Exeter University Student Union has banned the Exeter University Evangelical Christian Union from using guild premises and frozen its bank account on the grounds that the Christian Union discriminates against non-Christians, by requiring people who join to make a declaration of Christian faith. The Christian Union has now mounted a High Court action against the University on the grounds of infringement of their members rights to freedom of speech, belief and association.
Ruthie wonders why anyone who was not a Christian would want to join the Christian Union, and suspects that the decision to ban the Christian Union has been made not by practising members of other religions but by atheists or confirmed secularists. One assumes that the decision of the Student Union applies to all other religious societies on campus that only permit believers to become members?
Ruthie notices that general decisions to ban expressions of Christian faith (hot cross buns, nativity plays, Christmas etc) on the grounds that members of other religions will be offended, are rarely made by practising members of other religions, or indeed in consultation with them. Indeed most practising members of other religions realise, that in a predominantly secular society its a short step from the banning of expression of Christian faith to banning the expression of faith, and therefore in the interests of all religious adherents to be tolerant of one another.
Religion is often used as an excuse for all manner of intolerant behaviour, but Ruthie suspects that ironically here, religion is being used an a convenient excuse for the non-believers.
decisions to ban expressions of Christian faith … are rarely made by practising members … Ruthie suspects that ironically here, religion is being used an a convenient excuse for the non-believers.
Twaddle, frankly. These decisions will usually be made by secular, e.g. the university, authority on that secular basis. Intolerance is virtually always between religions not atheists and theists. Roaming gangs of atheists don’t burn down churches. Atheists are invariably tolerant of the existence of religion, if dismissive of its basis.
Your attempt to besmirch atheists speaks, in typical fashion, of the fear & hostility of theists to atheists because they fail to accept the superstitious basis of the theists existence: other religions are, when tolerated at all, tolerated because they do at least accept a god, albeit the wrong one.
I agree, BTW, that Christian’s should be entitled to insist on the closed company of like minds: partly because there’s no point in risking the spread of infection, but also because it would disturb and dilute the exercise of the association’s whole purpose. And it would be a basis for extending the principle to political or other belief based groups.
Geeklawyer, it wasn’t the university that made this decision, but the student guild. I know it sounds like nit-picking, but there is a world of difference (the guild/union are a hell of a lot more malicious).
The same thing happens at my university (the Christian Union has been excluded from the students’ union — see http://oberon2001.blogspot.com/2007/01/students-unions-and-christian-groups.html).
Oddly enough, the other religious groups at my university do allow non-believers to be members (I suspect they just don’t ask and assume everyone is a believer), that’s why they are still a part of the SU.
Geeklawyer: I don’t want to get into an extended discussion about religion as I don’t think that the function of the blog, but rather focus on the freedom of belief/association aspects of the decision. I agree that the danger with this decision is that it can be extended to other groups: will the Socialist society now be required to admit fascists etc etc? Why have the Christians been singled out?
Gavin: thanks for your helpful comment, I hadn’t appreciated that the other faith groups allowed non-believers to join.
In relation to the court case, surely there is a locus issue. Is there an actual non-believer who wants to join the Christian Union, or is the guild acting on the basis of a hypothetical joiner?
My bet is the guild is acting on the basis of a hypothetical joiner — students’ unions have an “equal opportunities policy” which pretty much bans any form of discrimination, including on the grounds of religion. Requiring members to sign a statement of belief infringes this in their view.
I have absolutely no idea why we need to believe in a god… of whatever persuasion — but for those who do — I am pleased that they so believe — that is their right.
It is part of our world history that conflict, intolerance, bigotry et al has been a part of the development of nations — and the various religions (and varieties, thereof) have been used to control the people of those nations. [I don’t want to be contentious but I seem to remember that one of our monarchs sentenced 234 people to be burned at the stake during her short reign — and was signing death warrants on her death bed.)
Today, no-one would suggest that religion would be used to control, moderate, influence or control any particular group. That would be a ridiculous proposition.
What I do not always understand ( I understand the philosophical issues, the pathology… the need) is why those who are religious — are so intolerant of those who are not. Why can’t atheists, agnostics…non-believers, fence sitters or — apostosists, practice their ‘non-belief’ wihtout being categorised?
I accept that, of course, that I may have missed the point and… quite possibly, may even be on the wrong website/blog.
The bunch of loony christians in question use the facilities of the students’ union — web server, rooms, money etc. It therefore seems reasonable that they should abide by the union’s rules.
There are, as my christian missionary friend Simon puts it some “fun details” about this story that aren’t being reported as much as they should. For example, while the loonies discriminate against catholics they have hypocritically written to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference for help. They have barred the university’s Anglican chaplain but also asked the House of Bishops for help. And they’ve lied both to the media and in the union’s democratic processes.
The groups representing other christian sects in the union don’t do any of those things. The Catholic society, for example, is open to evangelicals. So the only reason that ECU is being banned is because, unlike all the other societies funded by the union, it refuses to follow union rules. Of course, that shouldn’t matter too much, as the ECU is on record as saying that they “do not need the guild’s money”. So really, the only reason they’ve decided to go to the national press with their story is for publicity. Simon says that “there’s enough persecuted Christians in the world that we could be helping, without us going out and inventing some of our own” and that maybe they should spend money on them instead of on their own DIY persecution.
Thanks for your comment David. It appears indeed that this story has been somewhat selectively reported in the media. I had understood that the difficulty on membership here was the requirement for a profession of faith. This would clearly not then disbar Catholics or members of other Christian sects joining. When I was at University the Christian Union was a catch-all for all flavours of Christian believers. It appears that this group have taken a militant line and I am now intrigued as to the basis upon which they are discriminating against membership by other Christians.
“Ruthie… suspects that the decision to ban the Christian Union has been made not by practising members of other religions but by atheists or confirmed secularists.”
Actually the complaints made to the Guild about the society were made not by members of other religions nor by atheists nor by confirmed secularists, they were made by Christians who felt that it was wrong for the Christian Union to ban them from full participation in the society on the basis of what type of Christian they are.
Ruthie:- editorial fascist directive incoming:
No more f***ing religiously themed posts, unless the Second Coming happens that is. K? Or I’ll tweak your damned nipples.
For once, just this once, I’m inclined to agree with you.
Think I’ll stick to the pink leathers and bananas. Less controversial.