Schools Need Not Recognize Groups That Discriminate – NYTimes.com.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that schools don’t need to officially recognize, or give official status to, student groups that discriminate.

Hopefully this closes a case where obviousness should have prevailed from the beginning.  The case was brought about by the Christian Legal Society (CLS,) a student group with a chapter at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco after the college revoked official status of the CLS.

The school’s policy is that official student groups must be inclusive and not exclude potential members based on the fairly standard list of things you can’t discriminate against.

The student group “does not allow students to become voting members or to assume leadership positions unless they affirm what the group calls orthodox Christian beliefs and disavow “unrepentant participation or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.”‘  This would include “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”

While I must admit that last statement is a “cute” way of hiding  homophobia beneath a layer of pious prudishness, it is still unacceptable.

As a consequence, the student group cannot use the college’s name or logo or use meeting rooms or communication vehicles the college provides for recognized groups.   Not having official recognition also means the group is not eligible for other benefits — privileges — the college offers including special email access and limited financing. This is pretty standard stuff essentially ensuring the CLS cannot be seen as speaking on behalf of the college or its students.

In typical fundie fashion, Gregory Baylor, a lawyer for the CLS, said the ruling would require the organization “to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies.”   Um, no.  The college isn’t telling the 30 member group to change their beliefs, it is merely saying they can’t promote such discrimination and bigotry using funding from the college.  The CLS can continue to meet off-campus and can raise their own funding.  What they can’t do is pretend to be affiliated with the college.

If they so badly require funding from the college, they will have to follow the criteria for recognition meaning they will have to stop discriminating.  That’s a far cry from a college-appointed atheist Bible study leader.

Very simple.

Given that this is a law school, real justice would be expelling the students who brought about this frivolous suit in the first place.  Not for their beliefs, of course, but for grossly misinterpreting the law.

From Yahoo! Answers:

How do you think the creation account in Genesis would affect a Christian’s worldview?

My slightly off topic wall of text:

Which creation account?  :P

Okay, no seriously.  This is a really good question and one I’ve thought about for years.

First of all we have to try to make some sense of the stories.  The easiest to understand in a historical context is, surprisingly, the fall of Adam and Eve.

So the idea of god was created by this one tribe to justify an agricultural regime that dominated neighbouring tribes and lead to the establishment and spread of civilization while this culture assimilated or destroyed all competition.

Consider:

And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” -Genesis 1:28

Genesis 1 basically describes the actions of this fantastic all-powerful god who created everything.  This establishes God’s authority.  The story then goes on to suggest that this all-powerful being anoints us as masters of the earth.  Not only are we allowed to take it over and subjugate it to our whim, it is our duty!

This is not an attitude shared by all of humanity.  This arrogance is not human nature.  This wouldn’t make any sense to the Kalahari Bushmen, the Yanomami or any number of other tribal peoples.  This IS an attitude shared by all the Abrahamic religions.  It is also an attitude shared by all the other cultural descendants of the Agricultural Revolution in the Fertile Crescent.   This attitude isn’t really even shared by descendants of other agricultural regimes.  There is a distinction between Eastern and Western philosophies largely because they are descended from different agricultural regimes.  They certainly influenced each other and they have more in common with each other than either does with the Pirahã, for example.

It is no coincidence that the descendants of the Agricultural Revolution are the people who took over the world and the Pirahã didn’t.  Read “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond.  You won’t regret it.  One thing the Pirahã didn’t have was a sense of entitlement or destiny.

Aspects of the justification for agriculture, an example being the creation accounts, permeate western civilization.

We have a twisted sense of entitlement and an inherent specialness that has enabled us to cause a period of mass extinction not seen since the fall of the dinosaurs.  In my experience, many people, especially Christians, get visibly offended if you say that humans are animals.

Many of us, religious or not, delude ourselves into thinking that civilization IS humanity.  (Islam’s concept of the pride of Adam is a clear example of this) Throughout history, civilization has expanded and conquered through assimilation or destruction.  Soulless savages were considered sub-human and deserving of domination and death and that the land they lived on was free to be taken.  There are countless examples of this in history and its still happening today.  There’s an oil company in Peru that is starting to develop a well in a remote area of the Amazon to great controversy.  Nearby lives one of the last *uncontacted* tribes in the world. This oil company is denying they even exist.

We have an economic system based on the principle of continuous growth.  This is not sustainable by definition.  We’re rapidly converting the world’s biomass into human biomass — us and what we like to eat, the rest of the ecosystem be damned.  There will come a point when there can be no more.  What then?  Why are we seemingly in such a hurry to find out?

There have been Christian politicians in the US that have suggested the environment is not important because good Christians will be raptured long before it ever becomes an issue.  Before?  Another went so far to suggest that it was sacrilege to worry about the environment because that was admitting that God wasn’t taking care of us.  I’m not saying all Christians are this ignorant.  Plenty of Christians recycle and that’s great.  But bandaids don’t heal decapitations and I don’t see them trying to come up with a truly sustainable economic model.  I don’t see them challenging the primacy of civilization or trying to come up with something new.  Instead, I see them challenging scientific concepts like evolution because evolution undermines the authority of the magic being that gives them these delusions of grandeur.

Of course its not just Christians or religious people who share these delusions.  The point is the justification for this aggressive agricultural regime involves many myths and god and creation are just a few examples.  Western philosophy and the Abrahamic religious traditions all share a common cultural ancestry — these early agriculturalists with their excuses.

