By mike

June 23, 2009 11:26 AM | Link to this

You can always count on Wright State to cave in when it comes to an issue of integrity. They will do anything to avoid bad publicity-even ignoring one of their own rules.

By Sonja M.

June 23, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this

Good for them! That’s great!

By Dave

June 23, 2009 11:46 AM | Link to this

You can always count on blathering libs like Mike to expect everyone else to cave in to their POV when it comes to an issue of integrity.

By tony

June 23, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

WSU was clearly violating the fellowship’s constitutional rights to assembly, expression and religion.

By Stacy Law

June 23, 2009 11:57 AM | Link to this

What Dave said.

By Kendra

June 23, 2009 12:02 PM | Link to this

And you can always count on folks like Dave to invalidate their points by referring by trying to “insult” posters as liberal when folks like Dave have no idea what they are talking about.

By Kendra

June 23, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

And you can always count on folks like Dave to invalidate their points by trying to “insult” posters as liberal when they have no clue as to what a liberal position would be in this situation. As a matter of fact, the libs, as you so kindly refer, would agree WITH wright state and against Mike.

By Bob540

June 23, 2009 12:37 PM | Link to this

Glad to see this resolution, but I don’t know why an issue was made in the first place. Why a faith-based org would be required to accept atheists or alternative lifestyles is puzzling.

By Freedomlover

June 23, 2009 12:43 PM | Link to this

This is a victory for Christian’s and free speech, and a black eye for Wright State and their intolernant Christian Bashing.

By realitypersonality

June 23, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this

Why should WSU give anything to anybody in the name of any religion? How about voodoo? Oh, excuse me, that is what all religions practice. How pathetic all of you are to constantly think about your delusions while the world keeps turning. As Bill M. said, “Grow up or die.”

By Stephen

June 23, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this

The issue is public federal money. It shouldnt be used to discriminate. And WSU is a publically funded school.

By Stephen

June 23, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

Therefore, if groups want to discriminate and refuse to sign a non disrimination clause, they should take it off campus in a private setting or school.

By Stephen

June 23, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this

Boo to WSU for caving on this!! Don’t give in to discrimnatory groups! Does the KKK have a right to exist on campus?

By A different Dave

June 23, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this

Bob540, I can see a Christian organization allowing non-believers. It gives a chance to show these poor souls the way. The REAL question is why non-believers would want to belong to a faith-based organization.

By Phobbs101@aol.com

June 23, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

the issue isnt “non-believers” at all. Its using federal money to fund groups that discriminate against inorities.

By Charles

June 23, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

Too bad… I cant go from my dorm room to the student union (5 minute walk) without someone stopping me on a daily basis to ask me about Jesus and how it’s not right that WSU teaches evolution… WSU should have grown a spine and not allowed this group if they wont adhere to non-discrimination law… Once the admission standards go up when the switch to semesters comes in 2012 i predict we’ll see much fewer of these insane religious people having meetings in the student union speaking in tongues… The Christian groups at WSU are just out of hand

By Stephen

June 23, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this

There are alot of Christians that teach what Christ taught, love and acceptance of all. And there are plenty of gay christians.

By Intresting

June 23, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this

Stephen although I know that the issue before us is not gay christians but. Just like you can’t be an atheist and a christian you also can be gay and be a christian. What makes you a follower of Christ is faith and belief in Him and his word, the cross and resrection If you profess to be a christian but don’t follow Christ then you have not salvation you have a good feeling. Also fyi I would not stop someone who comming to church who was gay. Just like I would not stop someone who was a non believer. I have a few friends who are both. I love them and want them to know who Christ really is. Not a political party or what the scocial agenda might be at the time.

