Diversity: Some Restrictions May Apply (Addendum)

Should promises of diversity (including everyone and allowing everyone to have the same opportunities at a college) be limited or otherwise broken by a college? If a college allows Catholic organizations and does not allow clubs for atheistic students, are their promises of diversity genuine? I will argue that in a college setting, administrators should not put limits on their promises of diversity and should not break their own rules. Colleges that do not allow certain clubs and break their own rules to allow organizations to discriminate are being inconsistent, unfair, and profoundly intellectually dishonest.

In previous posts and in public forums, I have taken King's College to task for their lack of full diversity. From one area, King's College says that they welcome all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds and list, in their student handbook, various commitments to diversity. Student clubs are also offered in order to further this commitment and support students. King's College also notes that student clubs may not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, or religion. Despite all of this, clubs which exist on campus such as the Knights of Columbus and a female counterpart (separate but equal, anyone?) known as The Columbiettes break these rules. When I mentioned this and went very public in 2010 and 2011, after my secular club was refused because it “was against the mission statement of the college.” my concerns were not addressed and nothing was done.

The club that I proposed in 2009 at King's College was an affiliate group of the Secular Student Alliance (a national organization that facilitates groups of students at colleges and high schools) that was primarily for non-religious students, but religious students were also welcome. I noted, in one of several proposal statements (that were not required for a club to exist, but I went the extra mile) that non-religious people are very underrepresented at King's College and elsewhere and should not be disqualified from having a club simply because of philosophical beliefs that differ from others. While diversity of ideas is not often promoted at universities, according to my experience (it's usually skin color), this should be an important part of diversity.

The Office of College Diversity at King's College states, in the student handbook, "[The office]works toward promoting and incorporating an appreciation for the multicultural nature of our society into every aspect of campus life. Educational, social, and cultural programs are the primary means that this office seeks to expand the multicultural and global perspectives of King's College students. In addition, the Director of College Diversity assists many students from under represented groups with academic, social, and personal issues. We allow for the inclusion of all who access our services and resources. We work with individual students, student organizations, faculty members, and faculty members interested in fostering an environment of respect and appreciation around issues of diversity, including but not limited to race, gender, ethnicity, and social justice. By working collaboratively, we can create an environment where intercultural dialogue and interaction is encouraged and expected."

Why should student groups be excluded when others are embraced in a mission statement such as this? To exclude atheists from having the same services and the ability to have a club on campus is unfair. The office says that it works with all students.

Although King's College is a Catholic College, this should not mean that particular groups of students should be denied the ability to have a club and this also should not mean that some rules can be broken in order for other organizations to exist. Why should Catholics get special privileges to break the rules stated by the college, yet atheists who play by the rules are denied their rights as college students to form a group?

Another concern of mine, which was never fully addressed, was regarding a club at King's College called “The Questions and Answers Club” [which still is not on the activities page on the King's College website despite multiple requests by me, but it is on the student government page]. The club, as you would never expect, is a club for homosexual students and gay allies to address concerns that homosexuals face, provide community, and educate. In my final year of college, I decided to be an active member in this club. One of my first questions was regarding the name of the group. I never got a straight answer from anyone and answers given by officers of the club differed. The ultimate message I got was that the college wanted the group to not call the group a gay/straight alliance and “allowed the group to exist” so people were OK with changing the name of the group. In this case, we have a college that is supposed to promote diversity, but at the same time encouraging groups to change their names. This is a problem.

A message of full diversity should not have limits. While colleges might want to restrict groups such as NAMBLA and Aryan Youth, good reasons can be given for doing so and this would not be restricting diversity. There are obvious good reasons to not allow racists or people who are pedophiles to have groups on campuses and doing so would not be unfair. While a Catholic school obviously is not secular and its administrators presumably believe in a god, why should atheists not have the same opportunities as other students? Atheists are a 'large minority' at Catholic schools and many of them are closeted including students, teachers, and administrators.

Religious schools should welcome atheist clubs as an opportunity to challenge the the beliefs of the religious, think about difficult issues, and understand what those who are godless do believe. It is quite often the case that religious people misrepresent atheists or otherwise do not understand the philosophical arguments against gods. Instead of religious people asking me why I do not believe in any gods, they often jump to conclusions by saying things like “What bad things happened in your life?,” “Why do you hate God?,” etc. Clubs on campus that are for atheists or homosexuals and gay allies allow for those outside of the clubs and inside to become educated regardless of what others may believe.

Clubs that promote a message of diversity should be consistent with their own ideals instead of allowing people to break their own rules and excluding people who they may disagree with or not appreciate. Any college that does not allow atheist clubs or groups for homosexuals and gay allies (or otherwise apply 'special rules' for the clubs such as making them change their names or suggesting they do so) is not being honest and really is not embracing diversity in any meaningful sense. All students at colleges should be treated fairly and play by the same rules. Diversity should not have hidden fine print or asterisks.

Special concerns:

Should groups be allowed to restrict membership?

This issue is a tough issue that I am leaning toward 'yes' on when such restrictions are reasonable. For example, if atheists were allowed to have a club at an organization and Christians wanted to join in order to disrupt activities of the group, vote in non-atheist officers, etc, it would be reasonable to limit membership and perhaps simply allow Christians to attend meetings or other special events such as open discussions, debates, etc. Group members can surely file complaints with the college if there are problems. This might get more difficult when considering private schools versus public schools.

Should colleges write into their own rules that groups such as LGBT groups and atheist groups are not allowed?

In the above example of King's College, their statements about diversity are not limited, so this is not a problem. I would think though, not just because I am a gay ally and an atheist, that certain groups should not be excluded (unless they are hate groups, pedophiles, etc) from statements of diversity especially when such groups are underrepresented, mistreated, and stigmatized.

The Ethics of Membership and Supporting Organizations

"Oh, but the Klansmen do so many good things! Even though I don't agree with what their national organization does, I still can give to local groups?"

Is this a reasonable position? Let's explore.

For months, I've been an "out gay ally" and have been fighting against the pressures that be (specifically the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus) that impede civil rights and marriage for homosexuals. I believe that the marriage of gays will greatly benefit society and allow for gays to solidify their relationships, share the same legal benefits as straights who are married, and diminish STDs and AIDS in the gay community. The benefits of gay marriage are tremendous.