More evidence of this is that the Abrahamic religions and Western philosophy share a certain degree of eschatology.  Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden and it was assumed disaster would come because of this new attitude.  “Dreams of Millennium” by Mark Kingwell was a really interesting take on Millennial anxiety and examined how we’ve always been obsessed that the end times were coming soon.  Of course, again this is not human nature, this wouldn’t make any sense to the Pirahã.

Sorry for the wall of text but this is obviously something I’ve thought a great deal about and believe in very important.  ;)   Congratulations if you made it this far.

If you know of a blog or other Web site you think I should add to my blogroll or link list, please post below.

Try not to include too many links at once or the spam filter might catch it.

No spam please.

I’ve made quite a few updates over the past week or so.  Hopefully updates continue coming at a similar pace.

Plenty more tweaks are coming but the general idea is that the section on the left is permanent articles.  Some of these articles will link to related recent blog posts using some handy php code I had to write myself.

Not all of these articles have content and more articles will be written and posted in time.  The articles that have content should be considered drafts.

Feel free to suggest anything.

Zeus smote some justice on a six-story statue of Jesus when he threw a lightning bolt down from Mount Olympus.  The statue — made of fiberglass and plastic foam over a steel frame — burned to the ground after being hit by lightning late on Monday.

True story.  Zeus did it.

Those who want to see a sign will see a sign.

It is a sign from Allah to not make caricatures of prophets.

It is a sign from Jesus they should have made him fireproof.

It is a sign from Zeus that it was not a touchdown.

It is a sign from nature that nothing is sacred.

Luckily, I have a solution.

The Chicago Blackhawks can close out the Stanley Cup Final with a win in game six on Wednesday night.  The Chicago Tribune thought the best way to cheer them on was to print a poster of Flyers’ defenseman Chris Pronger.  Only the poster was labelled “Chrissy” Pronger and the photo of him was photoshopped to include him in a woman’s figure skating skirt.  The caption read, “Looks like Tarzan, skates like Jane.”

Naturally, this caused a little controversy.

Three-time Olympian Angela Ruggiero took offense and said it was an ignorant portrayal of women and hockey.   She said she would “like to see that editor out on skates.  I’ll take them one-on-one on the ice any day.”

Tribune sports editor Mike Kellams didn’t like that idea calling it a “no contest.”   Kellams apologized for those who took offense (whatever that means) and dismissed the incident and the criticism as “having a little fun.”

Okay, I’ll admit it.  It was a little bit funny in a juvenile sort of way.  It was probably meant as some good-natured humour and our world needs more of that.  It was also, however, ignorant and  sexist.

Any time you compare a to b in a matter intended to be insulting or denigrating to b, you are only making that comparison if you have a negative opinion of a.  In other words, if you say Pronger skates like a girl and mean it as an insult, you are effectively saying that girls can’t skate well.  Clearly this is sexist and a gross generalization that is patently false.  If Kellams didn’t mean that women can’t skate well, was the poster intended to compliment Pronger?  How then is this poster making fun of Pronger?

If you still don’t think this is sexist (at least in its ignorance if not intent) consider the reaction if Pronger was photoshopped to look black or Asian.  (“Crumbles like rice on ice?”)  Yeah, that’s what I thought.

I suppose that is the issue right there.  This is sexist in its ignorance rather than its intent.  Kellams dismissal of the criticism is a mistake that sends the wrong message.  Ignorance is not an excuse and it doesn’t make sexism okay.

I’m still optimistic enough that when I see ignorance, I see an opportunity to educate.  In this case, I think Kellams can show us all how much he and the Tribune appreciates good-natured humour by taking Ruggiero up on her challenge.

It’d be great.

We’d have someone who looks like Jane and skates like Tarzan going up against someone who looks like Mr Potato Head and skates like… well, Mr Potato Head.  Seriously.

Mike Kellams as Mr Potato Head

Kellams: Looks like Mr Potato Head, probably skates like him too.

Okay, maybe not too seriously.  This is just good-natured humour, right Mike?

But seriously.

The whole concept of freedom of speech has been bastardized.  Freedom of speech means you can say what you want, not that you won’t have to accept the consequences of what you say.

Kellams and the Tribune got a few laughs at Pronger’s — and women’s — expense and its time to accept the consequences.

I think Ruggiero’s challenge is a great idea.  I propose a game of shinny between the two to raise money for charity.   Better yet, maybe a 3-on-3 game with Kellams and two other members of the Tribune’s editorial board against Ruggiero and two players from her hockey school for girls.

It would be brilliant.

Kellams gets to “man up” and get destroyed by a bunch of girls.  Hopefully he takes it “like a man” and gets a lesson in gender equality and stereotypes in sports and reporting.

Angela Ruggiero gets some positive ink for women’s hockey and her hockey school.  If appropriate, maybe her school (or a related charity promoting girls in sports) can take the proceeds.  I’m sure beating up a couple men would be great fun for the girls.

The Tribune gets to save some face and put a positive spin on a divisive issue.   The articles covering the game would pretty much write themselves.   Who knows, the PR win might even gain a few subscriptions.

Come on Mike, “be a man” and show us all this was just for fun.  Yes, you’ll probably be humiliated but that’s what makes this work.  Don’t dismiss the criticism, embrace it.  Own it and accept the consequences.

That is, of course, if you have “the balls.”