By Interesting

June 23, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this

Stephen although I know that the issue before us is not gay christians but. Just like you can’t be an atheist and a christian you also can be gay and be a christian. What makes you a follower of Christ is faith and belief in Him and his word, the cross and resrection If you profess to be a christian but don’t follow Christ then you have not salvation you have a good feeling. Also fyi I would not stop someone who comming to church who was gay. Just like I would not stop someone who was a non believer. I have a few friends who are both. I love them and want them to know who Christ really is. Not a political party or what the social agenda might be at the time.

By Jay-Bird

June 23, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this

Lets see publically funded Collage,Can’t discriminate,Central State does this all the time(double Standard). As far as the KKK,they havn’t killed anyone in the last25 pluss yrs, Hw maney Blacks have been Killed by Blacks ????? thest 25 plus yrs,

By Adam

June 23, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this

To the comment entitled “Intresting,” Actually, the ideas of gays being christians is the issue. I have spoken with members of the CBF, and they will very readily explain that they had a problem because they didn’t want gay or trans people being members, and said to me that no gay person can believe in Jesus because they are evil. The people seem nice, and they have a right to include and exclude who they will. However, WSU as a whole prohibits this kind of exclusion, though the second someone looks at the school with contempt, they’ll do whatever they have to in order to keep people looking away. And to “Freedomlover,” this is censorship. CBF will allow gay and trans people to be at meetings, but they are not allowed to say anything. What makes people angry is people saying who can and can’t speak around them. Also, there are plenty of Christian groups on campus. Christians all over have their voice, but they’re just too open-minded for the founders of CBF.

By Adam

June 23, 2009 2:10 PM | Link to this

And to Jay-Bird, please use spell check. I have no idea what you said.

By Alexis

June 23, 2009 10:10 PM | Link to this

Group can include and exclude who they want. End of story. If prospective members do not like it, they can go elsewhere or form their own group.

By Joe

June 23, 2009 10:34 PM | Link to this

No group should be forced to have voting members who don’t support the basic principles of the group. Nobody would expect the College Democrats to let Republicans or Libertarians to run the organization.

By Adam

June 23, 2009 10:54 PM | Link to this

Yes, groups can include and exclude who they want, but they shouldn’t expect the privileges of a University’s support and resources if their laws are against school policies. And, Joe, this is about them pre-censoring people, saying that there’s no way that certain people can agree with them, which other groups on campus show that those assumptions are false. Highly paid university-appointed positions are in place to keep this kind of ignorance at bay.

By bob

June 23, 2009 11:14 PM | Link to this

You can’t be a Christian and practice homosexuality, you can’t be an honest thief, can’t be a moral child molester, can’t be a truthful liar…get the point?

By Mark

June 23, 2009 11:23 PM | Link to this

And you can always count on people like Kendra to be ignorant of the Constitutional guarantees of Freedom of Religion and Assembly. AN

By Mark

June 23, 2009 11:25 PM | Link to this

Hey Adam, I think the United States Constitution trumps “school policies”. Are you people really that ignorant of the Constitution?

By Mark

June 23, 2009 11:27 PM | Link to this

And unless this Christian group is a government entity, they can’t be engaging in censorship. Adam needs to open the dictionary and read the Constitution.

By Stephen

June 24, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this

The bible also says eating shrimp is a sin. So you cant be a shrimp eater and be Christian either. Who are YOU to Judge? You Can be Christian and gay, and plenty are. You are a sinner for jjudging.

By Stephen

June 24, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this

The bible was written by MEN over 2000 years ago. They were inspired by God, but they didnt have everything right. They thought the earth was flat, were they right about that?! God made ALL of us

By Stephen

June 24, 2009 9:10 AM | Link to this

and once again ill say: this group has the right to exclude whoever they want, however NOT using federal $$!!!! This is a publicly funded school and they shouldnt be supporting groups that discriminate :) sorry folks

By Bobo

June 24, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this

F—- Christianity.