Homosexuals and gay allies will often share the same goals and want to achieve the same ends that I am working toward, but they are being grossly decieved and are stifling my efforts by working against themselves. Personally, I will not benefit from gay rights, but I want to see society flourish, so I "fight." It's quite awkard that gays will undermine themselves and my efforts by supporting organizations that fund and spearhead anti-gay initiatives. I've previously touched in these issues in multiple posts, but I want to expand in this one. I will argue that gays and gay allies are acting in an immoral fashion when they support the Catholic Church and Catholic groups even if the local groups are affiliates of national organizations and even if the local groups don't publicly take a stand on certain issues.

People support a specific club or organization when they give a monetary donation, become members, or give nods of support. This is quite easy to see and very uncontroversial. If I give money to, say, the Red Cross, I'm furthering their aims, keeping them in business, and helping them fulfill their mission. If I become a member of an organization, I'm agreeing with their mission statement, giving the group power and legitimacy, and furthering their aims [unless, of course, I join a group to undermine their efforts, but this is a special exception]. The assertion, "someone legitimizes a group by giving money to it" is controversial, but it probably true, but let's not consider that here.

It follows that if I, for example, give money to a local chapter of the Klu Klux Klan, I am furthering their aims, keeping them in business, and helping them fulfill their mission. If the KKK's mission is counter-intuitive to my goals, I've undermined what I stand for. If the KKK's goals are harmful to society, I've acted in an immoral fashion. The KKK, for example is in direct opposition to my values because they want to make the practice of homosexuality illegal, stop the government from sending foreign aid, outlaw abortion except for in cases of rape in incest, and they profess that America was founded as a Christian nation. I can't possibly support this group!

Here are some arguments against my position:

Well, if I'm supporting a local chapter of the KKK, I'm not supporting their national organization.

Supporting a local chapter is still furthering the aim of the national organization and the local chapters' aims because local chapters endorse the mission statements of the national organization (otherwise they would not be affiliates).

Well, I understand, but what if the local chapter isn't an activist group and doesn't work to further its aims?

You're still supporting the group which furthers the aims of the national organization by existing to begin with. If there were no local chapters, the influence of the national organization would be greatly diminished. If your local Klan members fundraise and you give money to them, you're keeping them in existence and keeping the national organization strong. Even if your local Klan group is fundraising to help a girl with cancer and giving all of money to them for this goal, the group's donation is being recognized, the members' social cohesion is undoubtedly improved, etc. This is a reason parallel to that of those who refuse campaign contributions; people who refuse money don't want to endorse/legitimize the donor, be associated with the donor, etc. This argument simply does not work.

What about members who just join for the social aspect?

By being a member of the group, as I mentioned, you are furthering its aims. Before joining groups, you should have the responsibility of researching and discovering what the group's goals, mission, and money goes to. Ignorance is no excise. Also "not caring" is no excuse. If you join a local Klan, you have moral blame for supporting the group even if you didn't care or didn't know about the group that was very obvious and easy to find...even if you just want to go to meet people.

What if I don't support the group's mission, but want to join/support them?

Joining or giving money to the group is supporting the group.

I know some of the group's members and they aren't bad people. Although some KKK members may really hate black people, my friends who are members don't! They say they are about heritage, not hate! It's okay for me to donate to the group!

This is a red herring. Supporting the group, regardless of how great some of its members may be, is still supporting the aims of the local and national group.

You may think that your friends don't hate black people, but it's impossible to be confident that all or other members of the group don't hate black people. People often hide motives and won't come out and say what they really mean. You can, I suppose, be very confident that your friend doesn't hate black people, but what about those who you don't know. Either way, this part of the argument doesn't even need to be discussed because it's a red herring.

But the KKK does a great deal of charitable work and makes some people really happy! They offer social cohesion for its members! Even if some Klansmen do bad things, you can't condemn local groups!

This is another red herring. Groups who do charitable work still have other aims that can't be supported and furthered by objectors. They may make members and others happy, but this also doesn't matter. People can find charities that don't do harm or conflict with their values.

Some exceptions:

The environment is oppressive and your morality has to take a back seat.

This is a contestable claim that I believe should be left to an individual, I think. I go to a Catholic College, for example, and have faced tremendous consequences for being an active atheist and fighting for seperation of church and state. People hate me. I've been called a "bitch ass trick" and threatened with violence if I visited someone's room. I feel that I can deal with the social consequences. Some friends of mine feel that the environment is too oppressive and they believe that they'd be kicked out of their house and thus feign belief. This makes sense. (They could, though, be an anonymous activist and still support groups anonymously.)

What of the person forced to be a member of Hitler Youth? Can we really find a person blameworthy if his parents would be killed if he refused to join? I think not. This is an extreme case, of course. I don't think, though, that this can be applied to many situations today when your life isn't threatened or social consequences aren't extreme. Perhaps your father is a Catholic fundamentalist and you're an atheist. You can't possibly reveal your beliefs, so you remain a member of some church organization and feign belief. Is this very dubious knowing that the consequences of quitting might be severe?

I don't see how this counter-argument can apply to giving money to groups. Is there a situation that commonly happens in which one would suffer severe consequences if he/she failed to give money? If you give money to the KKK, as I mentioned above, you're acting in an immoral fashion.

-----

After reading all of this, some may be skeptical of my attendance at a Catholic institution, so I'll direct these concerns here and note that I could not possibly afford to change schools (and did not want to) after I became an atheist after my second year.

Hopefully, you'll agree with everything I posted above (and if you don't or I missed something, please comment). Above, I used the KKK as an example (and presumably local KKK chapters just do exist to socialize and not do anything), but these arguments can be applied to other groups/organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or the Catholic Church. Not accepting my conclusions just because "some groups are different" is intellectually dishonest special pleading.

Gays and supporters of gay rights, for example, who support the Knights of Columbus are acting in an immoral fashion by doing so. Recently, the King's College Knights of Columbus chapter had a show fundraiser and some homosexuals and their allies supported the group by purchasing shoes, much to my chagrin. I'm against the Knights of Columbus for several reasons that I have elaborated on in the past. The organization/s is/are against abortion, contraceptives, sexual education, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. Gays should immediately "be sold" on the indisputable fact that the Knights of Columbus are against gay marriage. Gays should not support groups that fight against and undermine gay marriage! You can buy sneakers at a local store instead of giving money to an organization that is part of a national organization which has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay initiatives.

These arguments, of course, work for someone at an individual level. Should groups be openly opposed to other groups that work against them? Regardless of the answer to this question, individuals can still be against the group by not supporting them whether they do this silently (not donating to them at fundraisers) or openly (telling others not to support).

---

Some other considerations:

The Knights of Columbus and the KKKare so much different! What about other groups who don't have anti-gay agendas?

