...

Don't see how this is necessarily out of line - when I was in junior high* we had a Girl's Club that banned boys from joining. I don't see how this would be much different.

*In the United States, "junior high" is school for 13-15 year old students.

fromtheright

Imagine that -- a Christian club wanting to limit its officers to Christians.

...

Which is why I don't see this as being a big deal. It's presumably student led, so no CSS issues, and it wants to keep its identity.

Really, now - don't we secularists have better things to do with our time? In politics - just like in real life - one often has to make concessions/compromises. It ain't pretty, but it has to be done.

:sits back and waits for the flames:

RufusAtticus

My question is why does the club need to write that into their bylaws. Surely that's going to happen anyway. It seems like the club's proposed bylaws conflicted with an established "non-descrimination" policy of the SGA (or whatever). So instead of doing the smart thing and allowing for non-Christians to run for office (haha tough chance), they're just going to waste money on lawyers.

ZiprHead

I think that's the point here. The group can elect whomever it want for its officers. It cannot discriminate who can run for the office.

Writer@Large

I didn't mean to ignore your reply, zorq. All my time at this site seems to be eaten up by administrating, lately, and I never get to browse CSS&SA.

In the extreme hypothetical situation where that decision might face a school, it would still depend upon the HS in question, since most HS have their own eligibility guidelines for playing. But let's face it: in the real world, the only position that quadripeligic is going to find on a football team is as a fan in the stand.

Let's also note that a football team gets a major injection of school revenues. A small ideological club gets none. That changes things immensely.

The Chess Club does not define itself by ideology.

But public schools don't identify them as such. They do not sanction the ideology that the club expresses, and (we hope) they don't show them any preferential treatment because of it. All groups, physical, recreational, ideological, or otherwise, are supposed to be on level ground as far as gaining access to school facilities. In private, everyone has a right to their prejudices.

What would a group like "Truth Bible Studies" benefit by being forced to accept non-Christian leaders, anyway? Let me set up this scenario for you:

The Truth Bible Club establishes itself in the school. It has, say, 8-10 regular weekly members. Let's say that their only rule for full membership is that one has to attend at least three meetings a month (a common "membership" requirement in many clubs I've been a part of). If you attend three meetings in a row, you can vote forofficers, or hold office.

Now, an atheist student decides he wants to mess with the Truth Bible Club. He attends meetings, sitting in back and not saying much. He enlists the aid of every non-Christian he can--other nontheists, the school Wiccans and pagans, even a LeVay Satinist--to attend, as well. Truth Bible Club's membership swells to over 20. Then, when they can all vote, they do--to oust the current Christian president, and to instill the student atheist who planned it all. Now, an atheist is president of the Truth Bible Club. As long as he can keep his "voting bloc" interested and attending, they can turn the weekly meetings not into quiet Bible study or prayer sessions, but scathing anti-Bible sessions. Very soon, the Christian members get frustrated and leave, and the two girls who started the club abandon it in tears.

That scenario is based on a real incident. The club was not a Christian club, but the ideological "hostile takeover" was the same. The group in question had faced the same issues about limiting leadership, and had quietly kowtowed to school rules (in this case, a university,not a high school, but the principle is the same). Kaminer again:

"The right to discriminate, on the basis of status or ideology, is what allows a private association to formulate its message, advance its mission, and preserve the freedom of conscience of its members."

And I have yet to hear a convincing argument that undercuts that essential fact.

--W@L

zorq

You have convinced me that they deserve the right to discriminate in their leadership positions. But I can still see the case against them and will not speculate as to what the result of the lawsuit will be.