:2)
June 10th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
If there is true separation of church and state, then private, religious institutions should not be supported by the state. This means, therefore, if the college maintains the right to practice and enforce a religious agenda, then it should not have a tax exempt status. In addition the rights of private colleges in the past were always used as a means for discrimination. Doesn’t anybody remember that it used to be private colleges who believed they had a right to refuse students of color, just as private clubs discriminated? It is less a matter of freedom of religion than the danger of permitting private institutions to use that as a means for being above the law.
Moreover, I am shocked that those who are involved in higher education have lost sight of the importance of dialog, the exchange of ideas, freedom of speech, and the importance of inquiry.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“It is a medical procedure that is most often performed to save the life of the Mother or because the fetus is in extreme duress. It is usually a situation that it is needed.”
Willfully ignorant.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
The school is free to set and enforce any policy it likes. However, if it chooses policies which conflict with the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Government in order to receive financial assistance, then it will have to decide if its faith-based policy is more important than the funding it receives.
If it is a matter of faith, then they may well have to forego Federal funding in order to practice what their faith dictates. Any time a faith-based organization accepts tax exemption or other revenue from the U.S. government, it inevitably comes with strings.
They have a choice. Allow the Democratic group to practice their beliefs as they so choose, or stick to their guns and forego the government money.
Whether or not the government should impose those limits, it does.
Sadly, the real question is will Liberty University succumb to the financial pressure to abide by regulatory requirements.
I think the idea attributed to Voltaire of defending to the death a person’s right to speak about something, even when we disagree with them, applies here. Free Speech is a universally accepted right provided in the U.S. constitution. If you wish to effectively muzzle those with whom you disagree, then it seems likely that you will run afoul of the federal authorities.
If it truly is your faith practices that lead you to not tolerate pro-abortion and gay rights speech, then it seems to me you should stand your ground and suffer the consequences, whatever they may be.
If the financial harm to the school and the students is so severe that this is not possible today, I suggest changing school policies to remove over time dependence on Federal funding. Then you can truly practice your faith as you rconscience dictates.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
It is sad that, when religion is involved, no opposing view will ever win a case. Religion is untouchable. It seems as though “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” are only allowed if you have the “correct” opinions.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
It’s Liberty University, for goodness sake. The pro-life movement is always accused of extremism, but these eugenicists are a scary lot.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
That school should follow the Bible strictly. Stone to death those women found not to be virgins on their wedding nights. Do the same to adulterers. Since one must be a virgin before marriage, then all those who have sex outside of marriage must be stoned to death, according to the Bible. Have sex only to procreate. Limit sex, therefore, only to those days where the wife is most fertile. On other days, avoid sex. Stone rapists, as they can rape only those who are not their wives, and sex outside of marriage is not permitted. Protect marriage by prohibiting divorce. Make the marriage vows truthful.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Private universities should be allowed to impose their beliefs on the student body. But they should lose their tax exemption if they try to do so. We as a society do not have to subsidize superstition and bigotry.
As an aside, life does not start at conception. The Bible cannot offer clear guidance on this, since the humans who wrote it up had no knowledge of the biological details of reproduction. The life-starts-at-conception doctrine was simply made up by conservative Christian men. Modern science shows that more than 40% of pregnancies naturally abort after conception (source: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1838163&blobtype=pdf). Should we call God an abortionist for this, or be angry that His design for the genesis of human life inside a mother’s body are so imperfect? I don’t think so. Human life starts when a fetus can survive on its own outside the mother’s body.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
It is thoroughly refreshing to see there are still people willing to support decisions with a religious slant. Thank you, to some of the above respondents. The group is espousing ideas diametrically opposed to Christian doctrine; it IS a private religious institution; discussion of revocation of their tax-exempt status is, I strongly believe, a very deceptive way for the government to silence those of faith. As one said earlier, why is it so wrong for those of faith to put forth their ideas? If we’re living in the “land of the free”, why are the liberals trying to silence what they don’t want to hear???? I am truly sick to death of the idea of political correctness…..if something is morally wrong, we have a duty to stand up and say what we believe. And why is the idea of Christian teaching so abhorrent to some? If you don’t like it, don’t attend.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:03 am
This is not about what a university is free to teach. “Liberty” University can teach anything they want to teach. This is about a level of acceptance for those students with differing political views. We assume that students go to a specific university by choice. This is not always true. And it is possible for a student to realize that, after careful thought, they DISAGREE with a particular point of view. A university should not be a place where we indoctrinate people. It should be a place where we TEACH people – there is a difference. A tax-exempt university should not have the power to support one political party over another, which is what this action is clearly doing. I am surprised that “Liberty” University is not more concerned about what this might do to enrollment or reputation.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Needs verified, but I heard in at least one news story that the Liberty University Democratic club was both against abortion rights and against equal rights for marriage, actually holding the same position as the University. Liberty’s tortured logic was reported to be that even though it was the case that the students actually towed the University line, that having a club for a party whose platform included contradicting positions on those issues was contrary to their educational mission and as such the club had to be closed/certified/unrecognized or whatever it was they did to conclude official university recognition. They also stated, again as I recall, that the club was free to meet, just not as a recognized club. In fact, there are “pro-life” democrats and anti-gay democrats, as the party does not insist on quite the same ideological purity under their tent as does their two-party-state other. Again, these facts may (or may not) need to be corrected in your story, as subsequent news stories may have clarified some issues, or in case my memory is faulty.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Very simply put….this is a private CHRISTIAN university, founded on Christian principles, teaching Christian principles and theory. This is not a public institution. They are not going to embrace/explore/accept a moral issue that is in exact opposition to a central pillar of Christian belief….that killing an unborn child is wrong. There’s really be no room for discussion. Why should a Christian college have to accept something that is morally wrong? Again, if you can’t/won’t accept what they believe, then you should not be attending this TYPE of university. This is just another attack on religion by those that wish it to disappear……
June 11th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Then if the school wants to be able to oust anyone are any club they should not be a Tax-exempt institutions. that we the tax payers in the long run of things are paying for. Like may of todays Tax-exempt institutions be them schools,univeristy or church they use there tax exempt status to push there messages. If you are I want to protest something we have to pay tax on the gas we use to get there be it car or bus or someother means if a permit is need we pay tax on that also and everything else we need we will pay a tax where the Tax-exempt institutions donot have to pay the tax for the samething I have seen this in the city where I live the Tax-exempt using the status to protest and the people who discagree having to pay the taxes
June 11th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Liberty University should not be allowed to suppress discussion and inquiry and remain a federally tax supported university – regardless of its status as a private religious school. If it is allowed to control, rather than inspire, the minds and hearts of its students – then it is not really a univeristy
June 11th, 2009 at 8:09 am
I believe Liberty University, as a private Christian university, has the right to not allow a club use of their name if that club does not uphold their values. I would say it’s true for any private institution. However, I agree with the IRS on this one. I’m personally quite irritated that pastors and other church “workers” get special treatment for doing their “job.” Housing allowances and other perks like congregations sending them on nice vacations, and writing things bought for personal use off on their taxes. I would love to be able to write off my new furniture on my taxes just because I am a preacher. You can say that their doing the “work of the Lord” and He’s blessing them. I say their getting their reward on earth.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:24 am
The other side of the coin – it seems that denying funding is not a burden. At least according to the court.