This is not an argument from analogy. The main points of my argument are this: if a group has unsavory goals that are against your values, you shouldn't support them, become a member, or give them money.

What about political groups and the United States government? They both commit unsavory actions and often have dubious aims.

Political groups are an interesting case. With them, you don't have to vote at all. You can completely abstain from the whole process and not endorse any candidate. I tend, though, to vote for "the lesser of the two evils" because it seems to be a "forced" two party system and no candidates from other parties are typically able to win. With the case of politicians/parties, it's quite reasonable and expected that you don't agree 100% with the people running for office. Regarding other groups, you can totally abstain, it's often not a forced option, and there are other viable alternatives. If you're an environmentalist, for example, you don't need to support Greenpeace because there are many other groups out there.

What about groups that have members who are shady?

You have to ask, does the shafy stuff stem from the mission statement and aims of the group or is this individual failure? Even if it is individual failure, you're not forced to support and can certainly cease doing so.

What about groups who have a goal that will never be reached and/or is unattainable?

I could never find myself supporting a group that, say, like the KKK, wants to make the practice of homosexuality illegal, even if they donated millions to a really good charity and their mission statement is unattainable/will never be reached. Perhaps they can be lauded for their efforts (would this legitimize their actions, though?), but one should still not support or donate money.

How about change that may happen in an organization? Individuals can change groups from within and some individuals can be progressive within a fundamentalist community.

Changing an organization is a good point that I didn't consider. Barry Lynn, the leader of Americans United for Separation of Church and state, for example, is certainly trying to change the minds of religionists from the inside, as a reverend and Michael Dowd's "Thank God for Evolution" is making waves.

The issue of changing has come up within the "atheist community" in the issue of accomodationism vs confrontation. Are we wanting change in the group to moderate them or to get rid of it? I would love to see churches close and have non-theistic humanists who provide care and social support without dogma, but I'm not interested in working to moderate these people (although this may happen in the process unintentionally).

Are you claiming that giving someone money causes one to be responsible for their actions?

I don't claim that one is always responsible for the actions of others by the spending of money, but rather say that those who donate to groups are furthering the goals, etc of the group. The government isn't a group at all and it's a forced choice for Americans, essentially.

Don't Support the Knights of Columbus

I've posted and have spoken a great deal about the Knights of Columbus' insidious efforts to oppose contraceptives, gay marriage, abortion, and sexual education. The organization is fundamentally opposed to many ideals that I hold, thus I make a point out of identifying their agenda. The Knights like to talk about their charitable works (and yes, they do do some good, but this doesn't make up for the harm that they cause) and their fraternal aspects, but they often don't advertise their religiously motivated goals of baning contraceptives, making abortions illegal, opposing gay marriage, etc.

The Knights of Columbus of King's College will be hosting a shoe sale this Thursday. Please don't support them or any of their activities if you care about gay rights or any of the other issues I presented above, for the organization is a staunch opponent of gay marriage and has funneled millions of dollars (and this is only one link) into anti-gay marriage initiatives and has recently funded a DVD that was sent to Catholic households in Minnesota with intentions of demonizing gays and rallying support against gay marriage. If you want to support the rights of homosexuals (and presumably you do), you should not support the Knights. While the individual members at King's may be well-meaning and not directly responsible for anti-gay marriage initiatives, they are still members of the organization and are helping those by giving legitimacy to their cause.

"The important thing is that the Knights of Columbus is, has been, and always will be firmly in favor of traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage," says the Knights of Columbus Vice President for Communications

If you are pro-choice, pro-sex education, for individuals making their own choices regarding life and death, pro-gay rights, and support the rights of people to make their own reproductive choices, you should not be giving a dime to the Knights of Columbus. If you want to give to charity, you have many other options. Shame on the Knights of Columbus and its members.

Intolerance of Gays at King's College

I had quite an "encounter" at work tonight. For those of you who don't know, I work at a campus restaurant that stays open until 2AM on Friday and Saturday. Many drunk students come in after 10PM and order greasy food. People are usually not hostile. Students sometimes make messes or are very loud. No big deal.

Tonight, while I was away from the lobby area, a student told my lesbian co-worker that she was going to burn in Hell for being gay. I soon found out about this when she was obviously disgruntled after walking away saying things like, "Wow, that guy was an asshole." After confirming who uttered this phrase to her, I confronted the person and asked him why he was making intolerant statements to my co-worker. He first denied saying anything and then said, "I was just trying to reason with her." My manager told him that he had to leave and directed me to leave the lobby (she later said that she didn't want any problems). The student started saying, "Are you joking me? I'm getting kicked out because of a lesbian," followed up with "You wanna take this outside" to my lesbian co-worker" and left.

Unfortunately, I was not able to have a conversation with this person, intellectually demolish him, and make him aware of his ridiculous belief system and his hateful God, but it was nice that he got kicked out for his behavior. People like this need to be called out for their bad behavior and quickly identified in front of their peers and others in the area. Sadly, no person who was sitting with him said anything to him about his hateful comments, but I'm glad I was there to call him out after the fact. I also wasn't able to get his name, either, but he was from the King's College football team*. I wasn't quite sure if he was drunk, but this doesn't matter. Drunk or sober, people shouldn't make hateful comments toward gays and flaunt their hateful beliefs.

King's students, from my experience, usually aren't hateful to gays. Most people understand that people with different sexual orientations exist and tolerate or accept them, but there are still straggling theists who think that an all-loving God whom they worship will send people to be punished for eternity simply because they are attracted to people of the same sex or both sexes. Sorry, I'm not going to tolerate that nonsense and just be quiet.

Near the beginning of the semester, a Knights of Columbus member* was mad at me because I wanted their group removed from campus for grossly violating the school's policy of non-discrimination (Student clubs and organizations must adhere to all college policies and regulations. The organization must not discriminate on membership based on race, religion, gender, physical disability, or sexual orientation (emphasis mine)). He claimed that the Q&A Club [Gay Straight Allianceish club] at King's is only for "fags who like hairy buttholes" while I was in a cafeteria. Sadly, many others who were sitting at the table with him were not phased by this and simply sat there.

The Knights of Columbus at King's College, as I previously discussed in a blog post, only allow "practicing male Catholics 18 years of age or older who are in union with the commandments of God and the Holy See" to join their club. Shame on them and shame on King's. If any student wanted to make a Muslim-only club, a Hindu-only club, or anything else that is similar, it would never be allowed. I tried to make a club for atheists (in which theists were welcome) and King's declared it to be "against the mission statement of the college."

