My university experiences were a well-known public university and a well-known private university. Controversially idiotic speakers, usually of the radical left, were present all the time, to very small audiences. I occasionally attended because I do enjoy hearing differing opinions. Sometimes people in the audience yelled and cursed the speaker. Sometimes people cheered. I usually left shaking my head in disbelief. That is the way a public college is supposed to be, free from an agenda pushed in only one direction. I have to agree with the religious colleges even though I am not religious myself. If you go to a college sponsored by a religion, you have to at least respect their position in public and not push your personal agenda to change the principles of that religion. This bill is about choice. No-one says you have to go to any school, join any club, etc. If you want religious-conservative, go to Liberty University. If you want radical left, go to Bard College. No different from buying a minivan or a sports car. You can't turn one into the other. And public universities must adopt a neutral agenda. But wherever you go, learn enough to listen to the other side, and if you disagree, leave shaking your head.
6
Yes, Trump is absurd and radically unqualified for office and perhaps more immoral/amoral than any previous president yet he has gained the assent of the religious right in a bizarre collusion with self interest and mutual exploitation front and center. To say it is disgusting and bizarre does not tell the real story. Trump's sexual escapades are a denigration of women yet that raises no moral scolding from the religious right since they have perverted the message of love and inclusion and concern for the vulnerable modeled in the Life of the Christ. Contemporary right wing Christianity has little to do with His devotion to the vulnerable and the marginalized. Rather, it is a celebratory transmutation divorced from the pathos and suffering to which Christ devoted His life.
3
Why should my taxes go to pay for schools that would allow to discriminate against people like me (non heterosexual, not celibate, not white, not us-born, and certainly not Christian)?
7
This bill may be the single most important piece of civil rights legislation considered in the past fifty years. Colleges have become places that exist almost solely to indoctrinate impressionable young minds in liberal orthodoxy, offering "classes" and "majors" (e.g. gender studies) with absolutely no legitimate pedagogical, vocational, or societal value. Now these same colleges try to shut down any speech which amounts dissent whatsoever from intersectional, tribalist politics in order to ensure that there is no contrary narrative available to interfere with the propaganda. Joseph Stalin would be proud.
Please fast track this as one of your highest priorities, Mr. President!
2
Our First Amendment rights to freedom from religion are under threat from the Taliban wing of the GOP. The Libertarian wing of the GOP would say that if they keep their beliefs to themselves, they can do what they want - just keep away from me. But of course the right wing religious zealots have every intent of imposing their beliefs, no matter how pernicious, on the rest of us. I wonder how it will play out within the GOP?
4
Take a peek at the announced positions of the Christian Reformed Church with regard to homosexuality and abortion. The Christian Reformed Church operates Calvin College, Betsy DeVos' alma mater. Why do some people believe they have the right to tell others how to think or act?
1
enough already... this has got to stop.... by November will we even have a democracy? the dems in congress now must stand firm there is no choice you cannot negotiate with liars
2
when did conservative mean white supremacy?
4
And fascism marches on (forward).
2
I just find it that America is in a VERY sad state. "Liberals" want to squash conservatives. "Conservatives" want to squash liberals. Those who say we want "diversity" really mean diversity if it fits their narrative. Democrats want unity as long as it's not a Republican version. Republicans want unity as long as its not a Democratic version. Faith WAS a huge part of American culture - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Catholics and others all have faiths which those who are not of these faiths don't like. America is at a SAD cross roads where one side wants to discriminate and stamp out the other side but but yet all sides say they want diversity and inclusion. I wish all who had different views could respect each other and let each other live in peace - but this is not the case.
2
In the 115th Congress, there’s legislation to limit, curtail or repeal the civil rights of women, LGBT people, and immigrants, so this bill is no surprise.
The Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017 would make it a crime for a physician to perform an abortion, while another bill was introduced that claims ‘welfare programs discourage marriage and hurt the institution of the family’. There are similar bills like the 'Protecting Religious Freedom In America' legislation to protect ‘religious freedom’ and the right to discriminate against LGBT people.
Like the pernicious higher-education bill, all these proposed discriminatory laws were introduced by Republican members of Congress.
Our Constitution and founding principles are based on freedom and equality, and the party controlling the executive and legislative branches of government don’t believe in equality at all.
