Originally Posted By woody >>And where and when is this? Circumstances?<< You don't know. Where did you get your information? You know a lot about religion, but not the practice of it. Look up "Christian groups expelled university" in Google. Oh wait. Here it is. ---- <a href="http://savannahnow.com/node/239308" target="_blank">http://savannahnow.com/node/23 9308</a> In April 2006, a fraternity member filed a complaint with campus police, alleging the group was engaged in "practices that are not unlike [that] of a cult" such as "bapti[sms]" and "foot washing." Days later, campus officials suspended Commission II Love, charging the group with violating campus policies prohibiting harassment and hazing. The ruling prohibited the group from conducting activities, congregating, wearing its paraphernalia, soliciting membership or participating in "underground" activities on or off campus. After members and non-members took a weekend trip to a Christian music event in Orlando, university officials expelled the members and deactivated the group.
Originally Posted By johnno52 I must say I did stir up a hornet's nest! But I am getting a good lesson. But I agree with the purpose of the ACLU as it keeps your country on a straight path even though not everyone agrees with it goals. We have some politicians that are considering letting the Islamic Sharia laws be used amongst the Muslims. Sikhs have won the right to bring into a court their ceremonial dagger (Kirpan).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Days later, campus officials suspended Commission II Love, charging the group with violating campus policies prohibiting harassment and hazing.> That's what they're charged with, not being religious. If some fraternity was found to be violating college rules on harassment and hazing, they might be decertified too. And perhaps the ACLU is involved in this case, but your link made no mention of them.
Originally Posted By woody The ACLU sides with Muslims when they practice their religion and allows significant accommodation. They are an exception to ACLU's usual policy against Christians.
Originally Posted By woody >>That's what they're charged with, not being religious.<< "bapti[sms]" and "foot washing." Not religious?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Commission II Love<< I would have suspended them because they used that ridiculous way to spell the word "to." People who use numbers in place of letters are usually complete idiots. Signed, Kar2oonMan
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What you don't realize is that the ACLU sides against the state sponsoring religion, and sides with those wishing to practice it privately. You haven't given any examples to the contrary.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>That's what they're charged with, not being religious.<< <"bapti[sms]" and "foot washing." Not religious?> Read it again, bucko. That quote was from a frat member who didn't like them. The actual charges from the college were harassment and hazing.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Days later, campus officials suspended Commission II Love, charging the group with violating campus policies prohibiting harassment and hazing." Uh, this is the problem they were having, not that they were religious. There are many religious groups, including Christian on campii all across the nation.
Originally Posted By johnno52 Then if a Muslim stones another to death outside on the street (in accordance to his sharia law) the ACLU would defend him? But would object if he tried to get these rules passed into US courts?
Originally Posted By ecdc Woody, you should try looking up the number of briefs the ACLU has filed on behalf of Christian churches. Any time a town outlaws proselytizing, the ACLU files briefs in support of groups like Jehovah's Witnesses. Most recently, they supported Fred Phelps and his psycho followers' rights to protest soldier's funerals. They have the nasty task of protecting speech most of us disagree with, but that's no reason to outlaw it. I find most of what you say to be wrong, but the ACLU would defend your right to say it. I'd love to see an example of the ACLU suing to stop religious worship on private property that isn't state sponsored. Or is this like the phantom prosecution of pastors preaching against homosexuality that never materialized?
Originally Posted By woody "What you don't realize is that the ACLU sides against the state sponsoring religion, and sides with those wishing to practice it privately. You haven't given any examples to the contrary" I gave you an example of private prayer on public property. The Supreme Court allows this. The university acted incorrectly based on this story.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then if a Muslim stones another to death outside on the street (in accordance to his sharia law) the ACLU would defend him?" No, because that would be murder, you see. Your free practice of religion has certain limits, and those limits are imposed where it can cause harm to another person or the public. Free speech is limited similarly, in that you can not yell *FIRE* in a crowded theater, as that would cause harm towards others.
Originally Posted By woody >>Read it again, bucko. That quote was from a frat member who didn't like them. The actual charges from the college were harassment and hazing.<< Yeah, he didn't like them. The charges are trumped up. Those religious practices are clearly not harrassment and hazing.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I gave you an example of private prayer on public property. " You gave an example of VMI, a state school forcing people to pray. You gave another example of a fraternity hazing people, from which there were complaints.
Originally Posted By woody >>You gave another example of a fraternity hazing people, from which there were complaints.<< That complaint gave examples not of harrassment of they guy. It was a complaint about religious practices, which was trumped up to be about hazing and harrassment.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That complaint gave examples not of harrassment of they guy." How do you know they are trumped up? But let us assume they are. What has this to do with the ACLU?
Originally Posted By ecdc That's your interpretation; the complaint wasn't about religion. You really need to stop OD'ing on Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly. All you're doing is using single anecdotes to claim larger or widespread practices that even your anecdotes don't actually prove.