http://www.higheredmorning.com/student-group-wants-funding-but-bans-homosexuals
June 11th, 2009 at 8:26 am
People pay a premium price to attend a private college and they do so for a reason. More power to the school for standing firm on its beliefs. If the situation becomes a problem…ban both political clubs and continue to try to provide a Christian environment for learning (which becomes more of a challenge every day). Maintaining Christian values in today’s society is certainly a challenge–and it is especially difficult when dealing with such “enlightened” opponents.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:28 am
If I wanted to have a KKK rally at Howard University or a birthday party celebratiion for Hitler at Yeshiva University it would not be allowed, and it should not be allowed. I teach at a Catholic Univeristy and there is certain things we should not allow either. We are different for a reason and that reason is the mission of the University. I though that liberals and Democrats support differences? There are thousands of Universites in America, let the students find one that fits them better. And does the Democratic Party in Virgina and IRS have anything more important to worry about??
June 11th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Kim, Liberty is, of course, free to teach any doctrine it wants, and keep its tax-exempt status in the process. The problem comes when they start throwing down explicit political lines and making policies that obviously support one political party (not ideology, party) over another. They’re still free to do this, they just can’t be considered a tax-exempt institution anymore. This isn’t about nasty liberals trying to cram our godless ideology down your throat, nor is it about “silencing” people of faith. The only people who have done any silencing here are Liberty U.
“I am truly sick to death of the idea of political correctness…..if something is morally wrong, we have a duty to stand up and say what we believe. ”
This isn’t about political correctness Kim. Nor is anyone here being forcibly stopped from saying what they believe, and certainly not Liberty U. They’re the ones who are singling out a club for their beliefs. Do not THEY also have a right to stand up for what they think is wrong?
Like I said before, if this club was called “Students Against Homophobia” or “Pro-Choice Student Union” then they probably could deny them funding without being politically biased. That wasn’t the case here, however. The club was a clearly politically affiliated one, and denial of funds to it is a clear violation of tax law.
This isn’t about forcing Liberty to teach or endorse a position. It doesn’t even need to be that complicated. People are bringing in all sorts of issues that don’t even matter here. This is about what is essentially a taxpayer supported business that has decided to instate a political litmus test for its students.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:05 am
There are some real dolts writing comments who don’t even know what the issues are. If an institution receives taxpayer dollars in the form of federal support or state support, that institution has to abide by the laws of the nation or state. Liberty U has the right to discriminate against whoever it wants to and to support whatever political party it wants to, but it has to relinquish its claim on taxpayer dollars. Think it through, dolts! Would you want your tax dollars going to a school run by a religion other than yours that teaches that your religion is wrong or that support students who hold your beliefs (religious or political). It’s a matter of fairness, pure and simple. So, get off your high horse. If you want to discriminate, you can’t use my tax dollars to do it with. Go completely private, relinquish your tax exempt status, and keep everybody out who doesn’t think/believe/look/dress/smell the same way you do.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Of course a private university should be allowed to determine what organizations it will recognize and support. I know this may be hard for stupid secularist simpletons to understand, but there are actually legitimate intellectual, public policy, and moral reasons for opposing abortion and deviant sexual behaviors such as homosexuality. If you are a liberal Democrat or supporter of “abortion rights” and homosexual behavior who desires to go to college, don’t go to a conservative Christian university!
June 11th, 2009 at 9:18 am
It seems to me that this group had members and that they were already part of the student body. Perhaps including them in the campus dialog would be far healthier then hiding their head in the sand and refusing to listen to them. When any organization ignores it’s various internal and external constituencies it soon finds itself mal-adapted to its environment, and facing extinction.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:18 am
As a parent I stand with Liberty not so much as they are private but because they are honoring the WORD OF GOD. Life starts a conception and no two men, or two women can ever produce life. They are standing on opinion they are standing on the Word. Just because we want to call evil good don’t change the word.
My son choose Liberty because of it’s faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and why would you atten a Christian College and know that they have never believed in these practices?