By Adam

June 24, 2009 12:26 PM | Link to this

In order… Bob, wrong. You can be a gay Christian. Christianity is the lifestyle of forgiving and loving as Jesus did. Let’s ignore the fact that Stephen is right in those facts about the Bible. Jesus allowed all manner of sinners to be with him. The truth is, you can’t be a Christian if you exclude sinners. If you were without sin, you would be God. And don’t go throwing stones when you’re without sin. Jesus says not to. Plus, Jesus says nothing of gays, though some of his followers have been quoted as doing so. It seems that you’re following Peter’s and Paul’s advices before Jesus’. Mark, you obviously don’t read. Of course they can assemble and censor who they want. It’s true that they’re not engaging in federal censorship, but I was making a point about how I see this on the argument of free speech. They can be in a church and condemn whomever they wish, and it’s none of my business to say they can or can’t. The problem is that they’re demanding privileges when they don’t comply with the rules of the entity from which they’re demanding them. As long as they’re at this school, the school can require whatever rules they wish be fulfilled in order for people to gain access to certain privileges. Responsibility begets privilege. And by the way, I’ll be looking to an encyclopedia before a dictionary to read the constitution. I also prefer the library of congress to both.

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 2:24 PM | Link to this

“You can always count on Wright State to cave in when it comes to an issue of integrity.” You can always count on someone who demands “diversity” to claim that only ~his~ vision of diversity is the one that counts.

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this

STEPHEN SEZ: The issue is public federal money. It shouldnt be used to discriminate. And WSU is a publically funded school. JACK REPLIES: Absolutely correct. And the college was dead wrong to discriminate against a point of view that it didn’t like. And when confronted with the law of the land concerning their discrimination they did [grudingly] what was right.STEPHEN SEZ: The issue is public federal money. It shouldnt be used to discriminate. And WSU is a publically funded school. JACK REPLIES: Absolutely correct. And the college was dead wrong to discriminate against a point of view that it didn’t like. And when confronted with the law of the land concerning their discrimination they did [grudingly] what was right.

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this

STEPHEN SEZ:Boo to WSU for caving on this!! Don’t give in to discrimnatory groups! Does the KKK have a right to exist on campus? JACK REPLIES; Did the KKK have a right to march in the public streets in Skokie Illinois, home to thousands of Jews who survived the death camps? Before you kneejerk answer that you might want to check what the courts consistently said.

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

CHARLES SEZ; i predict we’ll see much fewer of these insane religious people JACK REPLIES; And that’s the very best some posters know how to contribute to a discussion.

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 2:45 PM | Link to this

ADAM SEZ I have spoken with members of the CBF, and they will very readily explain that they had a problem because they didn’t want gay or trans people being members, and said to me that no gay person can believe in Jesus because they are evil. JACK REPLIES: And naturally, YOU get the power to determine if they are “right or wrong” eh? Because in essence, diversity REALLY means “Believe the same as me or else…?”

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 2:54 PM | Link to this

STEPHEN SEZ The bible also says eating shrimp is a sin. So you cant be a shrimp eater and be Christian either. JACK REPLIES Please quote for us from either the Bible or any historical theologian who says that eating shrimp is sinful for Christians. Be specific. Give detail. STEPHEN SEZ Who are YOU to Judge? You Can be Christian and gay, and plenty are. JACK REPLIES And you really believe in your heart that YOU get to make that determination as to what every Christian in the world MUST believe. That, my friend, is shear arrogance of the highest kind. STEPHEN SEZ You are a sinner for jjudging. JACK REPLIES One from the Old Testament — “The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.” (Psa. 37:30). And one from the New — “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things…” (1 Corinthians 2:15)

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this

STEPHEN SEZ: sorry folks JACK REPLIES: Errr… WE are the ones the Supreme Count agrees with. Sorry indeed.

By jack burton

June 24, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

ADAM SEZ The problem is that they’re demanding privileges when they don’t comply with the rules of the entity from which they’re demanding them. As long as they’re at this school, the school can require whatever rules they wish be fulfilled in order for people to gain access to certain privileges. JACK RESPONDS: Unfortunately for you the Supreme Court has consistently ruled thru the decades fairly opposite of what you just posted. Ignorance can be cured though. Look up Tinker and the ramifications when you get a couple of hours to spare.

