.
This one’s for you, my friend, wherever you are these days. Hot off the press.

‘Family Research Council and Liberty Institute Release "Survey of Religious Hostility in America," Containing More Than 600 Alarming Attacks on Religious Faith’

It’s downloadable. Check it out.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pervasive-religious-hostility-in-us-irrefutable-according-to-new-extensive-survey-166295186.html?utm_expid=43414375-18&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522the%2520survey%2520of%2520religious%2520hostility%2520in%2520america%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEcQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.prnewswire.com%252Fnews-releases%252Fpervasive-religious-hostility-in-us-irrefutable-according-to-new-extensive-survey-166295186.html%26ei%3DuHszUKK3M8-N0QHK-4CIAw%26usg%3DAFQjCNGhk-MsYVu5tIJkE8uh5637Owc6GA

Billy, my point is that someone in a protective as opposed to a productive vocation must be prepared to face the prospect of being obsolete. Otherwise they are potential parasites .

Now the comparison with condottieri was inexact. Activists are paid with sense of meaning, not money. A better comparison is Tokugawa samurai. During that time the Shogun had enough force to keep order and there was no outside enemy. Therefore real samurai were useless people who did no work. I think that is a danger for a lot of activists. Their theoretical goal should be to be obsolete. But at the same time they frequently give the impression that they would prefer to construct new dragons to slay rather then admit that fate.

Furthermore "caring a lot" is no defense against that charge. If anything it makes someone more vulnerable to that temptation.

Now as for you and your particular work, this claim is only directed at you if you in fact fit it. As I cannot judge this I am not thinking about you primarily.

I'm a project manager for the Colson Center (not specifically a "rights group"...so my job is safe regardless of what rights are being trampled). People like me just happen to care a lot.

I don't see that any liberty is lost. It looks more like a mis-interpretation of the Constitution, along the lines of claiming that your rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean that you can rob a bank so you can go to the movies, or that because you pay taxes, you have the right to demand entry to the Pentagon.

*No* one is stopping you from assembling on university campuses! (Or at least if they are, it's at times when buildings are locked up and off-limits to everyone). Nobody is being persecuted here: the Christian group is only being forced to follow the same rules as all the other university groups.

The ruling by the Supreme Court is that the University of Hastings has the authority to apply anti-discrimination laws to university groups. How is this unconstitutional?

Rights-idolatry is a plague in our country. The reason is that suggesting rational limits to rights(such as those of others or those of the general public) paradoxically seems illiberal. In a sane society life is a compromise of everyone's rights and obligations, but that is boring.

Furthermore, sooner or later we must recognize that "rights groups" are like the Italian military contractors that were accused of never winning wars because that would put them out of a job. Now of course accusing activists of being completely mercenary is boorish as well as untrue(not even mercenaries are completely mercenary). However every rights group has a vested interest in never declaring victory. A rights group is whatever else it is, a propaganda organization for a given faction, and their proliferation encourages faction to the detriment of domestic tranquility(which is also mentioned in the Constitution). Now taking advantage of the practice for the sake of such an important thing as pro-life is one thing. However is it really necessary to do so for the sake of our own convenience. It has to stop somewhere.

a bunch of good points related to whether Christians should sue. I see both sides of that argument.

As to whether a college campus is as open as a park. Why not? Lots of green space, trees, benches. It should be open. I am disgusted that Fed agencies like NIST have closed their gates to the public. Ostnsibly in response to 9/11. Regardless, this is problematic.

Ben, so they can meet but not be official? Fine, then return their tax dollars, b/c you can make theft "legal" but it still doesn't make it right.

The point is that Hastings doesn't have the Constitutional right to make the rules they did. Sure they passed a rule, and they can bully people to accept it. But, that's not "liberty."

Now, what I also wonder is why you so adamantly support loss of liberty?

I agree, Chris. I believe *any* group is free to meet on campuses of public universities. However, only groups meeting the university's critera for "student chapter" can receive university funding and recognition.

The people in the University of Hasting's Christian Legal Society chapter are still able to meet together on campus and associate as they like. No one is restricting that right. However, they will not have access to the university's funding as long as they go against the anti-discrimination policies set forth for university chapters. But surely they can still assemble without university funding, no?

I get your point Scurlock. If it is public property then it must be treated as such. On the other hand other public institutions have a right to regulate membership. Any security or emergency service can exclude people unfit for service and some of their reasoning can seem arbitrary to outsiders. Intelligence agencies until recently excluded a lot of minorities including secret participants in stigmatized practices. And to some degree they were justified as an agent must be immune to blackmail. Now a college is not quite the same as a spy agency but neither is it the same as a park.

My point is that the right to regulate membership is innate to the right to assemble. Not least because in practice almost every group has a theoretical objective or "totem" or other defining point and therefore needs the right to ensure that members remain compatible with it.