The higher-education bill is discriminatory, the recent tax cut is patently unfair to the majority of Americans, and Trump’s Muslim travel ban is antithetical to our religious freedoms.
No one is trampling on the rights of religious folks, while this legislation represents inequality and tramples on the rights of all the people.
It must be defeated (the GOP too).
6
Looks like some good changes ahead. Finally a breath of conservative air in the polluted over-liberal atmospheres of our universities. Sensible values in support of studies = a quality scholastic experience.
1
Please note that when conservatives now speak about the Bill of Rights, they focus on two central concerns: the right to hate, and the right to possess lethal weaponry.
3
Oh, those poor persecuted right-wing Christians whose complaints are widely (and rightly) ignored by the majority of the populace, except those poor, persecuted, right-wing congresspeople who have never encountered a version of the First Amendment they didn't dislike.
4
The Handmaid's Tale unfolding at our feet and still.... we sit on the sidelines. Sad!
3
Are are talking about accredidation for privately funded colleges, or funding? If the former, isn't it reasonable for a group of christian students to form an organization for christians, or for a christian institution to try to create a place that lives the values they are trying to teach? How is that oppressing others?
I (a lifelong liberal, socialist even) think the liberal world is going way too far in this imposed secularisation of our society. We need to allow religions to live their values. Some christians think gay sex (not identifying as/being gay, but the act of gay sex) is a sin. They just disagree with you, and it is a principaled religious belief. Live with the tension, don't go to that school; don't try to impose your liberal beliefs on them!
4
It’s funny how selective the Bible interpretation is: gay sex is wrong (barely mentioned in the Bible) but out of wedlock sex is acceptable (despite countless mentions of it...)
1
I think the left has gone too far, and this is the reaction from the right. Is it wrong to allow some single sex groups to exist as long as they do not exercise their collective voice in a discriminatory way? Sure, have some co-ed fraternity/sorority groups, but allow others to remain as they are and let individuals decide what works best for themselves.
3
This is why Devos and her wealthy friends elected trump so they could impose their brand of christianity on the rest of the country. Citizens United opened the flood gates of money buying politics and politicians. Get used to it.
4
Ironic how freedom of religion has morphed into freedom to oppress others.
19
How absurd! A heathen like Trump pushes support for religious suppression on campus and then ludicrously calls it freedom! This is a corrupt and evil man who talks faith only to hold his minority base. This is the sexual predator that a bigoted minority hails in a pact with the devil.
20
Religion has no place in the college campus. It does not belong there.and is unethical and suppressive. There is a place for faith or non faith as long as it is practiced privately but certainly not in open venues like school.
Homosexuality has existed as long as man has been on earth. Nor has God in the Bible ever opposed it. God is love and he accepts all.
It is the bigoted So-called faithful and not God who out of prejudice and fear of self who have created this hate and in so doing have denied God.
Trump pushes their narrow view not because he is religious ( there is no bigger heathen than himself) but merely to selfishly control his prejudiced minority base.
9
Re-read your post. Prejudice, fear, and bigotry appears to be something you're intimately familiar with.
6
Who’s being bigoted and hateful, again? You have just expressed your beliefs about a God. They aren’t traditional Christian teachings; they’re liberal. Most churches traditionally teach that God loves everyone, but hates sinful behavior and wants people to repent and live righteously. You have as much right to express your views and associate with those who share them as orthodox Christians do. Religious expression or expression of the lack thereof are both protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment is in effect on college campuses, as elsewhere, and people can indeed practice their faith in the public square as in private. It is probably up for debate whether a publicly funded organization can exclude people who don’t practice their faith or violate a morals clause. I wouldn’t be surprised if some version of the proposed guidelines stick.
7
Why exactly would people who disagree with these positions choose to attend a Christian college or try to join a Christian club or a single sex group, etc? It shouldn’t come as a great shock that certain Christian groups oppose same sex marriage or sex outside of marriage and might want to require people to share those views if they belong to a club. Freedom of association laws also apply to atheist groups or groups other than those that are Christian based, after all. It all sounds pretty sensible to me.
6
Just what is need. Tax payer funded Christian madrasas teaching hate, bigotry and worse - all under the guise of religious freedom.
Will atheist or multi-religious student groups be protected if they block religious persons who do not believe as they do?
Will a climate scientist - very controversial, I know - be able to speak at a religious college?