Man can take away tax rights but it will never take away the WORD of GOD.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I hope at least some of you are in the field of higher education and not just random people posting on here. Reasonable is right that if you receive taxpayer funds then you have to follow some of the rules and guidelines that come with the money. If you do not then yes you should be able to expel any club you do not want from your institution.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:25 am
If they wish to dictate to the students what they can do as a group, then the school should no longer receive and federal or state funding. I’m certain many of their students are using federal grants and other federally subsidised financial aid. If they could not offer financial assistance, I wonder how long it would take for this so called institution of higher learning, and I use that term loosely, could keep its doors open and have as many students. This is certainly discrimination at its worst, christian leaders choosing to act in a non-christian way, oops did I say non-christian? I meant to say, suposed educators who bring their religious beliefs into an arena where their religious beliefs are stiffling the complete and unadulterated education of the young adults who have been placed there by their family to recive an education. It is too bad if some of the students families sent their chilren to this school to keep them from ideas that may go against their own religious and/or political ideology. Let’s face it, we live in an unperfect world where relgious ideology can stiffle the minds of impressionalbe folks.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:31 am
So if non-profit organizations are not allowed to favor one political party over another then I suppose all of you who support the loss of non-profit status for Liberty U. would also support the same for UNC-Wilmington College when they ousted the College Republicans in November of 2003.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:46 am
To Collin Hobbs:
If you don’t think the Christian faith “has never encouraged terrorism, hatred based on race, sex, or religious belief, or the use of violent means to spread the Good News, aka the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Then you clearly have never read a world history book. What were the Crusades, the Inquisition and the spread of small pox by priests to Native Americans if not acts of terror? You think 9/11 was bad? Its nothing when compared to the horrors committed in the name of christianity
June 11th, 2009 at 9:55 am
A Christian university whose beliefs are clearly spelled out should have the right to decide how it, the univeristy, will be represented to the public. Modern society is incredibly threatened by openly professing Christians. There is no argument. Why attend a Christian university if you do not follow Christian beliefs? I praise God that the administrators didn’t compromise their faith in Jesus Christ to appease those in society who reject Him. 2 Timothy 3:12 “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Jesus Christ will be persecuted.” Liberty University, thank you for standing firm. Praise God!
June 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Liberty U. prides itself as being a Christian School and “Right To Life”, and Molly O apparently feels the same when she calls pro Choice people Eugenicists (sic). How do they feel about domestic terrorists killing another doctor in this country? Do they support it? Do they, like RTL leaders, call it justifiably homicide? I haven’t heard any pro life people speaking out against this terrorism. They lose at the ballot box so they resort to violence. Pro Life indeed. Christian indeed.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Liberty U should lose any federal monies it receives and these students should vote with their feet! Why would they even want to be at such a joke of a university?
June 11th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Why not vote with your feet, Liberty University students, and transfer to a REAL university?
June 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Bert, Cindy, Megan, you all miss the point. A group called “College Democrats” need not take the same stance as the larger political organization anyway. You can be a Democrat and not support abortion, or any other issue of your choice. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. There are plenty of other platforms in the Democratic party that do not trample on Liberty’s values, and indeed some that uphold them. Liberty’s denial of funding for the student group is a purely partisan act, and as such runs afoul of tax-exemption law. They’re free to discriminate politically, just not with financial help from the federal govt.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Liberty U did the right thing. I AM A DEMOCRAT who don’t support same sex marriage (CIVIL UNIONS ARE GOOD).
I do stand by Abortion rights in some cases (I DISPISE LATE TERM ABORTION. MONSTERS DO THAT).
Those two issues are too touchy for a club at a university to go around and waving flags about.
I DISPISE EXTREME VIEWS. If Republicans go around waving flags about some of their EXTREME views I would feel the same about them.
I DISPISE EXTREME VIEWS.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Ken says:
“So if non-profit organizations are not allowed to favor one political party over another then I suppose all of you who support the loss of non-profit status for Liberty U. would also support the same for UNC-Wilmington College when they ousted the College Republicans in November of 2003.”
Actually Ken I don’t. The Wilmington College Republicans were denied because they refused to include a non-discrimination clause in their charter. Nearly all campuses require these kinds of agreements, because all students pay dues to the student org fund, all must have a chance to join any clubs. That doesn’t mean you can’t kick students out who are being disruptive, but they all have to have a chance. Our own campus has a College Republicans chapter that has this very same kind of clause, and they have never had any problems. In fact, the College Dem and College Rep groups on our campus are relatively cordial with one another. They disagree politically of course, but that doesn’t stop them from talking to each other respectfully.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Absolutely the college has the right to ban what ever they want! Especially a group of youngsters who “get rid” of unwanted pregnancies ~ don’t have sex kids and you won’t have to make that decision! This is a big issue. Same sex marriges and abortion. They aren’t being banned because they forgot to throw out the trash! They are getting banned because of a salvation issue! Think about it people. Let’s stand up for what the real judge stands for. You want to go to Heaven or hell?
June 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Christian institutions have been censoring ideas and punishing people for thier belefs or willingness to think for many centuries. It has been an embarrassment to them many times. It is also a religion that divides into new sects constantly because Christians are always sure that they know THE TRUTH. Certain knowledge of the truth is not a good basis for higher education. Some Christian sects reject higher education for this specific reason: they know all they need to know. But higher education is about examining all things without bias. Who is without bias? Absolutely nobody. This is why a university should be a place for free exchange of ideas. If it is not, then it is not fulfilling its primary mission.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I think the college should lose their tax-exempt status because no matter how you look at this it’s discrimination. In any institution they should embrace free thinking and free speech. You have to
be willing to listen and respect others viewpoints. Universities taking actions like this are just
breeding grounds for zealots who later shoot up museums or abortion clinics because they disagree
with someone. Share the wisdom and love of God with everyone and he will guide their decisions.
I have a relationship with God and I think a person should only have a abortion in the case of rape
or if the mothers health is threatened. But its even worst to have a mother who has an abortion
turns from God because of idiots and the later births a child.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The state rights are for everyone including non believers. If the state is giving money to a private institution, then the private institution should follow the non discrimination law. Otherwise, the private institution receiving the money should return it to the government.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
ABSOLUTELY they should be able to – it’s a private University – and they aren’t doing because it’s the democratic club, but because of foundational moral issues that I’m sure are part if its tenants of faith.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The univeristy is upholding a moral standard of conduct and ideas. The university is not taking away the right of individuals to live with a particular person or to obtain an abortion. I say let the students transfer to a different school.
