Comments on: CLS v. Martinez and the Assualt on Christianity

By: Gilberto Curcuru

Gilberto Curcuru — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:00:09 +0000

The Silent Shard…

This could probably be fairly practical for many of your work I want to do not only with my weblog but…

By: Robin Engram

Robin Engram — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:32:26 +0000

Whispering Misty…

So sorry you can expect to miss the workshop!…

By: kipling

kipling — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:53:41 +0000

The majority opinion did not spend much time on the public funding question since it ruled that the Hastings policy was ideologically neutral because it required all RSOs to be open to all students. Justice Ginsberg and the others dismissed the argument that the policy unduly infringed upon the rights of those groups which held to an absolute standard of principles.

The larger problem is that Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Stevens did not limit themselves to the narrow ruling on the neutrality of the Hasting policy. Instead they deemed it necessary to discuss the merits of CLS and of any institution that holds to a set of principles.

As to the implication for churches, only time will tell if the court and our government in general proceeds along these lines. Justice Ginsberg’s ruling does open the door for the end of tax exempt status and other government favors for churches and faith based institutions that do not toe the government line.

By: liandro

liandro — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:48:36 +0000

If holding strong beliefs, and sticking to them, is now considered harmful to intellectual development, it is a sad day. Part of why someone would WANT to develop intellectual is to better fight for their causes and beliefs.

By: liandro

liandro — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:44:06 +0000

CLS wanted support and recognition from public money and a public institution. They are learning the hard way that you won’t get it if you don’t meet ridiculous and often self-defeating criteria. They should be ready to stand firm on their own feet (and maybe they have been but are also fighting for their cause).

I should add that I say that mostly independent of the ruling, as I am no legal scholar and have only breezed the case. Just a general thought that was provoked by this outcome–asking for public support always brings unwelcome chains. How much did that “public funds” argument play into the ruling, and to what degree does that temper the damage done to completely private groups (like churches)? That is meant as an honest question, by the way, for anyway who has deeper knowledge than I on the dynamics of the case.