Reality check: It is the Christian right that is trampling on the freedom of religion of others, non-religious belief of others, and non-religious speech. Indeed, intruding into the bodies of women, access to contraceptives, same-sex couples, science, the freedom from religion - and not to associate with - and now a bill licensing discrimination by mostly the Christians-right - all of which have serious consequences.
If I am a seller of baking flour, do I have the freedom not to sell to a religious baker because of his religiously hateful treatment of others? If I am a doctor, do I have to treat religiously hateful people? Where does it end? How does same-sex marriage infringe on Christians? No one is imposing anything on them or changing their views and belief of marriage.
11
Let us not rush to judgement about Republican Party and more importantly tar all Republicans - which I am one.
I think this bill is a culmination of lots of things and events taken over the last decade that have alarmed conservatives and card carrying establishment Republicans.
While not widely reported, take instance of Chinese students in America - who as foreigners are contributing a mighty share of funds at many colleges. And they are doing the same across the globe, England, Australia and others.
It has been reported that Chinese students have pressured some universities in not out right banning, but toning down any discussions on current state of human rights - more precisely denial - in public forums and classes.
Similarly, even in America - the "political" correctness where establishment figures like ex presidents Bush and some members of his administration are either heckled or "disinvited."
So, this bill reflects many of these frustrations - and after 8 years of a rule by a POTUS who did jot look favorably on concerns of Republicans - this is what "elections have consequences."
And let's be clear this is just a House bill - Senate is another matter.
1
Former president Gorge Bush Jr and some of his administration are war criminals guilty of lying the nation into a war in Iraq, I could care less about any of them being heckled anywhere. As to the rest of the religiously conservative inspired bigotry masquerading as “freedom”, we’ve heard this one before. The behavior that college presidents wanted banned then was between individuals of different races and the biblical based argument was just as cherry picked and strident then as it is now. Let’s not forget the era of religiously inspired segregation that colleges like Falwell’s was founded on. The only thing I halfway agree on is letting pathetic jerks like Spencer and his ilk spout off. Use the same venue as any other person of equivalent stature and give the private groups fronting his appearance the bill. Republicans own Spencer with his former college buddy and Sessions flunky right there in Trumps White House helping write state of the union speech’s. Tar & feathers, really! With these friends your metaphorically bathing in it, better get used to it for awhile.
3
They can do whatever they want to try to force me not to laugh at them (and their ridiculous religions) as comical idiots...but I'll continue to laugh at them as the yee haws they always show themselves to be. It's almost worth the levity....
5
Conservative social engineering at its finest!
5
Buzz Windrip meets Handmaid's Tale.
3
So now what the majority are not interested in hearing will be forced by law in order to advance a losing ideology (conservatism/religiousity)? Try having ideas worth listening to.
4
Even an outsider who's been reading about what's happening in American colleges in the past 5-10 years with regards to Conservative speakers and how the Obama administration treated people of faith, could see this coming. That it would come as a shock or surprise to some just tells you that Liberals in the US are too used to that things always flow in the other direction (progress!).
3
I suppose this legislation means that Muslim fundamentalist speakers seeking to destroy Western hegemony over their culture are now free to speak at college campuses without harassment or fear of reprisal. Same for ardent Zionists who oppose a Palestinian state.
Welcome to Fantasyland, where conservative Christianity is just a dream and a wish away.
6
Good lord, these people are hateful monsters.
4
100% proud of Kappa Alpha Theta--my daughter's sorority--for standing up for the young women at Harvard. Theta was my daughter's first choice because of their high standards and integrity.
Young women (especially those without natural sisters) who want to join a sisterhood built on service and academic excellence should not be penalized and forced into "gender-neutral" clubs. My daughter has treasured her experience in Kappa Alpha Theta and the girls in Texas are speaking out to defend the girls in Boston. Talk about national unity!
The Big-Brother mindset has gone from protecting the few to punishing the millions for whatever Big Brother deems is wrong or offensive. I don't see the GOP stuffing an ed bill with a "conservative agenda"; I see them redressing wrongs.
6
Single gender sororities built around wealth, privilege and segregation are just as toxic and exclusionary when female as their male counterparts. Sororities and fraternities are outdated dinosaurs that like legacy students are meant to keep the riffraff out and the children of privilege in. Binge drinking, sexual assault and harassment, hazing et:al, what’s there not to love? & be proud of?