This comment is for “Ben” in a previous post: 1.) Planned parenthood statistics show that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or the mother’s health. Most children are killed for convenience. 2.) ask yourself “what is the ratio of graduates from this type of university to the number of people who shoot up museums and clinics”. With some research you will find that there is no correlation between attending a Christian university and committing a heinous crime.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
mark savvy
“Those two issues are too touchy for a club at a university to go around and waving flags about.”
I completely disagree. If we can’t be mature and have those discussions at a university, where free and open discussions are supposed to be the norm, then where can we have them? And nowhere was it said that these groups were merely “waving flags” about. The only people I have ever seen being that crass about their views are the anti-abortion people who come to our campus and have their children hand out fliers with pictures of dead fetuses on them.
I don’t think most of the people commenting here have even been on a university campus in decades. If ever.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
itsalljustaride’s position is from ignorance and he or she does not seem to understand the concept of “discrimination”.
For the last time: discrimination depends on context. I am sure itsalljustaride would have no problems denying funding for the “Euthanize All Races but the Arian Race Democrats Club”…EAR-ARDC for short. This would not be a bad use of “discrimination”, but a right and necessary discrimination between what is, in this case, a horrendously bad idea.
All ideas are not equal…the monsters who believe it is ok to murder a viable human being should not be turned loose to propagate their ideas and agenda. …those who are willfully ignorant and who enable monsters to propagate their ideas are participants in that evil. (Mind you, I did not say to murder them.)
For the atheists/agnostics who insist that the ideas/principles of Christianity are debunked because broken, greedy, sinful people do not live up to those ideals: as a practicing Christian, I am horrified that the murder of a doctor who performs abortions could be done in “the name of God”. Christ Himself did not cast the first stone when confronted with the sin of an “unbeliever”. I am not God, so I do not know the heart of Scott Roeder (who murdered Dr. Tiller) to judge whether or not he is a “Christian”. I can state with confidence (and I am confident an overwhelming majority of self proclaimed Christians would agree with me) that his act of murder is not consistent with the principles of Christ-like living I interpret from the Bible.
…while we are on the subject, since irreligious people seem intent on making Christian “X” apologize for and defend their own beliefs because of “Christian” “Y’s” behavior, would an atheist or agnostic please step to the plate and apologize profusely for every amoral act (there are plenty to go around) ever committed by those who claim no religious affiliation?
Here are 2 generalizations I find to be true 99% of the time:
1. Atheists take their base position (Atheism) with a higher dependence on faith than most of the “religious ignorant” they despise.
2. Agnostics are generally liberal thinkers who have just enough smarts and “knowledge” to get themselves into loads of trouble…just like the Chemistry (graduates and undergraduates) students I teach who routinely do worse than the monkey on multiple choice tests because they “know” just enough to select all the wrong answers.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I feel it is time for people to get away from this notion that Christians are this weak group and they are being persecuted. The problem is they are such a huge majority in this country they are threatened by the ideas of those in the minority. This entire notion that they must be sent into the world to rid liberal arts colleges of their liberal agendas, that they should create their own network to rid themselves of liberal media, and that they should deny racism, sexism, and all the other isms so they cannot feel liberal guilty. These are all made up concepts in order to keep their influence. If you are always ‘fighting’ something then you have a cause. If they did not have a cause well there would be nothing for them to do…I mean going to church and learning about the teachings of Christ are not enough they have to make others believe, they have to endoctrinate the rest of the world, and lead these bogus crusades against straw men opponents. The simple fact is these institutions are backed into a corner because they have created their own catch 22. They have chosen to mix church and state so much that they get so mixed up in politics. No one would care that churches oppose same sex marriage except for the fact they receive federal money which would be taken away if they refused to perform a gay marriage. This university would have the right to strip this club of their title except for the fact tax payers of all faiths pay some of the bills at that college. This is nothing more than another ’cause’ that we have to hear about for them to feel beat up on. Yes, higher education is more left leaning in nature (outside of Pat Robertsons school and Jerry Falwell and other conservative institutions) because of the exchange of ideas. You have to be willing to question not only your fellow human being but the universe. You have to expand your mind to take new positions, find your beliefs and your identity, and grow as a person to be more enlightened. Of course it lends itself to a more liberal idealogy for the simple fact that idealogy is based on expansion of ideas and the evolution of thought. If everything stayed the same we would not have any of our modern advances in all fields of study. The simple fact is Jesus was a change agent he changed the politics of an empire and his message is still being told today. Jesus also allowed those of different perspectives to eat with him, he engaged in dialogue with his enemies, and he would never take the coward position of ‘If I pretend it does not exist it does not’. This fight is not about Jesus it is about ego and how people have such small minds. Engage in a discussion about this topic do not just say ‘it is against christian teachings’ to have a democratic club…I do not think democrats were mentioned in the bible. Have a different view point for once and see that it is not so bad. We have to listen to conservative droll all the time how about listen to a liberal from time to time. You may learn we are not blood thristy baby killers who sodomize your sons and try to convert your poor daughters into voters of a black man for President. I guess my point just have a talk with someone and stop being so defensive about everything. A little chat never hurt any of us.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I knew girls who were members of the “Pro Life Club” at my Catholic college. When two of them were faced with unwanted pregnancies, they chose to end these pregnancies in abortion. The point is, people often shove their own religious beliefs down the throats of others, only to commit the same behavior they are so against when the problem faces them.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hippocracy,
Like many others here you seem intent on making this about much more than it actually is.
The simple facts are:
1.) This university accepts state and federal funding not only in terms of student-aid, but also as a tax-exempt institution.
2.) Because of that they are subject to tax laws stipulating that they do not officially endorse any political party as an institution (the individuals are free to do as they wish).
3.) This institution denied a group, which was politically affiliated, access to the school’s student funds, and yet kept the opposing political group in good standing.
It’s a clear case of violation of the lax laws. It isn’t about which moral viewpoint they hold. It isn’t about which issues they’re talking about or what side they are on in those issues. This was a blatantly partisan decision, and the school will have to deal with it somehow, whether that means they make all politically affiliated groups on campus ineligible for funding, reinstate the Campus Dems, or relinquish their tax exempt status. If they want the ability to pick sides in politics, then they can’t be tax-exempt. That’s why we always hear about one or two churches who get hammered for endorsing political parties during election season.
