White Supremacists Are Targeting College Campuses Like Never Before

[HereIStand]

Every public school organization must adhere to non-discrimination laws, it is not a matter of college campuses, it is a matter of law. You can't get state funds and then discriminate against a group of people. Every public school organization follows this. I do not know why there are Christians that believe the law applies to others, but not to them.

As noted by a Christian student at the University of Iowa,

The campus Democrats exist to promote their party’s values and can require their leader to be a Democrat. The feminist organization promotes feminism and can require their leader to be a feminist. The pro-life organization promotes pro-life positions and can require their leader to be pro-life. Fraternities are allowed to insist that their members are men, and sororities that their members are women. And that’s all a good thing, since it ensures diversity and academic freedom on campus.

But according to the school, we cannot have a statement of faith that reflects our religious mission, or require our leaders to really believe our beliefs. Put simply, the school is discriminating against our group because it doesn’t like our Christian beliefs.

 

[HereIStand]

I think it's a misnomer to argue that white supremacist groups targeting college campuses is somehow a backlash when they're not part of the university community. One of the organizations listed has been connected to five murders in the last year, are we really arguing that those ideas and groups were started on college campuses in response to liberals? Well, you said it.

It's not about white supremacy. What's been noted though is that there are professors and students on campuses espousing whites-are-devils rhetoric. This combined with the white guilt histrionics, PC culture, and student groups for every conceivable minority group can only breed resentment on campuses.

 

[SummerMadness]

As noted by a Christian student at the University of Iowa,

The campus Democrats exist to promote their party’s values and can require their leader to be a Democrat. The feminist organization promotes feminism and can require their leader to be a feminist. The pro-life organization promotes pro-life positions and can require their leader to be pro-life. Fraternities are allowed to insist that their members are men, and sororities that their members are women. And that’s all a good thing, since it ensures diversity and academic freedom on campus.

But according to the school, we cannot have a statement of faith that reflects our religious mission, or require our leaders to really believe our beliefs. Put simply, the school is discriminating against our group because it doesn’t like our Christian beliefs.

Now they're just making things up.

University of Iowa: University Democrats

Does this organization have a selective membership process?
No

Membership Process
Membership in the University Democrats is open to all students, faculty, staff and members of the community. In no aspect of its programs shall there be any difference in the treatment of persons because of race, national origin, color, creed, religion, sex, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, associational preference, or any other classification which would deprive the person of consideration as an individual.

University of Iowa: Feminist Union

Does this organization have a selective membership process?
No

Membership Process
Anyone may join--all new members welcome!

University of Iowa: Students for Life

Does this organization have a selective membership process?
No

Membership Process
Come and join us! All are welcome who love & support life!

Greek Life is separate as they are primarily privately owned, hence their selectivity. At my university, all fraternities and sororities were off campus (of course, they all owned houses right next to campus). I have only seen fraternities and sororities houses on campus at private universities (keyword: private).

It's quite simple though, a member that runs for a position in an organization that does not believe in the mission of the organization will not be elected as the leader. This is not about a group being singled out, this is a group that believes the law does not apply to them. And even if you could require someone to be part of a political party, you can't discriminate based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. That's the law.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've never understood the mentality behind any form of racial supremacy, maybe I am ignorant, but racism of all varieties has always struck me as illogical nonsense. I say this as a republican in a rural area.

Mentally weak, resentful people who won't take any personal responsibility for their lives gravitate towards racism.

 

[archer75]

As noted by a Christian student at the University of Iowa,

The campus Democrats exist to promote their party’s values and can require their leader to be a Democrat. The feminist organization promotes feminism and can require their leader to be a feminist. The pro-life organization promotes pro-life positions and can require their leader to be pro-life. Fraternities are allowed to insist that their members are men, and sororities that their members are women. And that’s all a good thing, since it ensures diversity and academic freedom on campus.

But according to the school, we cannot have a statement of faith that reflects our religious mission, or require our leaders to really believe our beliefs. Put simply, the school is discriminating against our group because it doesn’t like our Christian beliefs.

"Like the higher-ups at Cal State, the officials at my school have told our group that we must “revise” our religious beliefs to their satisfaction" - I seriously doubt they have been told to revise their beliefs. I read this article and the one linked to in it, and there's not enough hard information to say just what happened. I need to see the exact document or email sent by the admins to this group.