2
More proof that religion, an patriarchal institution of discrimination and hate, is history’s greatest scourge on humanity.
9
The right-wing now loves "robust free speech and academic freedom"? Oh, the hypocrisy! If you are a Boomer you remember quite well who was screaming "fire those 'Commie' professors and expel that radical group of trouble making students". The only difference between then and now is that the hard right is smart enough to only mutter those phrases under its breath and instead use legislation.
This article raises disparate issues which cannot competently be discussed in brief. Religious freedom of expression and practice at private sectarian universities involves different considerations legally from public places of secular control. A second legal issue, freedom of association is a precious right and if the bill only provides for students to keep sororities and fraternities "as is" then where is the problem? If it inhibits an administration from attacking binge drinking or disciplining egregious conduct, the bill must be opposed.
It is a farce that instead of using free speech to enlighten, the hard right wants to bring in professional provocateurs and white nationalists instead of sober mainstream conservatives.
6
The current "religious freedom" movement pursues not their right to practice their religion but to enforce their religious beliefs onto others.
To the best of my knowledge they have the freedom to worship as they wish. What they want is the freedom to deprive others of their freedoms and rights because they are in the world and should hold sway over others.
They may be in some cases more subtle than the Taliban but the end goal is the same.
10
Religious student groups could block people who do not share their faith from becoming members.
Controversial (read: conservative) speakers would have more leverage when they want to appear at colleges.
Wow! How threatening. Actually, how common sense.
Funny that common sense proposals warrant a "stuffing an education bill" article but when liberals inflict their policies- a ban on conservative speakers, transgender restrooms, athiests allowed to join religious student groups, etc.- nothing is noted. Just business as usual.
Elections have consequences.
8
Yeah. The rights of these groups are protected at the expense of everyone else’s. Of course, the religion that would be protected would be right wing evangelical. How convenient.
6
The point is that these religious groups expect official organizational recognition and support at a publicly funded institution that is supposed to serve all people. It is not the same thing as requiring your local Baptist Church to admit atheists. The groups could meet privately off-campus on their own dime and then reject whoever they want.
4
@JB Religious student groups on public university campuses receive funding from student fees. This was a big controversy on the campus where I work because the guide lines for receiving funding include statements about nondiscrimination -- that is, any student group receiving funds from student fees must be open to all students. Of course, if the religious groups opt out of funding they are welcome on campus. We argued fiercely about this knowing it was largely a make-believe problem.
4
I am happy to now know and understand these revelations about Trump voters. It's better to know their true hearts, than to simply suspect what they have never said to my face.
We are now watching the basic human rights be stripped from American citizens. Tell me again that Trump is not about hate, and please do tell me again that the church is not complicit in this hatred. To those of us looking in, it appears as though they have now disregarded all of the parts of their Bible that included Jesus.
"Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
15
Harvard wants to punish girls who join sororities. For some reason, Harvard has decided that girls should not carve out their own spaces.
Not sure how a group of young of women forming a club free from men strips anyone of their "basic human rights".
5
A space originally founded to keep the riffraff and colored girls out and privileged white girls of wealth and status in, that’s their “safe” space eh Honnybee? Same argument, different gender, very old nonsense!
3
With "Citizens United," we can now buy a government. With this "education" bill, we will be able to buy minds with government sanction. I wouldn't call this progress.
10
“There’s a huge difference between discriminating against behavior and discriminating against a person,” Mr. Piper said.
If you're discriminating "against behavior" then it's the hand-holding action that you are discriminating against. If that's the case, a hetero. couple would have to face the same prohibition against hand-holding as the gay couple. The handbook says clear as day that the school doesn't want gay people there.
6
The Republican Party is the party of bigotry. We used to be able to confidently say that not all Republicans are bigots but all bigots are Republican. Now I think both are true.
27
The idea that Donald Trump is a Christian is laughable. He gets his little cracker? and he never feels the need to ask for forgiveness?
Donald Trump is cheering right wing zealots because they are going after the people and institutions who used to laugh at The Donald when he was the laughingstock of New York, a six-time bankrupt developer with an addiction to self-promotion, shock radio and screaming tabloid headlines about his sexual and social-climbing exploits.
Our American institutions and values are in upheaval now because The Donald was dissed by forward-thinking people and he has his tiny fingers on the levers of power. This isn't about the Constitution. This isn't about the Bill of Rights.