By Adam

June 25, 2009 2:11 AM | Link to this

Jack, though I disagree with many of the things that you’ve said, and the hypocritical manner in which you have posted, I’ll touch on those things which you’ve criticized me for. After all, ignorance can be cured, as you’ve stated. That is, assuming that you have the capacity to listen as you have challenged us to do. First: I claim no power to say who is right or wrong. A common problem in forums is that people take comments from others at face value, assuming basic meaning. The next sentence says that these people have the right to include and exclude whomever they wish. Meaning, that’s their call. I stated in my last post: “They can be in a church and condemn whomever they wish, and it’s none of my business to say they can or can’t.” For the record, and at risk of saying “You don’t know me!,” I have spent the last few years advocating the freedom of religion in my personal life. I have in the past, and continue to work with groups on campus such as Crosswalk Christian Ministry, Freethought WSU, and the Pagan Student Association, the former two dedicated to religious tolerance. Second: I have to say that I have no idea what you’re talking about with the supreme court, and have just looked up Tinker, and I would like you to clarify what your point was in referencing him before I comment there., I wish to clarify one thing on your last point before I conclude. Wright State, though publicly funded, can deny use of its facilities and staff, and they have in the past. They are not forced to forfeit these privileges to everyone who asks. They can even deny the registered orgs, if they so choose, these luxuries. So, I’m not sure you got the meaning of that statement, but I believe this will help.

By CJ Date

June 25, 2009 8:25 AM | Link to this

If Wright State is to allow expressive organizations to exist on its campus at all, it must allow religious organizations to exist, to define their missions, to select their own members, and to establish policies, practices, and associations with other groups in pursuit of their goals. No group can control the delivery of its message if it is unable to determine its expressive purpose, membership, and activities. The Supreme Court has ruled that public institutions are required to grant religious organizations equal access to campus facilities and are also required to grant religious organizations equal access-on a viewpoint neutral basis-to student fee funding. As a public institution bound by the First Amendment, Wright State is legally obligated to respect the Court’s clear pronouncements with respect to this issue.

By Jack Burton

June 25, 2009 11:28 AM | Link to this

ADAM SEZ: Jack, though I disagree with many of the things that you’ve said, and the hypocritical manner in which you have posted, JACK REPLIES You’re more than welcome to attempt to point out just where you think I have been “hypocritical.” Be specific. Give detail. ADAM SEZ: I’ll touch on those things which you’ve criticized me for. After all, ignorance can be cured, as you’ve stated. That is, assuming that you have the capacity to listen as you have challenged us to do. First: I claim no power to say who is right or wrong. JACK REPLIES You just want the power to reward those whom you think are “right” and punish those whom you think are “wrong”. ADAM SEZ: A common problem in forums is that people take comments from others at face value, assuming basic meaning. JACK REPLIES Well, it’s true I am not a mind reader and can only take what is written. If you mean something else… then attempt to write that instead. ADAM SEZ: The next sentence says that these people have the right to include and exclude whomever they wish. Meaning, that’s their call. I stated in my last post: “They can be in a church and condemn whomever they wish, and it’s none of my business to say they can or can’t.” JACK REPLIES And please tell us just what “business” it is of yours if they do it in the public square? And do you demand that the Young Democrats Club exclude Republicans only when they are meeting in the local Democrat organizational building. ADAM SEZ: For the record, and at risk of saying “You don’t know me!,” I have spent the last few years advocating the freedom of religion in my personal life. I have in the past, and continue to work with groups on campus such as Crosswalk Christian Ministry, Freethought WSU, and the Pagan Student Association, the former two dedicated to religious tolerance. JACK REPLIES Meaningless when your idea of “tolerance” is “believe as we do or else…” ADAM SEZ: Second: I have to say that I have no idea what you’re talking about with the supreme court, and have just looked up Tinker, and I would like you to clarify what your point was in referencing him before I comment there., I wish to clarify one thing on your last point before I conclude. Tinker vs. Des Moines 40 years ago is the seminal case providing college students with full and unfettered 1st Amendment rights. Every college student who doesn’t know/understand Tinker is missing out on the heritage that cost much sacrifice from many who came before you. The concept that you don’t know Tinker yet you are commenting on freedom of speech of college students is akin to someone who thinks the earth is flat debating Stephen Hawkins on the state of the universe. ADAM SEZ: Wright State, though publicly funded, can deny use of its facilities and staff, and they have in the past. They are not forced to forfeit these privileges to everyone who asks. They can even deny the registered orgs, if they so choose, these luxuries. So, I’m not sure you got the meaning of that statement, but I believe this will help. JACK REPLIES; And the Supreme Court says you are wrong. Viewpoint discrimination by a publicly funded college has been struck down repeatedly by the SC. This is not up for debate as shown by the fact that Wright changed their policies when confronted with that little fact.