Again, you can be a Democrat and not like abortion or gay marriage. There are plenty of Democrats who hold neither of those views. To deny the groups funds based on a purely political basis is not what a university of any size shape or form is about, be they secular or religious.
Your defense of discrimination as a necessity has no bearing here. Obviously all people discriminate in one way or another on a daily basis. That’s a semantics argument, and is not relevant to the discussion here.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“2. Agnostics are generally liberal thinkers who have just enough smarts and “knowledge” to get themselves into loads of trouble…just like the Chemistry (graduates and undergraduates) students I teach who routinely do worse than the monkey on multiple choice tests because they “know” just enough to select all the wrong answers.”
Or maybe you’re just a terrible professor.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Here some of my perspectives:
Free exchange of ideas – I have an idea that the right to association is a constitutional right. Accreditation, and Tax-Exempt status should not be based on whether or not one club or another is allowed or disallowed. I would suspect that Liberty does not tell it’s faculty/staff or students how they must vote. The club was ousted not because of the political party they support, but because they chose to promote ideals counter to the very reason Liberty U. exist.
Non-discrimination – That’s a funny term because it seems to only apply to certain protected groups, much like the term “tolerance”. The ACLU is a group that always lands on the side of liberal Democrats, but since there is no legal way to apply such a label, I doubt they would ever be in jeopardy of losing their non-profit status.
Tax Payer Money – The University only receives money from Federal and State grants because the students themselves apply for this money. At Liberty U. the vast majority of these students come from families that actually pay their taxes, but I think Democrat politicians like to think of taxpayer money as the “Governments” money. These politicians are less concerned that a student have the freedom to choose their own educational institution, and are more concerned that they be educated in a place that promotes their own agendas and ideologies. It is one thing for a University to implement censorship to express a long-held religious ideology, it is something altogether different for a government to violate their own constitution and censor through financial intimidation.
Separation of Church and State – Sounds good doesn’t it, but this frequently used phrase doesn’t really appear in the Constitution. It refers of course to the 1st amendment, but the words are twisted just enough make people think that nothing religious should ever touch anything connected to government and vice versa. This was far from the intent of the framers. Read for yourself: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
An individuals ideas are shaded by their background, experience, convictions, and most of all by their desires. That is why most people shrinks at the thought of a child being abused, but fewer and fewer take any thought of a child being aborted. This is why a stance against homosexuality is considered by many a “hate crime”, yet most would still appose the advancement of NAMBLA. It’s no longer about what is right and wrong, it’s getting to fulfill your desires and not being made to feel guilty about it. We think that our laws against murder have nothing to do with Christianity, and yet there are numerous non-Christian societies in other countries that do not have laws against murder in the same manner that we have. In the U.S. our laws on murder come directly from the 10 commandments. It really is all about perspective.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
As far as I am concerned this is a freedom of speech issue. It doesn’t matter if anyone disagrees with what this club is advocating, as long as it isn’t illegal, they still have the right to say it. Also, I believe, the University’s 501 (c) 3 status prohibits them from interfering with the activities of this group.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Despite what Liberty believes it must operate under the laws of this country which means that in order to receive it’s tax break, it cannot discriminate against the college dems. By the way, I’m a Christian and I believe in a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage. Please do not assume that all Christians have the same beliefs. Liberty is practicing it’s right wing form of Christianity.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Read the article everyone. Liberty is still allowing the group to meet on their campus but just stopped funding them. They haven’t banned them but stopped paying for their activities which they see being in conflict with the mission of the university.
This is not political, it’s moral. The University doesn’t have to pay for activities not aligned with its beliefs or mission. This is not endorsing a political party but refusing to sponsor one.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution about a separation of church and state. That was mentioned in private letter by Thomas Jefferson. The First Amendment says the US will not establish an official state sponsored church nor not allow the free practice of religions by others.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Ken, Derec, all you have to do is read this Fox News article:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/22/conservative-university-founded-jerry-falwell-bans-college-democrats-club/
The club is not technically allowed to meet on campus. It is not allowed to exist and has been banned. The students have not been expelled or “prevented from interacting”, but they are essentially disbanded as an organization on campus.
Take special note of the very last paragraph, wherein it says that BYU dissolved both political clubs to remain neutral.
With regard to separation of church and state, you fail to realize that the constitution is not the only word on the subject. 2 centuries of legal precedent have also upheld the policy that the church and the state are to remain separate. Legal precedent carries a great deal of weight in these matters. Judges and lawyers cannot just ignore it.
Derec: “This is not endorsing a political party but refusing to sponsor one.”
That’s quite possibly the worst example of doublespeak and misdirection I’ve ever seen. You can’t refuse to sponsor one group without thereby endorsing the other that you have not refused. When Liberty banned the College Dems, their decision had the effect of saying “we’re going to decide which political groups we support, and which ones we do not”. Note, they’re deciding based purely on a political affiliation, NOT on the personal beliefs of the individuals involved.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Then there’s this, straight from the horses mouth:
http://www.lucd.org/statement.pdf
“When LUCD chartered with the school, Liberty University officials asked us to insert two clauses into
our Constitution; we stated that we are a pro‐life organization, and we also stated that we supported
the traditional view of marriage. Being considerate of Liberty University’s mission, we complied. We
even started a Faith Caucus at the state level through the Virginia Young Democrats to promote faith
based issues and solutions to those issues.”
“LUCD has never received any funds from the University; to our knowledge the University has never
provided funding to any student organizations. Any monetary resources that we have used have
come from membership dues and donors.”
June 11th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Itsall,
Thanks for the links, good reading.
