Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (If We Can’t Discriminate, We’re Discriminated Against! Edition)

Okay, Bryan, work with me here.

The Christian Right is adamant that no Federal tax money should go to any sort of abortion service. I think you’d agree with that, right, Bryan?

The idea is that people should not be compelled to contribute to activities that violate their conscience.  To this way of thinking, forcing anti-abortion faithful to pay taxes that go to abortions is a horrible, awful infringement upon their conscience.

(Of course, nobody considers about paying taxes for war, or for support of other policies that folks might have a conscience reservation about.  You only get this sort of protection if you can get Congress to back it; the IRS doesn’t recognize personal moral reservations on federal tax returns.)

Okay, so let’s take that principle …

… to school.

Let’s say, for example, that you have a college.  It has college facilities, paid for by the tuitions of all its students (and generous donations by alumni).  It has student fees that are collected from all students.  A “tax,” if you will.

Folks should not, by the above principle, be compelled to pay for something that they cannot, in good conscience, participate in themselves.  Worse, if it’s something that is intentionally exclusive, discriminating against some members of the college community, then it is unjust to compel the college community to fund it.

Which then brings us to one of your more recent columns, “Homosexual bigots commit hate crimes, Part 11 – Vanderbilt University“:

(Interestingly, Bryan, after one brief mention of a gay individual early in the essay, homosexuality and “homosexual bigots” play no further role.  I realize you have a series going here, though, so I’ll forgive the exaggeration. Unless you’re suggesting, with unusual subtlety, that the Vanderbilt University staff are homosexual bigots.)

The parade of hate crimes continue. This time the perpetrator is Vanderbilt University which has put five Christian student organizations on provisional status for being, well, Christian clubs.

Um … not.  They’ve put them on provisional status for being discriminatory … which may stem from their Christian beliefs, but is not quite the same thing, as we shall see.  These little details matter, Bryan.

Vanderbilt was founded by the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 1870s, with a donation from philanthropist Cornelius Vanderbilt. Thus, as is the case with 106 of the first 108 colleges and the universities in the United States, Vanderbilt was brought into existence by followers of Jesus Christ.

An interesting historical tidbit, Bryan. Religious institutions were considered the core of public education in the colonial era and the early days of the republic, and founded a number of colleges and universities both to spread learning and to create educated evangelists.  Vanderbilt split with the Methodist Church in 1914.

Now his followers …

Well, some of His followers. Of course, I suspect you’d only consider them true Christians if they agreed with you …

… are being tagged as homophobic bigots and threatened with expulsion from campus because of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Really, Bryan?  They’re looking to expel Christians?  Really?  Well, that sounds dire.  Let’s find out more.

Worse, Vanderbilt has drifted so far from its moorings that while it is in the business of driving Christian groups out of existence it has decided to formally recognize Wiccan holidays. Goodbye Christians, hello witches and warlocks.

So … Vanderbilt is no longer recognizing Christian holidays?  Classes are scheduled on December 25, for example? No?   Doesn’t look that way.  Oh, I see, Vanderbilt is now allowing students who are Wiccan or Pagan to claim their religious holidays as excused absences — just as they allow for Jewish, Islamic, Baha’i, Hindu, Buddhist and … oh, yes, Christian students.

Hmmmm. I don’t quite follow you, Bryan.

Being a Christian has now become a punishable offense in institutions of higher learning.

Good heavens! Christians being punished? Are they being denied admission?  Are they being expelled?  Are their grades subject to reduction because of their faith? Are they being segregated into the bad dormitories?  No?  Then what sort of punishable offense are we talking about?

The issue at Vanderbilt began when a Christian fraternity, Beta Upsilon Chi, dismissed an openly gay member for violating its organizational constitution. Since being offended now seems to be grounds for filing a complaint directly with the Supreme Court …

Yeah, boy, I just can’t stand those folks who get so easily offended, know what I mean, Bryan?

… he went crying to the university and the university, in the vise-like grip of venomous Christophobia, …

“Vice-like grip of Venomous Christophobia”?  That’s a mouthful, Bryan. Also kind of a mixed metaphor.

… proceeded to commit a hate crime against Beta Upsilon Chi and five other Christian organizations on campus.

They spray-painted the walls and threw rocks through their windows?  They beat them up?  They tarred and feathered them? They burned their cars?  No?  What sort of “hate crime” are we talking about here, Bryan?

These groups have been told to violate the Scripture and their own consciences or they will be denied access to university facilities, university equipment, and the funding from student fees enjoyed by every other student organization.

They … what?

Oh, no!  It’s all about the HATE!!!

Hate crime you say? Don’t take my word for it. Here is the legal definition of a hate crime:

“A hate crime … involves … harassment … motivated by prejudice against someone’s … religion …” – USLegal.com

Here’s the definition of harassment:

“Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim.”

Are they offering a bulk rate on elipses this week, Bryan? (Here’s the full definition of “hate crime” from that site.)