People who are intolerant of gays and make hateful comments need to be called out. We shouldn't just stand by while people make comments like these and let the intolerance slide. Raise awareness. Educate people. Gay or straight, everyone should be against intolerance of gays.

I'll close with great lyrics from a favorite song of mine, Cry for the Moon by Epica. Religion doesn't give you a cover to stand behind to excuse hateful comments.

Follow your common sense
You cannot hide yourself
behind a fairytale forever and ever
Only by revealing the whole truth can we disclose
The soul of this bulwark forever and ever
Forever and ever

* As previously mentioned in this post and some others like, "Painting All Catholics With the Same Brush," all Catholics and members of specific groups don't all think alike. Members in a group have all sorts of different beliefs. All Knights of Columbus members at King's College certainly don't endorse this line of thinking. His statement does not count as official doctrine(?) of his group.

All King's football players obviously don't think that all gays should burn in Hell and that they can be "reasoned with."

Thinking that one person's statement or action is representative of the beliefs or desires of an entire group is extremely fallacious thinking.

This may differ, though, when leaders of organizations release official statements or make stances. Leaders can make the organization look very bad, but this still doesn't mean that all members think the same way or endorse this behavior. If the organization, though, stands for some principles like "gay marriage is harmful to society and should be opposed" or "black people are inferior people" members are endorsing this message by being a member of the group. You can't just join the Knights for the free donuts, free coffee, and the krafts and kookie baking at konventions (see what I did there?).

Are We Better Off Without Religion?: Essay

I recently finished an essay for my philosophy class tackling various issues relating to the dangers of religion. Is it morally defensible to be religion? Are We Better off Without Religion? Is religion to blame for many evils done "in its name?" It was very difficult to limit this paper to three pages, but without further ado, my essay:

Religion is often a force for great evil, moral confusion, sexual repression, and a catalyst for uncritical thinking. We need not look at many of what would consider to be the “extremes” of religion such as suicide bombers, the Westboro Baptist Church, or Spanish Inquisitions to arrive at this conclusion. Almost exclusively because of religious beliefs, various religious leaders(and laypersons) have misled people into thinking that abortion is murder of a child and it should be illegal. Members of the Knights of Columbus have marched in the Philippines in an attempt to ban governmental distribution of contraceptives. Religious organizations have funneled millions of dollars into a massive campaign against gay marriage. Parents and priests teach their children that they may burn in Hell if they misbehave. Religion leads many to unhealthy sexual repression. Religion sneaks its nose into politics and tries to enforce laws based on religious beliefs instead of concerns of everyone. As Voltaire once said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Religious belief obviously has dire consequences. Beliefs inform actions and actions can harm others. We don't live in vacuums where no one else is effected by what we think and do.

Religious people often claim that while religion may appear to be responsible for a great deal of harm in the world, religion leads many to do great things. People who commit atrocities in the name of religion, they might say, are misinterpreting religion. Perhaps, one might think, religion is like a gun in which if you use it in the wrong manner, people can be harmed... as the old adage goes “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.”

Atheists would argue that all the good that can be had from religion can be had more honestly without religion and the added negative baggage from religious belief. “Who can declare what the proper interpretation of religion is,” the atheist should say. Isn't the whole name of the game to be open to interpretation? How can we only claim that someone is interpreting wrong when they do harm? Religion is very much unlike a gun because a gun is simply a vehicle to do harm while religions provide ideas and profess that such ideas are mandated by a divine authority. People don't do harm because they have a gun, but rather deal harm because of ideas they have.

I will argue that religious belief is not morally defensible. To defend my conclusion, I will argue that all good that can be had without the extra harm religion can bring about, there is a logical connection from religious commitments to harm, and that religious belief can warp one's moral concerns.

Religious persons often point to many good things that religion can bring about such as soup kitchens, hospitals, charity efforts, etc. All of these efforts can be had without referencing a deity or being religious. Non-believers, just like believers, participate in volunteer work and give to charity. The unfortunate consequences of some religious-based organizations and efforts is “selective charity.” Some groups that provide for the common good tend to exclude homosexuals, for example. Many Catholic charities have closed their doors because they refuse to provide services for homosexuals (Beckford). Some groups have gone as far as to almost blackmail cities that intend to pass gay marriage (Boorstein and Craig). The motivation for Catholic groups to exclude homosexuals is clearly religious as indicated in both articles. Charities operate under the banner of “helping everyone” instead of “helping everyone who isn't homosexual or the son or daughter of a homosexual parent or couple.” We should prefer to have charitable organizations that do not discriminate. If we can have all of the good without religion, why bother with religion?

Theists may say that people only use religion to mask bad behavior, thus religion isn't actually the cause for the bad behavior. While this statement may be true in some cases – perhaps racists used the Bible to justify slavery even though they didn't actually believe in God – it is not in all. If we take away the religious explanation for behavior in many cases, the harm would not make any sense whatsoever. Consider a recent statement from John Shimkus (R-IL), “"The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect" (Dolan). Would a statement like this make any sense whatsoever if God was taken out of the picture? Only a severely delusional person can believe that the earth will never end. The atheist can also look at a statement like this and say, “If this man didn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, a statement like this would never be uttered” and would be correct whether or not the statement would make any sense without religious belief.

Religious beliefs can easily warp one's moral priorities. People can act on beliefs of an afterlife and greatly devalue this life because they think there is another one. People can also believe that getting into Heaven is the most important goal and sideline other important moral concerns, ostracize family members who don't believe in God, and have many moral priorities that are out of whack. The Catholic Church, for example, considers stopping gay marriage, stopping abortion, stopping the ordination of women, and opposing stem cell research to be amongst its highest moral concerns because they think that God wants them to do these things.

It's important to note that with or without religion, we are still going to have evil in this world, but we would have less evil if religion were to go away. Places of worship can be converted into meeting places and homeless shelters. Former believers can still band together and do great things. People can still take moral lessons from religions and apply them to their lives. No longer would we have such a mass of unsubstantiated beliefs and the idea that faith is admirable. A post-religious society can be had in which people demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and do good just for the sake of doing good. Without religion, we can still come to the conclusion that we should help others, make this world a great place to live in, and respect other human beings. Millions are good without God. If religion is needed for good, theists should be able to answer Christopher Hitchens' challenge, “Name one moral action or statement that a religious person can make that can't be made by a non-believer.” It is very clear that religion is not needed for good and we are better off without it.

Works Cited

Beckford, Martin. "The Telegraph." Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling. Telegraph Media Group Ltd., 19 Aug 2010. Web. 3 Dec 2010.