By Adam

June 25, 2009 11:53 AM | Link to this

Wright State already has several religious organizations. They just have to follow the same process and registration requirements as everyone else. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that a university can not refuse status and privileges to religious groups based solely on the fact that they’re religious. There are many religious organizations on campus. But, an Islamic group would not be allowed to bar women from membership, because that’s sexist. The Black Student Union must allow other races to join. They should not be exempt from rules and provided favor over everyone else.

By Adam

June 25, 2009 3:15 PM | Link to this

Jack, as far is this debate is concerned, this will be my last post to you. You are annoying me, and you lack any respect for other people. I have included a bit of patience and requested information from you to aid in promoting a more friendly debate. I see you’re not capable of that. Have the last word after this if you like, but it’s not worth the time to respond to you again, after this. Now, you say. “ADAM SEZ: Jack, though I disagree with many of the things that you’ve said, and the hypocritical manner in which you have posted, JACK REPLIES You’re more than welcome to attempt to point out just where you think I have been “hypocritical.” Be specific. Give detail.” I’ll start here: June 24, 2:54 pm. “STEPHEN SEZ Who are YOU to Judge? You Can be Christian and gay, and plenty are. JACK REPLIES And you really believe in your heart that YOU get to make that determination as to what every Christian in the world MUST believe.” Stephen is saying here that no one person is to judge this, and that obviously there are other sides to this story, and you insult him for challenging people to look at other sides by saying he claims that he is the only judger. You, on the other hand, seem to be out to do no more than insult. In the same post: “Be specific. Give detail.” You seem to like to say this, as your last post also includes it. But, where is the detail in the Tinker case? Or, how about providing more than one case? “STEPHEN SEZ: The issue is public federal money. It shouldnt be used to discriminate. And WSU is a publically funded school. JACK REPLIES: Absolutely correct. And the college was dead wrong to discriminate against a point of view that it didn’t like. And when confronted with the law of the land concerning their discrimination they did [grudingly] what was right.” No federal money was used in order to deny organizational status. This happens automatically when people don’t submit all the required registration information. On top of that, they weren’t denied because the school disagrees with them. They were denied because of an insufficient registration request. And they caved in because media coverage was threatened. “ADAM SEZ: I’ll touch on those things which you’ve criticized me for. After all, ignorance can be cured, as you’ve stated. That is, assuming that you have the capacity to listen as you have challenged us to do. First: I claim no power to say who is right or wrong. JACK REPLIES You just want the power to reward those whom you think are “right” and punish those whom you think are “wrong”.” Wrong. I wonder, first, how I would reward and punish people if I can’t say what religious view is right or wrong? I would simply rather every group at Wright State have to meet all of the same requirements as everyone else to gain their org status. “ADAM SEZ: A common problem in forums is that people take comments from others at face value, assuming basic meaning. JACK REPLIES Well, it’s true I am not a mind reader and can only take what is written. If you mean something else… then attempt to write that instead.” See what I just wrote about Tinker and the supreme court cases. “ADAM SEZ: The next sentence says that these people have the right to include and exclude whomever they wish. Meaning, that’s their call. I stated in my last post: “They can be in a church and condemn whomever they wish, and it’s none of my business to say they can or can’t.” JACK REPLIES And please tell us just what “business” it is of yours if they do it in the public square? And