I agree that Liberty can do what they want but as John Whitehead said, curbing the marketplace of ideas isn’t necessarily healthy. I think it’s a disservice to not allow people to be exposed to alternate view points since they DO exist. I’m not a fan of Liberty either but you can’t force people to hear other viewpoints.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Derec,
No prob. You certainly can’t force people to hear, or listen, but you can make sure that everyone has an equal CHANCE to be heard. If, in this case, it means that all politically based groups have to be disbanded, then so be it. From the Fox article it seems as though the real impetus for Liberty nullifying the club was the protesting of the parents, who should be letting their children learn to be the adults that they are, and make their own choices. You’d think having them go to Liberty would make that an easier thing to do.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:21 am
We all need to be careful to represent the truth. The school did not ban the club nor did they try to censor them. Liberty is allowing the club to take a stand on the issues as the club sees fit. They are allowing the club to continue to use the school facility to meet. Because they are taking a stand that is contrary to Liberty’s views, the school is no longer going to support them financially nor allow the club to associate themselves with Liberty. Why is this unreasonable? Would any of us stand up and applaud if we were forced to support an organization with our money and name who was openly supporting views contrary to ours? As far as the school’s tax-exempt status, I’m no tax lawyer but I believe that the awarding of the tax-exempt status is based on how you run your business not on the views it holds.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:06 am
John:
Read the LUCD statement. The group has not advocated stances that are contrary to Liberty’s mission with regard to abortion or gay marriage. They had a clause in their contract that specifically stated that they agreed with and respected Liberty’s position on those issues. Liberty U is talking out of both sides of their mouth on this.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I see there is no shortage of self-righteous indignation from the previous comments.
Apparently many of them would prefer to silence views that are different from their own.
The purpose of any quality university is to welcome al views (including Christian beliefs).
Unfortunately, universities that lean either left or right fail to recognize the diversity and would rather impose censorship instead of exploring alternative viewpoints.
Despite living in a country founded on freedoms (speech, religion, thought), many people today insist on restrictions of these freedoms rather than finding common ground and working together to solve the problems facing society, such as abortion.
While I don’t agree with the decision to oust a club, it should be noted that if one takes money from the federal government, hey are subject to the rules – which means: play fair.
Either ban both clubs or allow both to remain active.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:41 am
If my fees as a student are the same of the rest of the students and clubs are funded with some of those fees or other monetary contributions, then any club (like Educating Rita from 0 to 145 IQ) should be recognized and supported.
Brilliant ideas never grow in restricted conservative environments. Education must be liberal, even for fundamentalist, just to let everyone knows what is on in life. The Inquisition vs. Galileo, etc.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Itsalljustaride,
“Or maybe you’re just a terrible professor.”
It may very well be that I am a poor professor…although in general, my students do quite well and I get excellent student reviews. Based on your comments, I am fairly certain you are one of the monkeys…aka one who believes Al Gore when he says there is conclusive (or even strong) scientific evidence that global warming is caused by increasing carbon dioxide concentration. Before you get all defensive (again) and try to spout off about the credibility of good old monkey Al and his commandeering of the IPCC, please brush up on spectroscopy, molecular dynamics, the mathematics of transport (both energetic and material), and check out critiques of the present state of the art climate models which have little or no real handle on how to handle the transport effect of clouds.
Back to the subject at hand, as stated in the 1st amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
To my knowledge, Liberty has not prohibited the free exercise of students who wish to debate the monstrosity that is abortion. They simple said that they will not support a club who actively promotes ideals contrary to Liberty’s mission. Had they ousted the “Green Party Club” or the “Sisters with Homicidal Tendencies Club” we very likely would not be having this discussion.
I will say, however, that my arguments thus far are predicated on the assumption that Liberty has not “banned” ALL other self described democratic clubs from meeting and organizing. I know the Fox News article you reference says the word “banned”, but that comes from a 20ish likely dumber than the monkey liberal who is paraphrasing an email he received. I also know that the club’s name has the word “Democratic” in it. What is not explicitly stated is whether or not Liberty has banned ALL democratically affiliated clubs. I agree whole heartedly that a targeted ban of all Democratic Party-affiliated clubs from meeting is a grievous offense. Just because the club has a name that is associated with politics does not mean it is the only or official club for the Democratic Party on campus…having the word “Democratic” in the name certainly does not make a club exempt to do anything it wants. It may well be that some of the excellent Liberty chemistry and physics students, who also happen to politically lean left of center but who are not late term Abortion-loving freaks have started the “Young ChemPhys Nerds Democrats Plus We Are Democrats Club”. If that were true, then maybe everyone could have a reasoned debate amongst informed individuals…and we would also have some individuals keenly equipped to educate dumber than the monkey liberals who bow down to the alter to Al Gore.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
If you want public subsidy (via tax exemption) then you have to accept the consequences (i.e. equal treatment for all under the law and adherence to free speech and practices laws). These colleges don’t want to pay up but they sure want to tell people what to think and say. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t care what they do as long as my tax dollars don’t go to support it. I think their attitude toward homosexuality and abortion is heinous but I respect their right to practice their beliefs….as long as I don’t have to pay for it or subsidize it.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Hippocracy:
“maybe everyone could have a reasoned debate”
With a person like you in that debate, who seems intent on inserting “monkey” and “liberal” into every other sentence, I don’t see that happening. Your outright contempt for some of your students is not a healthy attitude for an educator to have. I’m not going to try to impress you with my academic career, because it makes no difference, and is, like much you love to bring up, irrelevant to this issue at hand. You take far too much license to generalize and make assumptions about people whom you know only through a few typed words.
Al Gore has nothing to do with this.
Your chemistry students and their religious persuasions have nothing to do with this.
My educational background has nothing to do with this.
“They simple said that they will not support a club who actively promotes ideals contrary to Liberty’s mission.”