Craig, Tim, and Boorstein, Michelle. "The Washington Post." Catholic Church gives D.C. Ultimatum. The Washington Post, 12 Nov 2009. Web. 3 Dec 2010.

Dolan, Eric. "God won’t allow global warming, congressman seeking to head Energy Committee says." The Raw Story, 11 Nov 2010. Web. 3 Dec 2010.

Don't Let the Condom Headlines Fool You!

(Picture from Macleod Cartoons)

Who would think that I would ever be defending the Catholic Church? Well, I'm kind of doing that in this post. Although I don't agree with the Church's stance on condoms, media outlets are misrepresenting the Church's stance. I'm here to tell you that the Church is still against condoms. I won't let the media paint a positive picture...especially when Catholic sources are fighting back and disagreeing with the way the media is reporting.

Many media outlets and reporters have egregiously misrepresented the position of Pope Benedict/The Vatican/the Catholic Church regarding condoms. Pope Benedict and various other Catholics have made it very clear that the official stance on condom use is "Don't use condoms because they are immoral and misguided." The Church is absolutely against the use of birth control, condoms, and contraceptives because they view them as interfering with the way God made humans. They think that God made sex as a special thing that should only be experienced by married couples with the intent of procreation.

Groups like the Knights of Columbus, for example, have lied about AIDS, condoms, and sex and tried to stop governmental distribution of condoms. Pope Benedict has said that condoms are not the answer to the problem of AIDS and can even make AIDS worse. I've previously covered this in great detail. Apologists for the Knights of Columbus have tried to argue that "It's just a few bad apples, but as you can see, this clearly isn't the case."

Anyway, various sources are featuring headlines like, "Condom Use Still Immoral, but Preferable to Spreading AIDS." This isn't accurate because the Pope only made a comment about male prostitutes using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope isn't standing up (as he should) saying things like, "Well, condoms actually can help diminish AIDS. Adhere to the ABC Method (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms). What I said earlier was wrong."

This USA Today article sets things straight. There has been no change in Church doctrine.

After the Vatican paper jumped the gun on an embargo on the book's text on Saturday, chief Vatican spokesman Rev. Frederico Lombardi told media Sunday this does not reflect any doctrinal change in the Catholic view forbidding artificial contraception.

Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn't the central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they may be used "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

He called it "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality."

Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activisits when he told reporters en route to Africa in 2009 that the AIDS problem on the continent couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms.

"On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.

Journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed Benedict over the course of six days this ummer, revisited those comments and asked Benedict if it wasn't "madness" for the Vatican to forbid a high risk population to use condoms.

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.

But he stressed that it wasn't the way to deal with the evil of HIV, noting the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way.

Why Good (and bad) People Do Wrong to Others: From Aristotle to 2010

I've composed the following essay about something from Aristotle for my philosophy class and would love to share it with my readers.

Introduction

What can drive people to harm others in a society where most people are generally well-meaning and moral individuals? Why would someone intentionally break the rules, cheat, and act with malice? How can upstanding individuals who have never committed a crime break the public trust? Chapter twelve in book one of Aristotle's Rhetoric addresses the motives that drive people to wrong others. Although it might be impossible in practice to address the motives for every instance of wrongdoing, Aristotle was well ahead of his time and provided reasons explaining why people would behave poorly. Contemporary understanding, in addition to Aristotle's arguments, can provide many explanations as to why people misbehave, harm others, and commit crimes.

What Aristotle had to say applied to modern times

Two of Aristotle's first reasons explaining why people misbehave boil down to people thinking that they won't have to pay the consequences of their actions; “they can do it without being found out, or if they are found out they can escape without being punished” (Aristotle 1). Committing a crime and thinking that a person won't be caught is self-explanatory. An accountant, for example, may decide to embezzle money from a business and “cook the books” to make it appear like no money was stolen so that he/she would not get caught. The same accountant may think that even if he/she would be caught, he/she would not have to pay the consequences. Foe example, the owner of the business might never question the bookkeeping because he would be afraid of possible retaliation, more embezzlement, poor job performance from the accountant, or the accountant quitting the job.

Another one of Aristotle's reasons for a person to do wrong to others is “that if they are punished the disadvantage will be less than the gain for themselves or those they care for” (Aristotle 1). A politician may decide to bribe another politician to vote a certain way to ensure that a motion is passed. The politician offering the bribe may feel that the punishment for bribery is far less than the gain; the passing of the motion is far more important than a small fine that the politician might have to pay. A person might also judge the reward and potential benefit from crime to be worth taking the risk of being caught or punished. The homeless man might have little to lose if he is punished for robbing a liquor store and might even be content with going to jail. The money is enough incentive to commit the crime and would be a huge benefit in comparison to the punishment of going to jail.

People might also commit crimes with the mindset that they are great rhetoricians, have great lawyers, are famous and would not be convicted, and have a great deal of money to avoid punishment if brought to court. Celebrities and politicians in this category might decide to break the rules because they feel that they can get out of any possible situation if charged with a crime. A police officer may act in an unjust and illegal fashion toward a downtrodden individual who – in the eyes of the officer -- has no money, lawyers, or intelligence to appeal in court. Aristotle mentions that the confidence of evading punishment is greatest when an individual has the qualities as opposed to that person's friends.

Criminals might feel safe when committing a crime, Aristotle says, when they are on good terms with their victims or the judges. Child rapists in this category might feel immune from prosecution because they often know their victims and feel that they would never be punished because of that close relationship. Abusive men might also batter their wives or girlfriends with the idea that they would never be prosecuted because the female would never confess, press charges, or jeopardize their well-being by turning in their significant other. The wronged persons might also make arrangements with the criminals outside of the legal system. Criminals, as Aristotle mentions, might also know the judges who prosecute criminals. Although judges are supposed to be neutral toward the person who they are trying in court, some criminals might feel that they will get some sort of special treatment from familiar judges.

People might commit crimes because they feel that their appearances contradict the punishments that they might face and not fit the stereotypical viewpoint of the particular criminal. People might not suspect a twenty-six year old nurse, for example, to molest a senior citizen in a nursing home. People might not expect respected priests to rape and torture children. Defying expectations of individuals in society might lead a person to be more likely to commit a crime. People don't expect females to partake in armed robbery nor do they expect females to rape.