But when the gay student heard that he "would not be eligible for a leadership position because his decision to enter into same-sex relationships was inconsistent with Business Leaders in Christ's religious beliefs" and their stated beliefs are that it is wrong to engage in sexual activity (masturbation is a sexual activity, by the way) outside of a marriage, then if they don't quiz non-gay applicants for leadership positions about

a) whether they ever touch or intend to in the future
and
b) whether they have ever engaged in sexual activity with a woman (or man) outside of marriage or intend to

then it's discrimination. Period.

They're not forbidden to hold prayer meeting or Bible studies or evangelize or be interested in business. They just lost the privileges of being an official sanctioned student group at that institution because they (probably) discriminated - which is against the rules of the institution.

I don't know why they expect their members to abide by their rules when they don't care to abide by the rules of the institution they're part of.

And again, it's not (in all likelihood) a matter of being pro-gay or anything. Their rules covers a lot of sexual activity. But if they don't ask EVERYONE the questions above, they're singling out the gay candidate, and that's discrimination. Period.

 

[HereIStand]

"Like the higher-ups at Cal State, the officials at my school have told our group that we must “revise” our religious beliefs to their satisfaction" - I seriously doubt they have been told to revise their beliefs. I read this article and the one linked to in it, and there's not enough hard information to say just what happened. I need to see the exact document or email sent by the admins to this group.

But when the gay student heard that he "would not be eligible for a leadership position because his decision to enter into same-sex relationships was inconsistent with Business Leaders in Christ's religious beliefs" and their stated beliefs are that it is wrong to engage in sexual activity (masturbation is a sexual activity, by the way) outside of a marriage, then if they don't quiz non-gay applicants for leadership positions about

a) whether they ever touch or intend to in the future
and
b) whether they have ever engaged in sexual activity with a woman (or man) outside of marriage or intend to

then it's discrimination. Period.

They're not forbidden to hold prayer meeting or Bible studies or evangelize or be interested in business. They just lost the privileges of being an official sanctioned student group at that institution because they (probably) discriminated - which is against the rules of the institution.

I don't know why they expect their members to abide by their rules when they don't care to abide by the rules of the institution they're part of.

And again, it's not (in all likelihood) a matter of being pro-gay or anything. Their rules covers a lot of sexual activity. But if they don't ask EVERYONE the questions above, they're singling out the gay candidate, and that's discrimination. Period.

Not sure that those are reasonable examples of discrimination.

Now they're just making things up.

University of Iowa: University Democrats


University of Iowa: Feminist Union


University of Iowa: Students for Life


Greek Life is separate as they are primarily privately owned, hence their selectivity. At my university, all fraternities and sororities were off campus (of course, they all owned houses right next to campus). I have only seen fraternities and sororities houses on campus at private universities (keyword: private).

It's quite simple though, a member that runs for a position in an organization that does not believe in the mission of the organization will not be elected as the leader. This is not about a group being singled out, this is a group that believes the law does not apply to them. And even if you could require someone to be part of a political party, you can't discriminate based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. That's the law.

Great news. Than I'm assuming that a white student would be welcome to lead a black lives matter protest on your campus.

 

[archer75]

Not sure that those are reasonable examples of discrimination.

What's unreasonable? They have their policy. If they ask questions about adherence to it in a discriminatory manner - asking the gay student if he plans to adhere to it and not asking the others - that's discrimination.

 

[HereIStand]

What's unreasonable? They have their policy. If they ask questions about adherence to it in a discriminatory manner - asking the gay student if he plans to adhere to it and not asking the others - that's discrimination.

A student saying that felt same-sex attraction, but believed it would sinful to act on it as Christian would find a chilly reception in a gay student group. And the university would support the gay student group in its decision to bar the student from joining their group. Discrimination, so-called, only applies when evangelical beliefs are in question.

 

[archer75]

A student saying that felt same-sex attraction, but believed it would sinful to act on it as Christian would find a chilly reception in a gay student group. And the university would support the gay student group in its decision to bar the student from joining their group. Discrimination, so-called, only applies when evangelical beliefs are in question.