Again, read the LUCD statement. The LUCD had explicitly included a statement in their charter that said they are anti-abortion and support traditional marriage, at the request of Liberty U, who approved them. Now Liberty is taking it back and making it look like the students are at fault.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Having the word “Democratic” in the name does not make a club immune to oversight or regulation…just like having the word “Republican” does not make a club immune to oversight or regulation. Again, if Liberty has specifically targeted ALL Democratic Party affiliated clubs, then shame on them. If there are other “Democratic” clubs on campus, your arguments are nonsense…end of story.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
itsalljustaride:
By the way, one can put whatever they like in the LUCD…whether or not they actually abide by that statement is another matter.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Hippocracy, you still have obviously not read the statement. It goes beyond just inserting some words in their charter. These students have actively used their organization NOT to advance a pro-abortion agenda. Quite the opposite, they have used it to form connections outside the university and support an ANTI-abortion agenda, but under the Democratic party affiliation. You maybes and hypotheticals have no application here.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
itsalljustaride:
“When a university decided to oust a club for supporting abortion rights and same-sex marriage, it didn’t expect to face trouble from this unlikely source.”
If what you say is true, then this article is very misleading, yes?
My hypotheticals have direct application here because at this point, we have no facts regarding the status of other Democratic clubs at Liberty. If the club, true to its LUCD, actively supported an anti-abortion agenda but was disbanded anyway (simply because of thier ties with the Democratic Party), then I can see and agree with your point. However, based on the information in this article, one can only conclude the club did not in fact hold true to thier LUCD.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Or we could all just let the IRS investigation run its course and not pontificate about a situation without an apprapriate, substantiated factual basis upon which to build. It strikes me that the discourse here on this topic is truly free speech.
I would hope all parties involved would remeber that civility in a debate about important public matters only lends credibility to one’s arguments. And likewise, insults, pejorative language, scape-goating, and fallacious reasoning damage that same credibiltiy.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Hippocracy: Do you even know what the LUCD is? Here’s a thought- read first, yammer later.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Hippocracy, I’ll admit that the article above is a bit anemic on specific details, but a quick google search will satisfy most of your questions. There is a wealth of articles on this story.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Sorry Lisa:
The previous post should read “By the way, one can put whatever they like in the LUCD charter…whether or not they (members) actually abide by that statement (the charter) is another matter.
itsalljustaride:
I found this
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=8375
on Liberty’s website. If the article linked above is correct, there has been a fair amount of misrepresentation in the media.
Given what you have pointed out about LUDC’s charter and provided thier actions follow said charter, I would be in perfect agreement with you that the LUDC should not have been given the boot.
itsaljustaride, I sincerely wish you the best and sorry for getting carried away with the monkey statements.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The deliberate taking of Human Life in the womb merely for a woman’s decision of convenience is inherently evil.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Liberty, Freedom, and most importantly Education are not supported by silencing of opinion.
Liberty University is taking a political stand, supporting one view while silencing another. This is “un-american”. Once they take a political stand, they should loose their tax-free status. This is true for all institutions including churches. Enter the political ring and loose your non-profit status.
Gee, maybe if the catholic church lost it’s tax-free status it would no longer be able to pay all of the defense fees for pedophile priests.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
If a private university wants to stop funding a club that has beliefs it doesn’t agreee with, that is it’s right, BUT if it is going to accept US Government funds and/or tax-exempt status it can’t support/fund a club for one political party and not support aanother. Either Liberty University has to fund both political party affiliated clubs on campus, or more reasonably (and sanely) it should not officially support or allow it’s name to be used by ANY politically oriented club.
If it is a religious institution, let it stick to religion.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:25 am
G. Hohman:
Good for you, you have an opinion. Too bad that isn’t the point of this issue.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Students who disagree should all transfer to another university and leave the conservatives hangning out to dry with the rest of their party.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I say “right on” or should I say “left on” to you students. As Lewis Powell, former Supreme Court Justice once said, “The campus is the forum for the free exchange of ideas.” Without students such as these, the mostly indoctrinated students of Liberty University (quite the misnomer) would have no one to challenge their lack of critical thought. It’s rather hypocritical to ban the very freedoms that give these evangelicals the right to practice their religion. The halls of academe are no place for such partisan fear…
June 30th, 2009 at 1:11 am
[...] For the details of the club’s ousting, click here. [...]
July 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
For those of you who think that the University should be stripped of its rights, guess what? — that is the same as as stripping all individuals and organizations of their right to express their point of view. Then guess who gets the power to establish their point of view — well, it ain’t any individual or private organization. Yep, the government (”government = force” — ever heard that one?). Do not get angry at people who are warning you away from doing violence. They are doing it out of love.
For all those who are acting out of love (all races, genders, persuasions,…) hold fast, and pray for the violent ones (which is almost all of us at one time or another). Best.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
No one is stripping Liberty of their right- they can disband all the Democratic organizations, heck, they could even fire all the Democratic professors and expel all the Democratic students. They just don’t get any federal funding or their tax exempt status. No one has a “right” to take benefits of the federal government. If they want those benefits like tax exempt status, they can’t be partisan. And don’t start yelling about them not being partisan- follow the goings-on in this story, and you’ll figure out that the Democratic club on Liberty campus disagreed with the Democratic party platform on abortion and gay marriage. Liberty doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Michael:
“For those of you who think that the University should be stripped of its rights”
This has nothing to do with the universities rights. They accept federal funding, and as such are beholden to certain policies regarding how that money is used. If they want free reign then they cannot accept federal funding. Liberty wants to have its cake and eat it too. That’s just unpossible.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Free inquiry and discussion of differing views is essential to the life of a modern university, valuable enough for special support. Absent this freedom, the so-called university becomes something else, no longer as valuable and no longer as deserving.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Didn’t say that the University was stripped of its rights — only that there are those who wish to do so (which is obvious, so don’t deny it). So, the issue of free speech is very much included in this problem by way of the right to stand for what you believe in (financially or otherwise). You want to turn liberty upside down — there is no liberty without freedom. You cannot have free speech unless people are free to speak and organize freely. Period. Maybe the business of tax exemption is just a tool of the government (force) to control free speech. By the way, why should an institution of learning pay taxes? Why should a wage earner? Those cutting a profit in the stock market — well, that I can understand.