Aristotle notes that people might do wrong because they expect to “stave off a trial, or have it postponed, or corrupt your [their] judges: or if you [they] are sentenced you can avoid paying damages, or can at least postpone doing so for a long time” (Aristotle 1). Local county commissioner Greg Skrepenak and his lawyer attempted to delay and reduce sentencing because they felt that Skrepenak's obligations toward his children would allow for some sympathy. Eventually, his sentencing was reduced because of medical problems, cooperation with officials, previous charitable works, and obligations toward his children (Skrepenak 1). People with power, prestige, and money can easily postpone trials and sentencing while destitute and common people are disadvantaged.

Aristotle mentions despots who may commit crimes because “their punishment is nothing more than being called bad names” (Aristotle 2). Leaders like Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot, for example, had very little to lose when they committed atrocities. Who could find corrupt despots guilty of crimes and prosecute them? People who make the laws can violate the laws or change the laws to suit their agendas if no system of checks and balances is in place. Laypeople may revolt, but when a leader has a tremendous amount of power, protection, and a secret police force, revolt is almost impossible. The government in 1984 is a great example of an unassailable power that was free to do whatever it wished because punishment would never be levied.

People may continue to commit crimes because they have “escaped detection or punishment already; or by having often tried and failed; for in crime, as in war, there are men who will always refuse to give up the struggle” (Aristotle 2). Drug dealers hiding from police may feel motivated to continue selling crystal meth because they feel that they won't get caught. Drug dealers might also appear in court and found not guilty, leading them to think that they can never face punishment for their crimes. Some chronic criminals may also continue to commit crimes regardless of being punished in the past because, as Aristotle says, they refuse to give up the struggle. Some people who grew up in oppressive environments might enjoy committing crimes or feel that crime is the only option to get ahead.

Weakness of will is another reason that Aristotle gave for why people commit crimes. Some people might not be content with what they have and wish to act in unethical manners to get ahead. Greedy politicians might decide to lie and accept money from special interest groups in order to move to a higher office. Athletes may take illegal performance-enhancing drugs in order to compete with their peers and vanquish their opponents. Students might cheat on tests because they feel that they should not have to study because others cheat, because they are on sports teams, or because cheating is far too easy.

Aristotle notes that people whose “victims may be far off or near at hand” can be motivated to commit crimes (Aristotle 2). “If they are near, he gets his profit quickly; if they are far off, vengeance is slow, as those think who plunder the Carthaginians.” (Aristotle 2) Charles Keating, the man behind one of the largest loan scandals in the United States, defrauded many senior citizens in order to attempt to make a huge profit. Many of his victims were very near to him, so he was able to quickly amass wealth (Keating 1).

“A man may wrong his enemies, because that is pleasant : he may equally wrong his friends, because that is easy.” (Aristotle 2) When people are charged with violent crimes or possession of child pornography, people are often very quick to want to exact vengeance or call for violence against the person who is charged. Although the “eye for an eye” mentality makes the whole world blind and might be cruel and unusual punishment (should we rape rapists?), people are quick to endorse it and feel no sympathy if a person who is charged and not even convicted is beaten in a prison. In more general terms, people want to wrong their enemies because of jealousy, spite, or even a good reason by taking the law into their own hands and attempting to punish others. Some people may find it easy to wrong friends because friends don't expect to be wronged and because it's much easier to wrong friends than strangers because friends often let their guard down.

Aristotle mentions that “there is something fine and pleasant in wrong such persons [who do violence to others], it seems as though no wrong were done (Aristotle 3). This “eye for an eye” mentality might lead a female's father, for example, to harm an abusive boyfriend and feel that nothing was wrong when this happened because the victim was previously doing the harm. This might even prevent future harm and serve a greater good in the eyes of the father. People who lost friends as the result of violence might also go after the criminals because they feel that avenging their dead friends is morally justified.

Beyond Aristotle

Physicist Steven Weinberg once said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Many of our beliefs inform our actions. People often shape a great portion of their lives with religious beliefs and accept what holy books say and what parties of gods say simply because they were told to do so or feel that doing so is moral. While religious beliefs can cause some people to do good, religious beliefs can often cause people to perform atrocious acts. The suicide bombing community, for example, is almost entirely religious. Children, from an early age, are filled with propaganda and hate from extremist religious groups and are led to believe that suicide bombing is a perfectly moral action. Because of religious beliefs, some people are also led to murder abortion doctors because they feel that their actions are morally justified.

Religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus have contributed over one million dollars to fund proposition eight (the initiative to stop gay marriage) in California (Knights of Columbus Contribute 1). The Knights of Columbus also recently produced a DVD that was sent to Catholic households in Minnesota in addition to donating 1.4 million dollars to the National Organization for marriage, a group that wants marriage to remain as “one man, one woman” (Birkey 1). In addition to all of this, Knights of Columbus members also marched in the Philippines in attempt to cease governmental distribution of contraceptives (Knights of Columbus Rallying 1).

Another example of misplaced moral concerns is Mother Teresa's campaign against abortion and contraceptives. One of Mother Teresa's main moral concerns was preventing abortion, what she called the “greatest destroyer of peace” and a “direct murder” in her Nobel Peace Prize speech (Mother 1). Mother Teresa also gave speeches in Ireland encouraging the ban of abortions and contraceptives: “Let us promise our lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this county a single abortion [pause] and no contraceptives” (Hell's).

It's very easy for our moral priorities to be confused because of religious belief. Absolutist beliefs are very difficult to hold when faced with complex situations and conflicting moral priorities. Recently, a woman was excommunicated from the Catholic Church because she performed an abortion on a woman who wanted the abortion and would have died if she did not have the abortion (Nun). This situation seems quite simple. Many Catholics believe that abortion is wrong and would not want to perform or endorse an abortion, but in this case, if there were no abortion, the mother and potential child would have died. If the abortion were performed (and it was), the mother would not die. Should you save one life or lose two? Clearly, the good action was to perform the abortion and save the life of the mother, but some thought that the mother should have died. After this incident, the nun was excommunicated for saving her life.

Returning to humans in disadvantaged situations, some may choose to commit crimes because they calculate risks, determine that since they are living in a situation with a low life expectancy, and realize that there is no or little chance for financial improvement. People may choose to commit crimes when there are huge discrepancies between the rich and the poor because there is a big payoff that is worth taking the risk. Although it may certainly be immoral to murder, steal, and harm others, crime can be an adaptive rational response to high-risk situations and a vision of low life expectancy.

The Twenty-Sided Die Thought Experiment

Consider the following thought experiment: Someone presents a twenty-sided die, verifies that the die is fair, and says, “I have one million dollars in a bank account and would like to present a wager to you. If I roll a one or a two on this die, I will give you one million dollars. If the die result is three to twenty, you allow me to kill you instantly.” People may decide to think about this risk and determine that a 10% chance to win one million dollars is worth wagering their own lives while some people might think that a 90% chance to die is not worth one million dollars. Imagine that the chances are changed to 50% of winning the one million dollars? Would many people then choose to roll the die and determine that a 50% chance of winning one million dollars is worth gambling their lives?