It's about a man with largest ever, the biggest, the mostest-ever ego who is getting back at anyone who ever sneered at his tabloid trash ambitions and his gold plated toilets. Take that, you snooty coastal elites. I'll show you who's boss.
59
You nailed it!
5
The article did not attribute this bill to Trump at all, though I would not argue against your assessment of his character. Looks like this bill contains some sensible measures that will foster a higher quality scholastic experience. Finally!
In defending his school's right to prohibit "homosexual P.D.A." or other "conduct," Everett Piper says, "There's a huge difference between discriminating against behavior and discriminating against a person."
In that case, he should not complain that the government is violating his religious freedom when it requires recipients of federal funds to treat people equally. These laws do not regulate these colleges' religious beliefs, but their behavior -- the bevaior of relegating some of their students to second-class citizenship.
22
Love the Oklahoma Wesleyan University handbook forbidding behavior that promotes a “sexual identity outside of scriptural expectations.” Plenty of biblical characters had assorted sexual expectations that would land a modern practitioner in jail. Heaven forbid two men hold hands, but I guess it would be okay if a student showed up to class leading a string of biblically approved concubines, or requested a bigger dorm room that would accommodate the biblicall precedent of his multiple wives.
24
Or his slaves.
5
I hope people are aware that right wing publicity seekers like Spencer and Yiannopoulos have been forcing colleges and universities to spend their limited resources on keeping their rallies safe. This is an abuse of the system and a misuse of funds that has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
22
Isn't the private sector the appropriate place for those who wish to discriminate? After all, they aren't serving the public if they are, but a selected subset thereof. In this case it means institutions that do not receive a speck of government funding, pay full freight taxes and are on private, fully taxed, property.
Otherwise, you are subject to the laws as apply to all. Tax monies may never go to those who support or promote religion. There's a First Amendment that's all about that.
11
So, it would be LEGAL for a college to ban people of the same sex who want to love each other, but ILLEGAL for a college to ban people of the same sex who want to associate only with each other... The ideological blindness and total lack of human compassion (or less charitably, hypocrisy and power-seeking) are very real.
As for the idea that colleges, clubs, bakers and such being allowed to discriminate is no threat or problem because those discriminated against can simply take that into account and seek services and companionship elsewhere...what happens when there is no college, club or baker within hundreds of miles - likely in some cases several entire states - that does not refuse service to homosexuals, or Muslims, or Mormons, or non-Mormons, or African Americans, or Jews, or even 'unaccompanied' women? Especially if, as this bill mandates, the powers that be can in a given place can actually turn around and ban organizations or businesses, even inferior "separate but (un)equal" ones, from trying to fill the gap?
10
This isn't about freedom of speech, what the republicans (not surprisingly) are doing is what conservatives speakers who face a backlash always cry "I have freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is a legal term that applies only to the law not being allowed to suppress speech without showing due cause (like fire in a movie theater).
What this is about is getting around discrimination laws. This would, for example, allow religious schools (and I am sure it would include catholic schools, the US Bishops being to the right of evangelicals) to accept federal funding but be able to discriminate, and also would basically forbid private universities that accept federal funding from preventing discrimination. When you hear words like "freedom of association", those are code words for discrimination, the white trash that makes up the GOP base argued that for segregated schools and Jim Crow, that it was 'freedom of association". What universities have tried to do by not allowing recognized clubs to discriminate is to try and stop the apartheid that happens, clubs even when I went to school were supposed to admit anyone interested if they accepted school funding, because that person who wanted to join paid their fees like anyone else. What the GOP is basically doing is telling colleges that they have to allow discrimination and recognize the clubs who do this. If religious clubs want to discriminate, they can forgo funding and university space.
20
Appears unconstitutional on its face. The Congress cannot authorize what the Constitution forbids.
21
So to be clear the republican controlled Congress is throwing their weight behind the forces who are intentionally spreading violence across the nations college campuses by intentionally saying things they know will get those opposed to it riled up and ready to fight back against it.
Seems the conspiracy I allege is taking place between the RNC and the Berkeley College Republicans to intentionally provoke riots by staging stunts is much larger than I thought.
7
Separation of Church and State was done to protect religion from being weaponized by government, not to make government less moral. Religion is allowing itself to be co-opted by the trump administration. State sanctioned religions lead to Theocracy. Do we really, really want religious values to become tools of such interests.