do you demand that the Young Democrats Club exclude Republicans only when they are meeting in the local Democrat organizational building.” My business is the right to free speech. Out in the open, I can say that Christians are evil morons, and that all fish are demons. The difference is, when they’re in their own churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., that’s sacred, and I respect their ability to pray and exclude who they wish. They have the same right to SAY whatever they want when they’re in public, just as much as you or I do. By the way, before you say anything about this, I do respect your right to speak as you wish. I am not here to say that you don’t have that right, though I imagine you probably will try to twist it that way. And, that exclusion and inclusion in your hypothetical case would be at the discretion of the Democrats’ building managers. “ADAM SEZ: For the record, and at risk of saying “You don’t know me!,” I have spent the last few years advocating the freedom of religion in my personal life. I have in the past, and continue to work with groups on campus such as Crosswalk Christian Ministry, Freethought WSU, and the Pagan Student Association, the former two dedicated to religious tolerance. JACK REPLIES Meaningless when your idea of “tolerance” is “believe as we do or else…”” Here is another hypocritical moment for you. Why don’t you start by asking what these orgs do for tolerance instead of bashing them right off the bat? Why not find out that Crosswalk works with groups that promote GLBT issues? Or that PSA has meetings dedicated to learning other people’s points of view and religions so that they may understand their neighbors better? Or that Freethought was founded on the idea of sharing different beliefs so people will accept each other better? Or do you just not want to believe that because we stand on different sides concerning WSU’s role in this, that I can’t have an open mind to other points of view? “ADAM SEZ: Second: I have to say that I have no idea what you’re talking about with the supreme court, and have just looked up Tinker, and I would like you to clarify what your point was in referencing him before I comment there., I wish to clarify one thing on your last point before I conclude. Tinker vs. Des Moines 40 years ago is the seminal case providing college students with full and unfettered 1st Amendment rights. Every college student who doesn’t know/understand Tinker is missing out on the heritage that cost much sacrifice from many who came before you. The concept that you don’t know Tinker yet you are commenting on freedom of speech of college students is akin to someone who thinks the earth is flat debating Stephen Hawkins on the state of the universe.” Once again, this is about action, not just speech. Speech is allowed. It’s the discriminating actions taken that are the problem. I can say black people are evil, can’t I? Of course! But, if I tell them that they can’t sit near me, or that they can’t vote, well, the Supreme Court has laws about that, too. The only difference? Gay people are argued to be evil by religion. Now, what if we keep our all laws from being made because of the Bible? I would’n’t want to b there. “ADAM SEZ: Wright State, though publicly funded, can deny use of its facilities and staff, and they have in the past. They are not forced to forfeit these privileges to everyone who asks. They can even deny the registered orgs, if they so choose, these luxuries. So, I’m not sure you got the meaning of that statement, but I believe this will help. JACK REPLIES; And the Supreme Court says you are wrong. Viewpoint discrimination by a publicly funded college has been struck down repeatedly by the SC. This is not up for debate as shown by the fact that Wright changed their policies when confronted with that little fact.” First, they changed their policies because people were saying that Wright State was bashing Christians. Second, this is not viewpoint discrimination. There is a requirement of the university that all groups promise to NOT discriminate. CBF refused to address this requirement in any capacity. Now, go ahead and say what you will. I’m done with you.