Criminals may consciously or subconsciously weigh the risks of being caught when considering to commit crimes just like people who are presented with the twenty-sided die. Crime is certainly more advantageous when there is little risk of being caught because the criminal would not have to pay the consequences and might be able to commit more crimes. This is similar to how it is more advantageous to roll the die when there is a greater chance of winning the one million dollars. Criminals may not choose to commit crimes when they are more likely to be punished while they may be more likely to commit a crime when punishment is unlikely.

Conclusion

Aristotle provided many reasons explaining why people do wrong to others. Despite the fact that most of us generally behave well, have respect for others, obey the laws, are not psychopaths, and have very good reasons to behave well, people do wrong to others for various reasons. The temptation to do wrong is ever-present and always possible, but many of us choose to refrain from doing wrong because we don't want to be incarcerated, we care about our reputations, and we don't want to harm others. If we identify and reflect upon Aristotle's reasons for why people do wrong, we can be more aware of ourselves and maximize our potential to do good.

Knights of Columbus Fund More Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives

The Knights of Columbus continue to show their true colors by funding more initiatives by sending out propaganda to oppose gay marriage by sending out DVDs to Catholic households in Minnesota. There's also evidence of the KOC supporting this initiative right at the end of part two. They already contributed one million dollars to the Prop 8 campaign, but they won't stop there. They also lie about sex and condoms. Shame on them.

I'll discuss some of the arguments, fallacies, and lies in both videos, but won't go into too much detail on all of them because I've dealt with gay marriage in previous posts and many of the arguments are repetitious in the videos.

Fallacies and Lies in Part 1:

There is an underlying naturalistic fallacy almost every time the word "natural" is uttered by the man in part one.

0:53: "It is the natural way we bring together men and women to conceive..."

Well, not really. People have children outside of marriage and marriage certainly isn't "natural" because it is manmade.

1:00: The complementary nature of the sexes is not only at the heart of the human experience, it is one we can see throughout nature..."

So what? What does this have to do with marriage? Not all married people have children and children don't need parents of both sexes in order to be fine individuals.

1:13 "The culture of marriage is critical for society"

We've redefined marriage in the past to allow for inter-racial marriages. We stopped arranged marriages. We put age restrictions on marriage...so why would homosexual marriage destroy society?

1:15 "High rates of fatherlessness impoverish children..."

Yup, when they had fathers to begin with...but this isn't the case if someone has two female parents.

1:33 "Society suffers when marriage fails..."

Again, this only is the case when the parents marry and then divorce...but this isn't the case when and if we redefine marriage.

1:37 "Redefining marriage will change the core meaning of marriage..."

So what?

1:48 "Same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment"

Lots of things are untested social experiments...but this doesn't mean that we should cease to progress as a society. Same-sex marriage has been "tested" in other countries and the societies did not collapse or suffer.

2:00 "Back in the early 1970's...with no-fault divorce...the divorce rate skyrocketed! ...children need both a mom and a dad!

What does no-fault divorce have to do with same-sex marriage? The archbishop keeps saying that failed examples of heterosexual marriages show that a child needs a mom and a dad, but this is an unwarranted conclusion. All that this shows is that children need parents...no matter what the gender is.

2:34 "Virtually every society has recognized that marriage is between one man and one women."

There are many things from the past that societies have recognized that were wrong. Societies used to bar women from voting. Societies used to allow for slavery. With new knowledge, we expand our moral zeitgeist and allow for more civil rights.

3:15 "Marriage exists primarily to allow for mothers and fathers to care for children."

Actually, this isn't the case. Marriage primarily exists for shared legal benefits...and what's wrong with same-sex couples caring for children?

3:23 "What will happen to children who learn that moms and dads are interchangeable?"

They'll be enlightened individuals who are tolerant of others' choices.

3:35 "Children learn that gay marriage and traditional marriage are the same"

Oh no!

4:10 "The church teaches that marriage is one man, one woman"

Great, but not everyone agrees with these views. Stay out of government.

4:20 "The church teaches that all people are children of God with intrinsic value"

...but apparently, they can't make "adult decisions" and marry people who they love just because they happen to be attracted to people of the same sex or be a certain gender?

Part 2:

0:25 "Marriage's foundation as a human reality is as ancient and honorable as any on earth."

Bullshit!

1:34 "Children need a mom and a dad."

No they don't.

2:00 "Marriage is celebrated as one man and one women for thousands of years...

I dealt with the claim at 0:25.

2:23 "Only through a marital union does husband and wife create new life."

Great, but we can have children without husband and wife.

2:50 "Children suffer when they lose a mother or father."

This is similar to fallacious claims in part one. This is the case only when a child had a mother and a father...not when they simply don't have a father because they have two female parents.

3:20 Children suffer when people don't care about one man-one woman.

Nonsense.

3:30 Men are dehumanized when they are told they are not necessary.

How? I'm not "dehumanized" because children have two mothers...

3:55 "They want you to think that there is no difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples. If you think differently, you're an equivalent of a racist, a bigot."

Strawman. The claim is that children are just fine with homosexual parents and that two people should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

4:05-4:39 "The political argument that same-sex marriage is a civil right is troubling... A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law of God."

Great, but not all people agree what the "law of God" is. Not all people even believe that this God exists. We are a secular nation, not a theocracy that follow's "God's law."

5:15 "A strong feeling doesn't make a civil right."

That's not what people are claiming. People are claiming that limiting marriage to one man-one woman is discriminatory.

6:00 "Our Catholic faith clearly teaches that marriage is the union of one man-one woman.

Mrs. Betty Bowers disagrees.

7:17 "Instead of respecting the views and values of most parents, the common-sense ideal for children will be redefined as discrimination."

Beliefs don't deserve any respect. People do....and if you're going to claim that the beliefs of the anti-homosexual marriage people should be respected, why shouldn't the beliefs of the pro-homosexual marriage people be?

7:34 "Same sex marriage threatens Catholic and other faith traditions."

No it doesn't. Churches don't have to marry gays.

8:29 "The tax-exempt status of Catholic schools and charities will be threatened."

If you are tax-exempt, you have to play by the rules of the government. If you take money from the government, you also have to play by the rules.