36
Thank goodness we have an administration worried about perpetuating fraternities and sororities just as the Founders and God intended.
(Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
21
The impulse to discriminate should be given free reign so long as it’s not infringing on the rights of another. If someone prefers their club to be Christian or their cakes to be heterosexual, I’m better of knowing where they stand then forcing them to “accept” me. To deny someone their right to be insular and exclusive and discriminatory is to deny ME an awareness of my surroundings.
6
So, whites-only lunch counters? No-Jews-allowed housing developments?
This is tricky at times, but essentially if you provide a service to anyone who can pay for it, you can't say anyone but gays, non-Christians, nonwhites, women, etc.
It's not perfect, but I like it better than the old system.
13
I have mixed feelings about this. Private religious institutions can exist in their backward heteronormativity if they like, as far as I'm concerned; they can wither away and die intellectually because thinking people with capacious minds will avoid them.
What cannot be permitted is the use of any public money for institutions that discriminate, and that includes Pell grants and the like. You can't feed at the public trough and then turn away piggies who don't have the same spots as you.
And that goes for august institutions that still support those inegalitarian white-boy clubs, too.
30
Just a thought: what are they going to do when, say, a Sharia Society springs up on some campus? There would be nothing illegal about it, but I'll bet the freedom-for-me-but-not-for-thee crowd would waste no time in trying to shut it down.
.
47
“Colleges and universities, both public and private, have long been considered environments that support robust debate and freedom," said Michael Wooste, explaining the reasoning behind a bill allowing religios schools to ban same-sex relationships.
And telling us all we need to know about GOP idiocy and dupllcity.
15
As soon as the powerful crop of so-called Christian colleges find themselves in the minority, with Bahai, Hindu, and yes Muslim universities ascendant, we will see these supporters of discrimination cry foul --for it is *their* own provincial interpretation and white racialist beliefs, not liberty of any sort, what they seek.
Oh, and would an atheistic "religion" be able to forcefully discriminate against believers under these proposals?
14
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
54
When Christian colleges are required to allow radicals of other religions to speak at their schools we'll see how the definition of fair and free speech changes.
20
No so-called Christian College will have this problem, because no student will be permitted to ask for a non-conforming speaker. These hypocrites have always actively discriminated and now they will be able to do so under the guise of "religious freedom." It will be just like 1718 or so. After all, they are trying to turn back the clock. I just hope we don't reach the Inquisition in my lifetime.
12
No, it's ivy league and major universities which block speakers of "offensive" beliefs. See Berkeley, et al.
2
glad my kids are out of school now, its a pity my tax dollars continue to support religious education though
9
After the decision in Brown v Board of Education many schools decided to become"private" so they would not have to comply with desegregation which was the law of the land. Colleges who reject inclusion and insist on compliance with their own brand of discrimination should not receive federal funds including grants and scholarships. The "private" schools eventually closed and inclusive and well funded schools became more acceptable.Exclusion is not a winning strategy.
17
No, they shouldn't receive funds, but the country's heading in a directon that only they will receive funds,
10
Good luck with that. I've got more than a dozen siblings, almost all of them are very conservative religiously and politically but their kids, even the ones who went to religious schools are almost all quite liberal. Education, exposure to other types of people and new ideas made it easy for these kids to break free of the bigotry and intolerance of their parents.
46
That is exactly why conservative institutions like to limit exposure to more open viewpoints.
12
Is this bill becomes law, look for Title IX to be next. Though, this bill could be interpreted that is also affects Title IX provisions, as well. For those who ask what is Title IX? It is the provision to have equal facilities, funding and opportunities, to participate in intercollegiate sports. It also extends to areas of sexual harassment and sexual preference. The Christian schools could interpret the Bible concerning women being subservient to men. Similar provisions concerning LGBTQ. This goes way beyond private clubs at Harvard, sororities and fraternities.
The federal and state governments could cut off loans, and aid, to both public and private schools, if they are not in compliance. Thus, implementing a Christian code probably at all levels of education.
12
This really doesn't help the cause of Christianity in the USA in any meaningful way. It will only create more widespread sympathy for gay and transgender people who have been demonized for decades by people like Tony Perkins and all of the GOP "Values Voters" looking for scapegoats for their bottomless pit of resentment and false sense of privilege. It's important that everyone remember that while these misguided people and their cynical operatives work to undermine the constitution's separation of church and state that they are also enthusiastically supporting a thrice married, misogynistic, litigious adulterer who paid hush money to a porn star. Sorry American "Christians"--Game over. You lose. You have no credibility.
