Letters to the Editor

Twisted truth

July 9, 2010


To the editor:

“Court enshrines political correctness” shrills Cal Thomas (Journal-World, July 6), making me nearly spew my coffee across the table with a loud guffaw. He apparently received this legal wisdom from the Rutherford Institute’s claim, “the right to freely associate with believers on campus” was trampled with this Supreme Court ruling (08-1371). Thomas says, “groups favored by the secular left enjoy special status from academic elites” but fails to supply any supporting evidence. This churlish attack is on a court ruling that carefully considered the balance of the right of association and free speech within the context of discrimination law. Thomas concludes his rebuke by stating that this ruling, “will force well-meaning groups to abandon the tenants of their faith.” Tush and poppycock.

UC Hastings didn’t order the Christian Legal Society to admit any student nor proscribe CLS’s speech. The school placed limits on the use of school funds and facilities for organizations that did not comply with California’s anti-discrimination law. The Supreme Court findings supported the school’s case. CLS members can believe whatever they like and exclude whoever they wish. CLS cannot get school support doing so.

We are once again made aware of Thomas’ homophobia when he writes that not having access to funds and facilities would “discriminate” and isolate CLS, pleasing gay groups, “whose activism … appears to be openly hostile to religious faith and tradition.” And with that we leap from legal issues to the labyrinth of non sequiturs and malicious stereotyping, back in the maze of twisted truth that is Thomas’ vulgar specialty.


Cait McKnelly 7 years, 10 months ago

I cannot agree more. The university did nothing to stop the group. All they said was not on our property or on our dime. The charge that the university either financially or physically supports groups that sanction homosexuality and exclude Christians is also BS. No proof is even offered for the statement to begin with but further than that being gay and being Christian is not mutually exclusive. A number of churches have openly gay pastors. Some are not just gay but also women (gasp!). (For those of you that scream "proof !" I suggest you Google it yourself. You want the proof, I'm not here to do your legwork or paste it like Merril. I'm too lazy this morning.)

danemary 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

tomatogrower 7 years, 10 months ago

I used to think the same way. In 1971, I thought that everyone of my generation would be non racist, just because they were a part of my generation. And then when my parent's generations was gone, racism would end. Yet, a woman whose son went to the same day care as my daughter, said she wasn't happy living here in Kansas, because her son would have to go to school with blacks, except she used the other word. She was only a year older than me. That's when I realized that while I'm an optimist, it takes a looonng time to change society. And there will always be jerks, even pretty blond ones like this racist bimbo. I was too shy to call her that back then, but I have no fear now.

P Allen Macfarlane 7 years, 10 months ago

Here we go again with the name calling and the political labeling. Just you and Atilla the Hun!

So, by your comment we should all think, believe, and act like an angry, middle-aged, middle-class, Christian, card-carrying Conservative, Republican, white guy? Well, since South Africa gave its policy of apartheid, I guess your out of luck finding a safe haven for your socio-political dream state.

repaste 7 years, 10 months ago

I think nsc may have hit the nerve, "threatened by folks of different color and beliefs" doe note equal "if gov't. is not co-opted by "folks of different color and beliefs". " There is real fear in some posters of that which is unlike themselves. "Looney?" Very apt.

Liberty275 7 years, 10 months ago

I don't know what the big deal is. This ruling just allows people with values contrary to the clubs to join, vote and potentially set the agenda. We might soon see homosexual advocacy groups in school putting up "just say no to gay marriage" banners and minority clubs begging to have their voting rights rescinded. Or they could just stop taking school money or using school facilities.

When free association is deemed unconstitutional and a club is forbidden from setting membership guidelines, those clubs can be made into the worst enemy of the subset of citizens they are formed to advocate. I love the irony.

Yes, let political correctness run wild. As my avatar might suggest, "give 'em enough rope".

denak 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm just going to cut and paste my previous comment for the original column. It seems as Stu didn't actually read the decision either.

I wonder if Cal Thomas even read this decision. This case had nothing to do with religion and both sides stated this in the stipulation of facts.

The case is simply this: Hastings has an "all comers" policy for every group on campus. This policy is to promote the education of all students by all students having access to all groups on campus. However, CLS violated this policy by making their members sign a statement of faith that excluded anyone, including other Christians, who did not sign and adhere to that statement of faith. Let me point out that this was not a religion based group but a legal group.

The lower court ruled against CLS. It was only then that CLS tried to say that they were being discriminated against based on religion. (A charge contradicted by their earlier statement of facts)

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that Hastings all comers policy was valid and legal.

Take away Cal's inflammatory rhetoric and this case boils down to one simple thing: Does a university have the right to put conditions on the formal recognition of any group?

And I think most people would say "yes." If the university's goal is to promote differing viewpoints and educational opportunities to all students, then they have the right to say that all organizations have to allow all students in. And yes, that means allowing atheists into religious based organization, Democrats into Republican groups, Men into Women's groups etc. If the individual is disruptive, then that is another matter but in regards to attendance, all individuals should be allowed.

The Supreme Court made the right decision. You can read the actual decision at supremecourt.gov


P.S. You can read the actual 85 page decision at supremecourt.gov

Commenting has been disabled for this item.