Of course, you’ve not demonstrated “prejudice against someone’s … religion …” here, Bryan.  You’ve described what Vanderbilt has done, but not why.

Try convincing me that the small-minded tyrants at Vanderbilt have not created a “hostile environment” for the victims of this pogrom.

A “pogrom,” Bryan?  You’re comparing this to “a form of violent riot, a mob attack directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious, or other, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes and properties, businesses, and religious centres”?  Sure you don’t want to call it a “Holocaust” or “genocide,” too?  Maybe calling it a “slaughter” or a “killing spree” or a “massacre” would liven up your rhetoric.

So let’s discuss what’s going on here.

Vanderbilt University has a non-discrimination policy:

Vanderbilt University does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, military service, or genetic information in its administration of educational policies, programs, or activities; admissions policies; scholarship and loan programs; athletic or other University-administered programs; or employment. In addition, the University does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression consistent with the University’s nondiscrimination policy.

Last year, as you note, a Christian fraternity asked an openly gay member to resign.  Vanderbilt considered this discriminatory, which led to a review of University-sponsored organizations, and a change to the campus policy to no longer grant religious organizations an exemption from anti-discrimination efforts.  Get that?  Prior to the change, all groups sponsored by the university were not allowed to discriminate except for religious groups, who could. Now they can’t.  Now all registered organizations have to abide by the same rules:

One of the requirements to be a registered student organization at Vanderbilt is that student organizations’ constitutions be in compliance with the university’s nondiscrimination policy and that they sign a statement that they will comply with the policy. Some student religious organizations have raised concerns about how the policy might affect eligibility for leadership positions within their organizations. As a result of those concerns, we are exploring the issue.

We are still in discussions and no decisions have been made – any information to the contrary is just speculation at this point. We have 380 student organizations currently registered at Vanderbilt. Of the 36 religious student groups registered, 31 32 are in compliance. All other student groups are now in compliance with the policy.

Those student organizations not in compliance with the university’s nondiscrimination policy have been placed on provisional status, meaning they have the same full access to the Vanderbilt campus as they have had in the past while the university continues to listen to and discuss their concerns. We are committed to finding a solution to this issue.

Now, that seems pretty reasonable.  The university does not discriminate, and student organizations that receive support from the university — in terms of facilities and student fee funding and the like — need to follow that same policy. Those that choose not to follow that university policy … don’t get university support. Pretty straightforward.

One area of concern, as the university notes, is leadership requirements.  For example, the Christian Legal Society has a requirement that its group president “lead Bible studies, prayer and worship at chapter meetings.”  They feel that to change that requirement defeats a core value of their organization, and reflects discrimination. Vanderbilt says that means only people of a particular religion are allowed to lead that group, which is discriminatory.

(I’d argue that, based on your definitions above, such organizational requirements even constitute a (gasp) hate crime. But I don’t agree with the application of definition here, either.)

On the one hand, I can see the CLS’ point.  The group has gotten together for a reason, and with (one assumes) a mutually held belief system that they should be free to practice.  That others who don’t share those beliefs might not be welcome is a natural outcome.  I can see that.

The question is, should the university — using money raised from all students (and all alumni) be required provide funding and resources for such a group?

And, really, we’re not talking about jailing or expelling members of such groups.  The university is not banning these organizations or threatening their members .  They are simply indicating that they will not provide material support, with tuition and fees, for them. As Vanderbilt puts it:

Student groups that wish to practice their faith are welcome at Vanderbilt; however, it is incumbent upon them to decide whether they wish to become registered student organizations at the university.

(I’ll note that the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In 2010 they decided, in a 5-4 decision, that the UC Hastings Law School was justified in not recognizing CLS (in this case as well) based on the school’s non-discrimination policy.)

What does being a registered student organization at Vanderbilt give you?

• Use of the Vanderbilt name to identify institutional affiliation
• Use of University meeting rooms and facilities
• Opportunity to use office space and equipment in Sarratt Student Center
• Use of the Vanderbilt accounting system
• Listserves, groupmail, and URL’s administered by the University
• Free organizational consulting and training by University administrators

So there is some value to being an approved organization — but, then, clearly the university has an interest in not extending such approval to organizations that do not reflect its institutional values, such as non-discrimination — to extent that approval to organizations that, by definition, exclude some of the student body.

If the only way you can be with people who share your beliefs is to discriminate against those who don’t, then I think it fair that the university not provide you with support to do so, whether you’re the Christian Legal Society, the White Supremacist Club, the Young Republicans, the Young Democrats, the Young Greens, or the No Icky Girls Allowed Club.  You’re free as jaybirds to form your association, but you can’t expect the university to house you and provide you with your own web page, any more than you can expect the local city, county, or state to provide a free building and web page space to your church (or temple or mosque) with public tax dollars.

I’m just not seeing this as a “hate crime,” Bryan.  There’s no prejudice on display.  Christians aren’t being singled out; everyone’s playing by the same rules.