Imaginary scenarios are not part of whether this real scenario involves applying the group's own rules in a discriminatory way.

Do they ask other candidates whether they intend to touch or make out with girls while in office? If so, and if a "yes" gets them barred from the position, then it isn't discrimination when they do it to the gay student.

 

[SummerMadness]

Not sure that those are reasonable examples of discrimination.

They are not examples of discrimination, they are examples of non-discrimination, which is what the Christian student was lying about in the op-ed you posted.

Great news. Than I'm assuming that a white student would be welcome to lead a black lives matter protest on your campus.

Black Lives Matter is not just for black students, there are people of all ethnic groups that are part of different chapters. It's reasonable to understand that most people that comprise an organization are part of the group they advocate for (College Republicans are primarily Republican students), but that does not bar people that are not registered Republicans from joining and participating in the organization.

A student saying that felt same-sex attraction, but believed it would sinful to act on it as Christian would find a chilly reception in a gay student group. And the university would support the gay student group in its decision to bar the student from joining their group. Discrimination, so-called, only applies when evangelical beliefs are in question.

This is more making stuff up as you go along, a Christian can join any LGBT group, there are many Christians right now involved with LGBT groups. Although this link is not specific to colleges, the notion of Christian fellowship and being part of the LGBT community are not mutually exclusive: LGBT Christians Meetups - Meetup

 

[HereIStand]

They are not examples of discrimination, they are examples of non-discrimination, which is what the Christian student was lying about in the op-ed you posted.

Black Lives Matter is not just for black students, there are people of all ethnic groups that are part of different chapters. It's reasonable to understand that most people that comprise an organization are part of the group they advocate for (College Republicans are primarily Republican students), but that does not bar people that are not registered Republicans from joining and participating in the organization.

This is more making stuff up as you go along, a Christian can join any LGBT group, there are many Christians right now involved with LGBT groups. Although this link is not specific to colleges, the notion of Christian fellowship and being part of the LGBT community are not mutually exclusive: LGBT Christians Meetups - Meetup

For evangelicals, LGBT Christian in the sense of acting on same-sex impulses is an oxymoron. My point is proven once again. Evangelicals who actually stand by their beliefs are unwelcome on campus.

 

[HereIStand]

Imaginary scenarios are not part of whether this real scenario involves applying the group's own rules in a discriminatory way.

Do they ask other candidates whether they intend to touch or make out with girls while in office? If so, and if a "yes" gets them barred from the position, then it isn't discrimination when they do it to the gay student.

 

[SummerMadness]

For evangelicals, LGBT Christian in the sense of acting on same-sex impulses is an oxymoron. My point is proven once again. Evangelicals who actually stand by their beliefs are unwelcome on campus.

You are not entitled to public funds if you wish to operate a discriminatory group on campus, this applies to everyone, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[archer75]

View attachment 219592

Yes, serious.

Jacob Estell links to an article that says this: "The group claims it did not discriminate based on the student's sexual orientation, but that leaders are "required to agree with and strive to abide by" the group's religious beliefs, "which include avoiding any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman.""

ANY. That includes masturbation and sexual activity between (unmarried) men and women. So. If they ask the gay student whether he plans to abide by this, why not ask the others?

This discussion isn't about "gay rights" anything or whatever. It's just this: if they apply their own rules evenhandedly, it is not discrimination. If they fail to apply them evenhandedly, it is.

In effect, anyone in a leadership position in the group should have to either be married to a person of the opposite sex OR say "Yes, I do solemnly affirm that I will not engage in any petting, smooching, or other sexual activity with ANY person, including myself."

And if they require everyone to say that, it isn't discriminatory and (even though this club sounds useless to me) they should get back their funding and tabling privileges.

 

[HereIStand]

You are not entitled to public funds if you wish to operate a discriminatory group on campus, this applies to everyone, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

By that logic, evangelical churches should lose their tax-exempt status because those seeing nothing wrong about acting on gay and lesbian desires can't join or gain employment at these churches. That's an argument made in the comment section on the Huffington Post. It's surprising to find it on a Christian Forum though.

 

[HereIStand]

Yes, serious.