The students are free to discuss and share. That is a God-given right. This right does not require “special support”. All they have to do is open their mouths and speak/pick up a pen/write an e-mail, etc.,… Yes, it sometimes takes courage, but foolhardiness will often suffice. They can also find financial support at another school, if they wish. Why would you want to force the University to give up money to those spouting oppositional stuff? The (private) University has the right to ask that its student body has similar sentiments to its own. I think they are within their rights to expel these students (who maybe belong in another tribe).
P.S. “Absent this freedom, “… How can you be absent something that is inalienable? You can be oppressed (as in in fear for your life), or not, but not absent. Freedom is not an entitlement.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 am
Michael, you really have no idea what you’re spouting on about here.
“Didn’t say that the University was stripped of its rights — only that there are those who wish to do so (which is obvious, so don’t deny it).”
What right do some people obviously want to repeal that Liberty somehow now possesses at this moment? Liberty DOES NOT have the right to accept federal money and still discriminate based on political ideology in the disbursement of those funds. Categorically, they DO NOT, and never have had that right.
“By the way, why should an institution of learning pay taxes?”
Because a private school is essentially a business. People and business entities pay taxes in this and every other country on Earth. Get used to it. It won’t change anytime soon.
“Maybe the business of tax exemption is just a tool of the government (force) to control free speech.”
What a foolish and ignorant thing to say. If anything it is the exact opposite. Liberty has a choice, they choose to accept federal tax money, and therefore they have willingly bought into the rules of that game. Period. They have always had a choice, and they still do, though in a few months/years time that choice may be made for them by a court of law.
“You cannot have free speech unless people are free to speak and organize freely.”
A more circuitous and unnecessary statement there never was.
“Freedom is not an entitlement.”
And neither are federal funds to support your business. Listen, Liberty has essentially made a contract with the US govt. that along with federal monies they agree to abide by certain rules of fairness. Liberty is in violation of that contract, which they willingly entered into. If you enter into a contract with someone, you have to honor it. If you accept money from a bank, you are bound by certain legal obligations too, just like Liberty U.
“All they have to do is open their mouths and speak/pick up a pen/write an e-mail, etc.”
Same with Liberty U. You’re holding the two parties to completely different standards here. The money that Liberty U is withholding from the LUCD is not really theirs to “exercise their free speech rights” with. Which is the same reason that when congress passed the laws banning stem cell research, universities had to alter their allocation of funds so that only private funds from tuition, donors, etc could be used to fund that research, and no federal dollars. The reason is that federal monies come with different “strings” attached. It’s not their to simply do as they please with.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 am
[...] then, the school has had to deal with a possible Internal Revenue Service investigation (click here for the full story), and the College Democrats have watched their president and adviser exit the [...]
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
[...] talking. See what all the hype is about. Check out our top 5 most commented stories this year.1. School club supports abortion — now it’s gone. 2. The hidden problem with Twitter 3. Parents blame school for drunk student’s fatal fall 4. [...]
July 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
He who eats my bread does my will. The Liberty U people can simply not take the Federal funding then. I’m sure all those self righteous and sanctimonious folksies would be happy to donate and make up the difference….
July 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Young people do not go/are not sent to Baptist universities to learn to think. They are religious institutions of a Baptist nature, but don’t they qualify for tax-exempt status based on the religious affiliation alone?
August 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Teach whatever religious BS you desire, but give up tax-exempt status, because that is a subsidy.
Separation between church and state.
“Pro-life” people, start protesting the death penalty and stupid, needless, greedy wars. Put your money where your mouth is.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Teach whatever religious BS you desire, but give up tax-exempt status, because that is a subsidy.
Separation between church and state. If you want to be a biased, non-intellectual Private School, then BE a private school. Don’t use (or avoid paying into) our tax money to teach fearful, invasive, controlling, superstitious and irrational doctrine.
“Pro-life” people, start protesting and teaching against the death penalty, starvation-causing corporate greed and stupid, needless, greedy wars. Put your money where your mouth is.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Wow Rob, spoken with true intellectual depth. Hope you are not at an institiution of higher learning. Most individuals, who are university educated, are able to debate without name calling.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:51 am
institution, not institiution – my mispell
August 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
If a church sponsored school acts like a church, call it a church, not a Universiy. I have worked for 2 church sponsored Universities, and neither have done this, but one got upset when I grew a bread … Banning this club can be OK in a church, in a private tax-paying organization, or a non-profit organization honest about their actions (e.g. NRA, Pro-choice groups, Right-to-Life groups, Political Action Committies, etc.), … they do appear to allow the meeting of the group, and discussions on campus, just not the sanctioning of these ideas as a University sponsored group, this a tough line to walk. Our University allows both sides to display their posters and displays…
A church can have tax exempt status as a church, and tax exempt organizations can be formed to advocate many things, good and bad. It depends upon wheather they drop bombs on us or we drop bombs on them as to whom is viewed an the bad guys. Notice their heros are our enemies… (note also it is seldom “us” that does wrong, it is usually “them” who have it wrong, in any group…) …. Since these acts do make the institution appear to be church with a “my way or the highway” attitude, it may be more honest to give up its tax exempt status as a University and reorganize under a tax exempt status as a church, or even more honest, if they advocate government laws to limit behaviors to only what they believe is “right,” call it a political organization…
Prof Boze (not the spray-paint one)
Profesor of Accountancy
University of Alaska Anchorage
December 29th, 2009 at 9:45 am
[...] School club supports abortion now its gone [...]
January 4th, 2010 at 12:47 am
This is very simple, it’s called “Separation of Church and State”. If a University is going to accept federal funds for students or to fund ANY of it’s programs it should not be allowed to restrict the free exchange of ideas. Regardless of it’s “religious mission” if it’s accepting federal funds it does not have this right.
With this same process, if churches can be considered tax-exempt then so can this University. However, if they are going to hold to their mission and not recognize this student organization due to its expressed opinions, then I do not feel it should receive ANY federal funding (that includes any grants or scholarships that are used by students to attend).
By utilizing their “religious mission” they have voided the clear separation of church and state and thus have forfeited any rights to receive federal funding.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Use the free money to start up a new business, or give your small business the boost it needs!