So we see the blatant lie of the left exposed in all its ugly hypocrisy.

Sigh.

They claim to be paragons of tolerance but are in fact the most intolerant batch of bigots on the planet. In the name of inclusiveness they have become the most exclusionary batch of Storm Troopers in the land.

Because if you’re not allowed to discriminate, you’re being discriminated against, Bryan?

The Christian Legal Society requires that its leaders “lead Bible studies, prayer and worship at chapter meetings.” Can’t be having that, Vanderbilt said, although one assumes that Wiccan groups will still be allowed to require that their leaders be adept at leading satanic rituals at their gatherings.

Wiccans are not Satanists, Bryan.

And “one assumes” wrong.  If there is a Wiccan (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist) group on campus, they would be required to follow precisely the same rules.  (And if they are not so required, then I would agree that’s discriminatory.  Feel free to provide actual examples, Bryan, if any come up.)

The university lamely tried to defend its hate crime by saying, “We are committed to making our campus a welcoming environment for all of our students.” Well, ask Beta Upsilon Chi and the Christian Legal Society just how “welcoming” the “environment” at Vanderbilt is for them.

Because if you’re only welcomed if you’re allowed to not welcome others, Bryan?

Vanderbilt law professor Carol Swain has called out the university on its bigotry and its disregard for freedom of religion, which of course has the advantage of being a constitutional right.

Said Ms. Swain, since Christian groups will be denied the opportunity to “maintain integrity of beliefs…this hastily conceived policy has the potential to destroy every religious organization on campus.”

Swain’s comments can be found in more detail here.

Of course, somehow, 32 of the 36 religious organizations on campus have managed to figure out how to live with a non-discrimination policy, even for their leadership. So not “every” religious organization seems to be under threat of potential destruction.

One of Swain’s concerns is that, by removing discriminatory requirements for group membership or leadership, the groups cannot maintain an “integrity of beliefs”.

Christians can seek to lead Muslim organizations, Muslims can seek to lead Jewish ones, and Wiccans can seek to lead Catholic fellowships. The policy encourages people holding antithetical views to infiltrate organizations they seek to destroy.

I suppose if a Muslim tried to take become group president of the Christian Legal Society, it would be difficult for him or her be elected.  Of course, as Swain (and others) have suggested, non-discrimination policy would allow a large group of Muslims to join up and “take over” a Christian organization (or vice-versa, or young Democrats from taking over the Young Republicans, or folks who like knitting from taking over the campus pottery club, etc.).  One might ask, “Why would they bother?” But, then, there would be nothing to stop the original group from creating a new club.  Or, if they really felt it was a problem, from simply going “private,” where they could restrict attendance in whatever way they wish.

Swain also voices concerns that Vanderbilt is being more restrictive on religious organizations than on non-religious ones.  I wish she’d been more specific here, because none of the coverage here seems to indicate anything other than that the policy is now no longer excluding religious organizations from the non-discrimination policy.

It’s particularly ironic that Swain notes how “the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits religious discrimination” when prohibiting religious discrimination by registered campus organizations is what this policy is all about.

But, again, it appears the vast majority of religious organizations on campus have figured out how to incorporate this policy into their own charters.  That hardly seems to be a sign that the university’s moves will potentially “destroy every religious organization on campus.” What do you think, Bryan?

Well, Ms. Swain, that just might be the idea. Secular fundamentalists are determined to eliminate Christianity from the public square, and as Vanderbilt amply demonstrates, they are willing to commit hate crimes to do it.

Brian, you are a dolt.

This is not a hate crime, and calling it such simply shows you have no idea what one looks like.

Now, to be fair, there is an alternative here.  Campus organizations could be allowed to discriminate however they want.  So, for example, the Pagan Legal Scholars Club could require that all members be Pagan, or that leaders invoke a blessing from the Goddess before each meeting.  The Christian Legal Scholars Club could do the same thing, as could the Muslim, Hindu, and Zoroastrian Legal Scholars Clubs.

Of course, if we’re not going to allow any discrimination against discrimination, then the Ku Klux Klan Legal Skolars Klub could also have a whites-only rule.  The Feminazi Legal Scholars Collective could have a women-only rule.  The Secular Fundamentalists Venomous Christophobe Legal Scholars Club could have a no-Christians-allowed rule. And so forth.

Maybe that would be better, in some sense, because then folks could gather together amongst their own tribes, and exclude all those others who didn’t meet the requirements or toe the line properly or look or think or act or believe differently.  I think it would be arguably less welcome of a campus, but as long as opportunities were open for anyone to clump up however they chose, that could be workably fair.

On the other hand, should my (hypothetical) tuition dollars go toward supporting a group who would not welcome me?  Who would kick me out if I managed to join their numbers?  Who, in fact, might despise me for what I am or what I believe?  Whose principles are, in turn, anathema to me? Should I be paying, indirectly, for that?

Should your tax dollars go toward government programs that you disagree with, Bryan?  Like, say, providing abortion services?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.