By Jack Burton

June 25, 2009 4:33 PM | Link to this

ADAM SEZ Jack, as far is this debate is concerned, this will be my last post to you. You are annoying me, and you lack any respect for other people. JACK REPLIES: I am “annoying” Adam because I don’t have any “respect” for his arguments. Weak, shallow at best, and not thought thru with any amount of logic or reason. What is to “respect”? ADAM SEZ I have included a bit of patience and requested information from you to aid in promoting a more friendly debate. I see you’re not capable of that. JACK REPLIES: And just what “info” have you requested that I have not given you. Be specific. Give detail. ADAM SEZ Stephen is saying here that no one person is to judge this, JACK REPLIES: And Stephen is judging this to be true that no one person is to judge this, eh? ADAM SEZ and that obviously there are other sides to this story, JACK REPLIES: And Stephen is judging this to be true that obviously there are other sides to this story, eh? ADAM SEZ: and you insult him for challenging people to look at other sides by saying he claims that he is the only judger. JACK REPLIES: Well, son, YOU just quoted two of his sentences where he passes judgement on the way he supposes the world is supposed to be. ADAM SEZ: You, on the other hand, seem to be out to do no more than insult. JACK REPLIES: Yes, I have been known to point out weak, illogical thoughts in a condescending manner. My advice would be that if you don’t want your publicly expressed ideas and posts insulted then attempt to put a little more reason and thought behind them. ADAM SEZ: In the same post: “Be specific. Give detail.” You seem to like to say this, as your last post also includes it. But, where is the detail in the Tinker case? Or, how about providing more than one case? JACK REPLIES: Now when you lodge a hit-and-run obviously false accusation about me it is only fair that I ask you to provide detail and specifics to back yourself up. Asking a college student to exercise a bit of initiative by giving them a push in the right direction with a cite is hardly the same, eh. At the risk of appearing vain by quoting myself I distinctly posted “Look up Tinker…” Have you not heard of Google? Wikipedia? And Tinker is the seminal case. One tends to only have ONE seminal case. Perhaps you hadn’t thought that thru? Perhaps you don’t know what seminal means? ADAM SEZ: ” No federal money was used in order to deny organizational status. This happens automatically when people don’t submit all the required registration information. On top of that, they weren’t denied because the school disagrees with them. They were denied because of an insufficient registration request. And they caved in because media coverage was threatened. JACK REPLIES: Government decisions were made. Period. They were unable to complete the registration request because it would have violated their First Amendment rights. You really have a tough time understanding this, don’t you? And the numerous court cases specifically pointing out that they were in the wrong had NOTHING to do with why they changed their mind, eh. ADAM SEZ: Wrong. I wonder, first, how I would reward and punish people if I can’t say what religious view is right or wrong? JACK REPLIES: You certainly seem to believe that the club in question should be denied it’s funding the same at other clubs. Please explain how this is not “punishing” a point of view that YOU believe is wrong. ADAM SEZ: I would simply rather every group at Wright State have to meet all of the same requirements as everyone else to gain their org status. JACK REPLIES; As I have always said… you believe diversity is great just as long as everyone believes as you do. ADAM SEZ: My business is the right to free speech. Out in the open, I can say that Christians are evil morons, and that all fish are demons. The difference is, when they’re in their own churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., that’s sacred, and I respect their ability to pray and exclude who they wish. JACK REPLIES: And if someone says it in public it is not “sacred” anymore because you can hear it? And you have no clue as to what “free speech” is. You believe in “acceptable free speech” and “unacceptable free speech.” And if it is “unacceptable” you are perfectly fine with the government squelching it. ADAM SEZ: They have the same right to SAY whatever they want when they’re in public, just as much as you or I do. JACK REPLEIS: But you think they just can’t ACT upon it, eh. ADAM SEZ: By the way, before you say anything about this, I do respect your right to speak as you wish. I am not here to say that you don’t have that right, though I imagine you probably will try to twist it that way. JACK REPLIES: Nice attempt at a strawman