That being so, I can't make this point, especially as it has unfortunate implications in some circles, without conceding appropriate limitations. Among which is the right to regulate membership of other groups. And colleges are other groups. They have a more active purpose then a park but a less active one then an intell agency. But they do have some right to regulate membership. Or are they more like a library which also has a right to regulate? I am excluded from working more then two hours a week because of the arbitrary reason that there are to many volunteers and it would look ridiculous if there more workers then customers. Or is a college it's own thing.

In any case one might also wonder about the propriety of Christians suing for their rights when facing discrimination. How does it make us look? Is having to assemble a few blocks away an egregious enough violation to be as litigious as everyone else?

That a guy who supports unions, and their long history of violations of private property, now uses that to support an obvious violation of the Bill of Rights.

Anyway Ben, your argument fails in a number of ways, including the following. Yes, I'd be upset if a group decided to assemble on my lawn. But that's my lawn. I wouldn't be upset if they assembled at the public park. Or at the statehouse. Etc.

Not only wouldn't I be upset, that's explicitly where they are allowed to assemble.

Hastings is a state funded school. Ergo, people have a right to peacably assemble there, and associate as they please. Including Christian groups.

Ben is right about that. Freedom of assembly does not include the right to trespass. And being forced to assemble off campus is a minor persecution.

That's the way it works, Chris. Consider freedom of speech:

You can say whatever you like, as long as it's not obscene or pornographic, seditious, or inciting riots. Those'll get you locked up or fined. And then you can say whatever else you like, as long as it's not slanderous or violating copywright laws, since the offended party might sue you.

But if you exclude those, you *really* can say whatever you like, but you still have to exercise discretion, as "free speech" doesn't protect you from the consequences of your speech: you can still get fired from your job for opening your mouth at the wrong time.

And that's "free" speech. And it's fair. Do you believe your "right to assembly" means you should be able to assemble on my front lawn? Or that your "freedom of association" means you can exclude me from my lawn while you're trespassing there? Plainly, no. Property rights come first, as also in this case: the University of Hastings is *not* obligated to give money to random Christian groups.

Freedom of association means freedom to associate with those who agree with you as well as assembling (which can be limited). I wonder what the Supreme Court's reasoning would be about this issue (as opposed to the religious exercise issue) considering previous cases involving, for instance, the Jaycees (women must be allowed) an the Boy Scouts of America (BSA can exclude based on their code). [If I remember those outcomes correctly.]

so thhey don't embarass themselves further.

Ben, all you're saying is that these people are "free" to assemble to the extent that the gov't restricts that freedom.

That would be known as "not free."

Quite true Ben. If right to exclude is a necessary part of right of assembly, then it extends to colleges who have such assemblies on campus.

In which case the proper means to fight that is to blackball such colleges if it pleases us to do so, not to appeal to law. Blackballing is the proper punishment for delicate offenses that are not within the purview of state force anyway.

I really don't see why black groups should necessarily admit neo-nazis. Nor vice-versa for the matter of that.

Our constitutional rights to "freedom of association/assembly" does not mean that we can assemble wherever we like. We are still subject to the laws: we can assemble at a park during park hours, at a house if the owner lets us, or at a public university under university rules. If we want to get university funding as a student chapter, we will also have to follow the rules for university chapters, which in this case means we can't exclude non-Christians or homosexuals.

So: this group's Freedom of Assembly is not being hindered. They are still free to assemble anywhere it is legally permissible, they just won't get university funding. Nor is their Freedom of Association being hindered; no one is forcing them to associate with anyone.

All of this is separate from the issue of whether the university policies are wise or foolish. I think they're reasonable, as I can imagine all sorts of drama that could ensue if discrimination were allowed, but regardless, that's not what the Supreme Court ruled on.

Ben,
Were you saying that the CLS should quite whining because they can exercise their beliefs elsewhere?

If so: The Christian Legal Society is a campus group, which means that organizing at a church, park, or home is missing the point. Why should it matter where they are free to exercise their religion? The whole point is that they are free to do it!

And your point about there being more blacks than Neo-Nazis is circumstantial and irrelevant. I make the point "it opens the door for chaos." It shouldn't matter if there were more blacks than Neo-Nazis. Their system is counterintuitive to any organization's interests. America doesn't openly allow Russian spies into the Pentagon for the same reason.

Thanks for reading.

Yes it is Ben, which is why Federal funding is poison.

But the right of association is part of the Constitution. In the first amendment.

And by the way Ben, arguing against that point can come back and bite. Any association you like is threatened too by threatening the right to make the rules of a given association. Suppose there is a labor union you support. Are you going to say it doesn't have the right to ostracize someone proven to be the mole of management?

My first question is what did they say about freedom of association.

"How can the Christian Legal Society freely exercise their beliefs when they cannot have discretion over their membership?"

How indeed? Perhaps in a church, or a park, or in their own homes, instead of at a public university with public money? Because that's what is really the issue here.

Incidentally, an African-American club at this campus would indeed be required to allow Neo-Nazis.. but likewise the Neo-Nazi club would be required to accept black people, and there are far more blacks than Neo-Nazis. So, I don't see what the problem is.