10:09 "State puts church out of adoption business"

It's funny that the church states that everyone is a child of God, but apparently children shouldn't be helped by charitable causes because the charity wants to discriminate against gays. The video tries to case the state as the bully, but if the non-profits want to enjoy their non-profit status and receive support from the government, they need to play by the rules. If they want to discriminate, go ahead and pay taxes and refuse government money.

10:22 (A clip of Shirley Phelps)

I laughed.

10:30 "If you're creating a situation where just about anything can count as marriage..."

It's the classic slippery slope argument applied to gay marriage! There's no situation being created in which anything is being counted as marriage.

Is the King's College Knights of Columbus an illegitimate group?

Post Updated: 8/30/10

---

King's College continues to advertise the Knights of Columbus and makes it very explicit that it only for Catholic males over the age of eighteen.

(The Crown, August 26)

According the the King's College Student Handbook (2009-2011),

Knights of Columbus

We strive to be Catholic gentlemen, promoting brotherhood within our order ans strengthening the Catholic faith in our lives and on campus. We welcome all Catholic men over the age of 18 who live in the Wilkes-Barre community to consider joining our Council (44).

According to the King's College Knights of Columbus website,

We welcome Catholic men over the age of 18 who live in the Wilkes-Barre community to consider joining our Council. We also invite those not eligible for membership to join us in service, and the celebration of our Catholic faith.

According to the Knights of Columbus website,

If you are a practical Catholic man, age 18 or older, we welcome you to join the leading organization of Catholic laymen.

Knights are Catholic men, 18 years of age and older.

It's quite obvious that the Knights of Columbus are only accepting Catholic males who are at least age eighteen.

A new group at King's College, The Columbiettes, is a similar group. According the the King's College Student Handbook (2009-2011),

The Columbiettes is an organization of Catholic women dedicated to our Patronesses, the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Theresa the Little Flower and St. Joan of Arc (43).

According to the King's College Columbiettes' website,

Our goal as a newly founded Columbiettes organization is to support Catholic roots in women through fellow Columbiettes while reaching to others in the community. The Columbiettes was started to support the Knights of Columbus while maintaining a separation.

According to the Columbiettes' website,

The Columbiettes are now an international organization of Catholic women presently established in the United States and Canada.

So, now that we know about what both organizations require for membership, here are the rules of King's College from the student handbook regarding student organizations,

Student clubs and organizations must adhere to all college policies and regulations.

The organization must not discriminate on membership based on race, religion, gender, physical disability, or sexual orientation (emphasis mine) (48).

Perhaps the gender requirement isn't an issue because two separate organizations are in place to allow both males and females, but this is still a defense that's on very shaky grounds. I'm most concerned about the religious requirement to join the Knights of Columbus because it's so obvious of an affront to the rules that the college established.

I recently voiced my concern in a limited post on Facebook reading,

Something is wrong here with the Knights of Columbus at King's College. College Handbook page 48, "The organization will not discriminate on membership based on ... religion, gender ... the KC KOC website "We welcome Catholic men over the age of 18 who live in the Wilkes-Barre community to consider joining our Council." ??

"Membership in the Knights of Columbus is open to practicing Catholic men in union with the Holy See, who are at least 18 years old. A practicing Catholic is one who lives up to the Commandments of God and the precepts of the Church. Application blanks are available from any member of the Knights of Columbus."

In response to this post, King's College student (and Sentinel of the Columbiettes) Jamie Woolfolk responded with various logical fallacies including red herring arguments and borderline personal attacks that don't seem very "Catholic" or "adult-like" to me:

I responded to this post:

Ok Jamie, I am saying that the organization is discriminating on the basis of religion and gender. The college handbook clearly says that organizations can not discriminate on the basis of gender or religion. Both the KOC (males and females) are at least discriminating on the basis of religion. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc can not join these groups...it specifically is only open to Catholics.

"yes, you have to be 18 because they are adult clubs"

I'm not disputing the age requirement. Unrelated argument...

" you dont see the koc facebook group posting nasty stuff about you, which they should because you take your views way too far. "

Red herring argument - what does this have to do with my current discussion? Oh, and you're advocating that the KOC Facebook group should post nasty things about me? Nice. Very polite and adult of you to say that...and why "should" people post nasty things about other people? Also, how exactly am I taking "my views too far?" Is asking questions, upholding the law, and demanding intellectual honesty "taking it too far?" Is posting online "taking it too far?" What exactly am I doing...and what does this have to do with the current discussion anyway?

" i dont even know how you are still allowed to be at kings college"

Really? Where exactly is the clause that King's College students can not uphold the law and fight for separation of church/state issues?

Here are the facts:
In December of 2009, King's College released a public statement that said the following:
http://www.timesleader.com/news/King_rsquo_s_untroubled_by_atheist_student_rsquo_s_act_12-19-2009.html

"Since his complaint, there has been a public outcry against him because of his enrollment at the Catholic school, but McAndrew noted that the school doesn’t “discriminate against people of any religious background” for admissions."

McAndrew said he knows of no plans to question, reprimand or otherwise address the issue with Vacula. “While you can argue with them morally, his actions aren’t illegal,” McAndrew said.

King's College Student Handbook (2009-2011) Page 51 "College students are both citizens and members of the educational community. As citizens, students shall enjoy the same freedom of speech ... that other citizens enjoy."

"and now posting stuff about them on facebook"

Oh, so King's College students aren't able to ask questions about the legitimacy of campus organizations and point out potential problems with organizations that are seemingly breaking rules? All I posted was quotes and "something is wrong here." Isn't college supposed to be about critical thinking, free speech, and learning instead of "sitting down and shutting up?"

" you might not believe in God, but dont take it out on MY school or MY organizations."

What does belief or lack of belief in any gods have to do with questioning the legitimacy of an organization at King's College? Another red herring argument....

How exactly am I "taking anything out" on King's College?

---

Can you please address my questions instead of saying that people should post nasty stuff about me and raising unrelated issues?

Imagine these hypothetical discussions....

King's has a club that constantly bashes gay people.
- Oh, no problem, this is a Catholic college.

King's has an organization that burns scarecrows imitating president Obama.
- Oh, no problem, this is a Catholic college.

King's has a club that harasses women at abortion clinics.
- Oh, no problem, this is a Catholic college.

King's has a club that houses dying people, forces them to shave their heads, does not provide proper medical care...
-Oh, no problem...Catholic college!

This argument of "this is a Catholic college" fails.

King's won't allow a club or organization for non-theists (and anyone else who wants to join), but they'll break their own rules in their own student handbook and allow the KOC to discriminate on the basis of religion.