73
So this is what Trump's "reduced regulation" approach to governance looks like? One could be forgiven if it seems as hollow as his economic populism, that turned out to be billionaire worship once Trump took power.
60
Once again, Republicans show they are all for government intervention in our lives as long as the government is intervening to further conservative goals and ending liberal goals or goals that have no political bent whatsoever.
97
I am so tired of conservatives attempting to shove religion i.e Christianity down the throats of Americans. I am equally annoyed by their effort to place freedom of religion on a plane higher than all the other freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion Just think back on the days when Christianity was exclusively the Roman Catholic Church We all poorly that worked out in Europe. This is why the folks who wrote the constitution created a firewall between the sacred and the secular.
80
I am always open to honest, civil discussion and certainly enjoy considering a broad array of ideas. But I am absolutely certain that discrimination and intolerance are not a fundamental rights, no matter how you couch them. Your religious freedom stops at my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
96
When are these bible thumping Republican hypocrites going to read the constitution that they say they treasure so dearly-
That little part about "separation of church and state"?
This country needs a lot more spiritually and a lot less religion.
42
You seem to have it backward. This bill will remove government intrusion into the operations of sectarian institutions. People who do not like the rules of a particular religion are free to take their tuition-dollars elsewhere.
5
Also, when will they read their own bible?
4
They don't really believe in the Bible or follow Jesus. They have their own dogma that they believe and opportunistically use the Bible to cynically provide legitimate cover where they can.
4
This is unconstitutional and if it stands it is just another brick from the crumbling edifice that once was our proud country. Where are our young people? Why isn't there more outcry from campuses? With everything happening to student loans, racism flourishing and the health of our democracy at risk due to Russian influence, you would think they would be less self absorbed. If the younger generation doesn't think it is worth getting involved now, then they certainly aren't going to care when they get older.
16
The standard for violating free speech is don't yell fire in a crowded space; how about the standard for limiting free speech is it is ok to yell fire in a crowded space when there actually is a fire. Hate speech in a crowded place can be the equivalent of a fire.
11
Ah, but remember young Republican insist, in fact they swear that the Republican party is totes not about discrimination and are saddened when people associate the Republican party as homophobic or racist.
If only there were some reason why? It can't possibly have anything to do with their yearly attempts at legalizing discrimination.
46
Once again the American Sharia conflates freedom of speech and discrimination, basically standing logic on its head.
114
Most conservatives regard the first amendment as the right to be Christian. Some of these folks cannot conceive of this country not being founded as a Christian nation regardless of the facts. Legalizing discrimination is part of the right wings agenda. Eventually the SCOTUS will have to get involved. The question then will be can our justices read and understand English . I have my doubts,especially as more of the "strict constructionist " , head in the sand types, get appointed to judgeships.
58
Of course, real Christians see through their unwillingness to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, to say nothing of the whole bear-false-witness thing...
4
I agree, but these aren't "real" Christians.
1
Even if "conservatives" could manage to divine what the founders had in mind when Jesus delivered the constitution, the message is clear. Not even a "once upon a time" rending can erase the inconvenient little church/state deal. Although, Nunez, with a revision or three, could probably do it. The program is, you keep your church out of my government and I'll stay out of your church. Or, if you insist on pursuing this kind of thing, at least pay taxes!
67
When did Christians--or, rather--evangelical Christians--decide their ideas couldn't stand up in the marketplace. A school of thought that isn't willing to debate its beliefs and ethics is as good as dead. As a Christian, I'm offended by this lack of faith.
47
christianity has a deep history of this witness the inquisition and the slaughter of native populations in the name of christ
All these measures seem to be part of the GOPs agenda to ensure that their views are dominant. The real antipathy is not towards conservative beliefs; it's towards anything conservatives view as more "liberal" than their beliefs. I've read Ann Coulter's books and like many demagogues she excels at writing half truths and stirring the pot to make trouble. I've also seen plenty of extreme liberals do the same things. When it comes to extremists on either side they tend not to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. And they seem to resort to the same tactics.