Jacob Estell links to an article that says this: "The group claims it did not discriminate based on the student's sexual orientation, but that leaders are "required to agree with and strive to abide by" the group's religious beliefs, "which include avoiding any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman.""

ANY. That includes masturbation and sexual activity between (unmarried) men and women. So. If they ask the gay student whether he plans to abide by this, why not ask the others?

This discussion isn't about "gay rights" anything or whatever. It's just this: if they apply their own rules evenhandedly, it is not discrimination. If they fail to apply them evenhandedly, it is.

In effect, anyone in a leadership position in the group should have to either be married to a person of the opposite sex OR say "Yes, I do solemnly affirm that I will not engage in any petting, smooching, or other sexual activity with ANY person, including myself."

And if they require everyone to say that, it isn't discriminatory and (even though this club sounds useless to me) they should get back their funding and tabling privileges.

As noted above, how far does this public funding argument go. Should churches be denied tax-exempt status because they "discriminate" in their hiring practices? As @SummerMadness noted above, "It's reasonable to understand that most people that comprise an organization are part of the group they advocate for." Exactly. But this suddenly becomes a problem when the student group is an evangelical one.

 

[SummerMadness]

By that logic, evangelical churches should lose their tax-exempt status because those seeing nothing wrong about acting on gay and lesbian desires can't join or gain employment at these churches. That's an argument made in the comment section on the Huffington Post. It's surprising to find it on a Christian Forum though.

We're talking about public universities and non-discriminatory practices being barred for campus organizations, stop trying to change the subject. If you would like to discuss tax exemptions for religious institutions, that is a separate topic... and don't you dare question someone else's Christianity because you disagree with them.

As noted above, how far does this public funding argument go. Should churches be denied tax-exempt status because they "discriminate" in their hiring practices? As @SummerMadness noted above, "It's reasonable to understand that most people that comprise an organization are part of the group they advocate for." Exactly. But this suddenly becomes a problem when the student group is an evangelical one.

Again, stop changing what was said. It is reasonable that most people in an organization are a part of the group it advocates for, but you cannot bar people from joining that group based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. If a Christian wants to join an Islamic organization on campus, they cannot be barred from joining and participating. Period. If a man wants to join a feminist group, they cannot bar him from joining and participating. Period. If they want to be an organization that receives university funds and space, they cannot bar people from joining based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. Period.

 

[archer75]

As noted above, how far does this public funding argument go. Should churches be denied tax-exempt status because they "discriminate" in their hiring practices? As @SummerMadness noted above, "It's reasonable to understand that most people that comprise an organization are part of the group they advocate for." Exactly. But this suddenly becomes a problem when the student group is an evangelical one.

It's not a matter of "discriminating" as in "making a choice" it's a matter of applying their own policies in a discriminatory manner.

You seem not to take my main point, and I'm not sure why. Do you think it would be okay for this group to install a student in this office even though he says he plans to seek opportunities to touch or have sex with women, even though those activities are forbidden?

 

[HereIStand]

We're talking about public universities and non-discriminatory practices being barred for campus organizations, stop trying to change the subject. If you would like to discuss tax exemptions for religious institutions, that is a separate topic... and don't you dare question someone else's Christianity because you disagree with them.

Again, stop changing what was said. It is reasonable that most people in an organization are a part of the group it advocates for, but you cannot bar people from joining that group based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. If a Christian wants to join an Islamic organization on campus, they cannot be barred from joining and participating. Period. If a man wants to join a feminist group, they cannot bar him from joining and participating. Period. If they want to be an organization that receives university funds and space, they cannot bar people from joining based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. Period.

I missed the part where I questioned "someone else's Christianity." It is educational to see a Christian argue in favor of banning evangelical groups from campus, using the same rhetoric that a non-Christian would. If evangelical students face this much resistance on a Christian forum, one shutters to think of the opposition they face on campus.

 

[HereIStand]

It's not a matter of "discriminating" as in "making a choice" it's a matter of applying their own policies in a discriminatory manner.

You seem not to take my main point, and I'm not sure why. Do you think it would be okay for this group to install a student in this office even though he says he plans to seek opportunities to touch or have sex with women, even though those activities are forbidden?

I see your main point, but I disagree with it.