InterVarsity: InterVarsity and Rutgers. In September 2002, the Administration of Rutgers University suspended the multiethnic chapter of InterVarsity, alleging that the chapter’s constitution violated the university’s anti-discrimination policies. The university claims that by insisting that student leaders affirm InterVarsity’s Statement of Faith, the chapter discriminates on the basis of religion.
My alma-mater decides that the first amendment is inherently discriminatory. Go Knights.
Update: The Washington Times is carrying a suprisingly pro-IV article which cites previous attempts by campuses to shut down IV chapters due to religious bias and Christianity Today is carrying an article as well. RU has also posted a statement about their position. I still think that the critical issue here is the issue of societal versus personal religion–in other words, if religion is a societal (not just personal) construct, then the right to worship freely should encompass the issue of choosing leadership. By the way, this is the New Brunswick campus, not Newark. Rutgers-Newark (where I served on the leadership team) does not have a “Multi-Ethnic Fellowship.” That fellowship has a homepage, and a statement about the RU decision as well.
Books & Culture: Books & Culture Corner: Entertain Us. Whatever we make of it, something once unarticulated has been given form, and it is more than the “Attention Shoppers!” sound of the latest Justin Timberlake song. It isn’t indifferent or blissfully unconcerned with anything beyond its own gratification. As Prince Hamlet asked rhetorically, whereto serves mercy but to confront the visage of offense? Can one listen and be offended at the same time? Is being offended a way of avoiding being awake?
Good question.
TheOoze: Am I Still an Evangelical.
For some time now I have been becoming increasingly concerned about my own theology. Having grown up in an evangelical home, and having attended a very conservative seminary, I always thought of myself as an evangelical, and a slightly conservative one at that…Now I am finding that my increased exposure to postmodern thinking is playing tricks with my theology. In the past years I have struggled with questions about such issues as truth, faith, the nature of the church, conversion, and discipleship. Because I live in an increasingly postmodern world I find my theology being challenged fairly consistently.
Antithesis (link): If I am orthodox, I won’t ever have to change my mind. I won’t ever have to realize with horror that I have been thinking wrongly about my faith. I just go on loyally believing within the safe and well-defined limits of whatever orthodoxy I have chosen to make my own.
Antithesis looks like they’re working towards standards-based site redesign. It no longer looks like garbage in Phoenix.
Just a comment on the InterVarsity thing. You have grossly mischaracterized and/or misunderstood their decision.
This is not a first amendment issue. Their complaint is not with the group allowing a statement of faith. Their complaint is with the group “insisting” on it.
If they had said that the group is not allowed to have an optional statement of faith, that would interfere with free speech, and you would be correct. Instead, they have said that the group is not allowed to require a specific recitation of faith in order to hold a position.
This is the right decision. Religious Freedom is important – and that includes the right not to be religious, should one so choose. Requiring a specific recitation of faith to hold leadership in the group is discriminatory, and cannot be allowed in a publicly funded group. Just as importantly, isuch requirements should be allowed in private groups.
I realize that this seems offensive to you, but these laws exist to protect religious freedom… not to stifle it. Religious Freedom applies more strongly on a personal level than a group level. Imagine a school organization that required members to disavow all faith in god. To be a member, you have to deny Jesus. Do you think that group should be an officially sanctioned part of the Rutgers community?
No matter what your views on the seperation of church and state and/or religious discrimination laws, this is not a first amendment issue. No one has been denied the right to free speech except perhaps the potential leader in the group who is denied the right not to claim a certain faith.
From the article: “InterVarsitys legal counsel sent letters to the university outlining the First Amendment rights of the student group and offered instances where other universities have maintained the balance of religious freedom and non-discrimination without prejudicing constitutional rights of assembly or speech.”
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You’re right, my comment is a bit inflammatory (and, perhaps, a bit reactionary). However, so is the fact that Rutgers has sought to supercede a precedence which has been proven time after time in the last decade. The first amendment guarantees assembly, speech, freedom of religion and other freedoms. InterVarsity, as a student-led religious organization, is one of those messy details that people tend to forget about when declaring a system of clean and perfect separation of church & state. They are funded by Rutgers, which is a publicly funded institution, so they are subject to the laws that govern such institutions, including non-discrimination. However, they are also a religious organization which is protected by the freedom to practice that religion freely. Is it not a fundamental point of InterVarsity’s argument that freedom to practice religion includes choosing leadership on a religious basis?
By the way, save the in-depth commentary for flipsidejones.net. I promise I’ll link over.
Sorry. I am used to news sites where you comment on stories on that site. Gotta get used to the back and forth linking thing.
I can see your point. I respectfully disagree with where the line should be drawn, but hey, thats why the whole first amendment exists in the first place.
I am not gonna continue this on flipsidejones.net, purely because i don’t want to get a big political debate going between our sites. ;P I do reserve that right for the future though. ;D
Cool. Although it would have been a great candidate for Trackback.
I was thinking the same thing – but you haven’t enabled yours yet – turn on pings!