argument but pretty lame in execution. ADAM SEZ Here is another hypocritical moment for you. Why don’t you start by asking what these orgs do for tolerance instead of bashing them right off the bat? Why not find out that Crosswalk works with groups that promote GLBT issues? Or that PSA has meetings dedicated to learning other people’s points of view and religions so that they may understand their neighbors better? Or that Freethought was founded on the idea of sharing different beliefs so people will accept each other better? JACK REPLIES; I don’t have to “ask”. As their posting representative YOU have given plenty of actually evidence as to what YOU believe. And I am absolutely positive beyond the shadow of doubt that Crosswalk would allow an officer of the club who thought that homosexuals were perverts of God’s design and that the Bible was written about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Or that Freethought would vote in a president who thought there was one way, and one way ONLY to know God and to get to heaven. ADAM SEZ: Or do you just not want to believe that because we stand on different sides concerning WSU’s role in this, that I can’t have an open mind to other points of view? “ JACK REPLIES: Nope you can’t. Otherwise you would have no problem with this club both existing and being on campus. ADAM SEZ: Once again, this is about action, not just speech. Speech is allowed. It’s the discriminating actions taken that are the problem. JACK REPLIES Actions that have been taken as to hurt society as a whole have been both fronwed upon and in some cases even been made illegal. Please explain to us, in detail and with specifics, just how a Christian club that would like to retain it’s Christian nature and identity is hurting society as a whole. And by the way, you spend your whole day in “discriminating actions.” It’s part of being human. There are some people who are your friends, and some who are not. For WHATEVER reason, you are discriminating in who YOU choose to hang out with. Some folk just naturally prefer redheads. A blond will never, ever have a chance to marry that person. Discrimination? You betcha. You going to create a government law demanding that we no longer get to choose our friends or wives? Probably. ADAM SEZ: I can say black people are evil, can’t I? Of course! But, if I tell them that they can’t sit near me, or that they can’t vote, well, the Supreme Court has laws about that, too. JACK REPLIES: Now attempt to put that into context of a religious group protected by the First Amendment who is merely trying to keep its RELIGIOUS identity. Just WHOM are they discriminating against? ADAM SEZ: The only difference? Gay people are argued to be evil by religion. Now, what if we keep our all laws from being made because of the Bible? I would’n’t want to b there. JACK REPLIES; Here we are back to strawmen again. ADAM SEZ: First, they changed their policies because people were saying that Wright State was bashing Christians. Second, this is not viewpoint discrimination. There is a requirement of the university that all groups promise to NOT discriminate. CBF refused to address this requirement in any capacity. Now, go ahead and say what you will. I’m done with you. JACK REPLIES; And you cannot change the FACT that the Wrights “requirement” was clearly in conflict with the First Amendment and court rulings. And I can understand your frustration is being in over your head against a superior debater. Lot’s of people feel they are drowning in just six or seven feet of water but many of them eventually learn to swim. Some, t

By jack burton

June 25, 2009 4:39 PM | Link to this

ADAM SEZ: Wright State already has several religious organizations. JACK REPLIES: My goodness… my town has two Baptist churches, three Methodist, and two Catholic. I guess we can block any Lutheran church from coming into town on the reason that we already have “several”. ADAM SEZ: They just have to follow the same process and registration requirements as everyone else. JACK REPLIES; and Adam will never, ever, understand that just because a college has “requirements” that it neither makes the “requirements” legal or Constitutional. ADAM SEZ; The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that a university can not refuse status and privileges to religious groups based solely on the fact that they’re religious. There are many religious organizations on campus. But, an Islamic group would not be allowed to bar women from membership, because that’s sexist. The Black Student Union must allow other races to join. They should not be exempt from rules and provided favor over everyone else. JACK REPLIES: You just might want to check case law on that, son, before you continue to embarrass yourself.