It's unfortunate in America that religious groups are allowed to set the agenda for health care, for education, for many things that should stay within their own group. However, if I were to go to a religious college I would not expect them to encourage a same-sex relationship unless they said they did. Religious student groups by their nature tend to attract only those who believe in the same things. Controversial speakers, if the college determines that more security is required, ought to be asked to pay for it. Students are free not to attend.
Colleges are supposed to be places where students can explore the intellectual world, disagree without fear, and learn that compromise is part of everyday life. Today colleges are more like high school and that's a pity.
31
If you go to a religious college that bars same-sex relationships because of that religion's beliefs, that is fine PROVIDED that taxpayer money does not support the school that discriminates.
It's the same as if you go to a religious college that bars interracial relationships because of that religion's beliefs, that is fine PROVIDED that taxpayer money does not support the school that discriminates.
50
But that's not what the GOP wants. They want to have a faith based state; so much better than a knowledge based state with compassion for others.
54
I remember that, once upon a time, America had a Constitution. It was considered a good thing by most Americans, in large part because it didn't let a minority of people in power impose their religious beliefs on others.
166
How does freedom of speech and freedom to associate equal an imposition of religious belief? I think you have your principles mixed up. Also, imposing religion would be a rule more akin to saying all students are required to attend temple or mosque services each week, which does not seem to be part of this bill.
1
The federal government should have a balanced approach to education. It should not be instrusive. Liberals like free speech only when it fits their agenda, then they turn around and call others fascists.
Conservatives like free speech only when it fits their agenda, and then they turn around and call others Communists.
Both sides suck. Free speech is essential in America. If you don't like it, don't watch or don't attend. No one cares about anyone's feelings.
12
Free speech exists in other places of the world America is the only one that equates it with protecting hate and discrimination due to a lack of American ingenuity in providing protections for its people
23
No, free speech does not exist in Europe. People with unpopular opinions are routinely shut down, arrested and fined. It goes way beyond just "hate speech," although that is often how unpopular speech gets labeled, when it's really just conservative or critical of Islam or does not conform to the parties in power.
5
this is awful.
23
A classic example of why the Feds should stay out of education. They have no mandate and no mission. All they have is money and issues. Whether they're right wing issues or left wing issues, they just can't resist interfering in education just to please their backers. LBJ's Great Society turned into a blank check for meddlers. Thanks to him, some States are no more than banana republics, always looking for a handout from the Emperor.
3
Controversial speakers would have more leverage when they want to appear at colleges, as long as they are conservative speakers seeking to speak at liberal institutions. Conservative colleges, on the other hand, remain free to ban liberal speakers as long as the school shouts freedom of religion. It all seems one sided to me.
154
All these nasty kind of laws must be designed by ALEC. Just look at the tax code punishing Blue states, ALEC's fingers were all over that one. Sickening isn't it.
31
can you name one instance of a liberal speaker being banned by a conservative college
1
Can you name one 'liberal' speaker who engages in the inciting-to-riot type of speech or advocating a race or gender supremacy of a Spencer type? He and his Ilk are provocateurs, as I am sure they would tell you in an honest moment.
The reason you can't find liberals banned from conservative colleges is that the liberal speaker is not likely to have any/many protesters or attendees at a conservative college. The liberals are not a threat to their ideology.
People like Spencer know their 'out there' presentations will engender fierce opposition and support ala Trump. And, like for Hollywood movie stars, the only bad publicity is no publicity.
1
This is exactly why the federal government should not fund higher education at all. By making education 'free', it is deprived of all 'freedom'
3
Funny how public k-12 schools don't have this problem. If "free" was really the issue.
7
That's twisted nonsense that belongs with Orwell's "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength"
Ending free education takes away many people's freedom to educate themselves. "Free" public roads don't restrict your freedom to travel.
8
“There’s a huge difference between discriminating against behavior and discriminating against a person,” Mr. Piper said. It is idiotic casuistry like this which gives American sects their reputation. If Piper wants to diminish his educational institution, he couldn't set a more sterling example.
97
Yes, if the school actually forbade public displays of affection by ANYONE then that could be considered a behavioral rule; but it appears from the wording in the article that only same-sex couples are under that prohibition, which means it's quite blatantly discrimination against people.
14
Agreed. Also, I'm fairly sure that a rule that prevented Christians going to church on Sundays--which is a behavior, by the way--wouldn't be defended with the same vigor. Or logic.
4