Couple of things
- Just because the election is over doesn't mean we don't have stuff to talk about ... as evident by the passing of domestic partner benefits by the Athens-Clarke County Commission last night. Again, this is something I like in principle (offering benefits to committed and dedicated couples), but have concerns about application and cost. While I agree with Elton Dodson that other companies and cities don't have problems in paying for these, I'd also point out that using the example of private business doesn't exactly hold up since increases or decreases in price to cover additional costs aren't binding on the entire population.
- A new Christian fraternity is suing the University of Georgia after the latter denied it a status as a recognized campus organization. The University's problem is that BYX's constitution says it will only permit Christians into the organization. The suit cites several other on-campus religious organizations, such as the Baha'i Fellowship, receiving status despite their religious declaration. However, that doesn't exactly work since the other organizations are open to everyone and don't have language in their constitution which bar the admission of others.
- Where do I come down? On one hand, I have a problem with a Christian organization barring its doors to anyone who isn't a Christian. I believe our doors should be open. This isn't the same as saying you share the beliefs - or even legitimize them - of a person who attends a meeting or two and isn't Christian. On the other hand, I kinda have a problem with any entity - public or private - telling any religious organization what it can and can't do with its own constitution. If this group wants to have a more narrow view of what it wants to do with its constitution, then I think that's not the end of the world.
- Listen, I'm all for finding ways to create safer scenarios for pedestrians ... however a protest that intentionally creates traffic definitely doesn't fall under that category. That intersection is a nightmare, but it's been my personal experience - as a student and Athenian - that the blame is more on the pedestrians than the drivers. Students often brazingly walk into the road with no real regard for oncoming traffic or what color the traffic light is. Just this week, I saw a girl talking on her cell phone cross the street, despite it being a green light with two cars coming on her. They honked, she giggled and followed that by feigning a hurry-up and that was it.
- Comforting news, isn't it? Sounds familiar too ...
- This kid goes to my church ... good for him.
- Apparently, there's a rash of racist language flowing from random white dudes.
- Mr. Weatherby good sir! Welcome back! Now, apparently, even private, non-profit efforts to assist the poor in the area are deemed 'socialists' these days ... ah yes, the inability to use a basic thought process.
- Ugh. Here's 'that' guy.
- A new Christian fraternity is suing the University of Georgia after the latter denied it a status as a recognized campus organization. The University's problem is that BYX's constitution says it will only permit Christians into the organization. The suit cites several other on-campus religious organizations, such as the Baha'i Fellowship, receiving status despite their religious declaration. However, that doesn't exactly work since the other organizations are open to everyone and don't have language in their constitution which bar the admission of others.
- Where do I come down? On one hand, I have a problem with a Christian organization barring its doors to anyone who isn't a Christian. I believe our doors should be open. This isn't the same as saying you share the beliefs - or even legitimize them - of a person who attends a meeting or two and isn't Christian. On the other hand, I kinda have a problem with any entity - public or private - telling any religious organization what it can and can't do with its own constitution. If this group wants to have a more narrow view of what it wants to do with its constitution, then I think that's not the end of the world.
- Listen, I'm all for finding ways to create safer scenarios for pedestrians ... however a protest that intentionally creates traffic definitely doesn't fall under that category. That intersection is a nightmare, but it's been my personal experience - as a student and Athenian - that the blame is more on the pedestrians than the drivers. Students often brazingly walk into the road with no real regard for oncoming traffic or what color the traffic light is. Just this week, I saw a girl talking on her cell phone cross the street, despite it being a green light with two cars coming on her. They honked, she giggled and followed that by feigning a hurry-up and that was it.
- Comforting news, isn't it? Sounds familiar too ...
- This kid goes to my church ... good for him.
- Apparently, there's a rash of racist language flowing from random white dudes.
- Mr. Weatherby good sir! Welcome back! Now, apparently, even private, non-profit efforts to assist the poor in the area are deemed 'socialists' these days ... ah yes, the inability to use a basic thought process.
- Ugh. Here's 'that' guy.
posted by Jmac at 7:31 AM
34 Comments:
McGinty, sir, you are damn wrong about that intersection and where the blame lies. The fact is that cars and pedestrians do not bear equal responsbility in general because pedestrians can't so much kill cars. I agree that there are tons of idiot students on campus who've never crossed a road in their lives and don't get the whole look both ways thing, but two faculty members have been hit by cars and badly injured at this intersection because cars failed to yield when the pedestrians had a "walk" sign, despite another sign instructing them to do so.
Well, I don't think I'm disputing the walk sign. If cars cross through the intersection with the 'walk' portion lit, then, yes, the driver is at fault.
However, my point, and I've seen this more often than not (from not just this location, but others on campus) are students who - as David Clark noted in the story - don't pay attention to the traffic and don't use the necessary safety mechanisms put in place. Instead, they walk out regardless of the light and see if they can slip past.
Cars should stop because that's the civil and respectful thing to do ... but I don't believe a car going 35 mph that has to slam on the brakes because Sally Jane decided to skip across during a green light should be considered the offender in this thing.
There's only so much you can do. You've got stupid pedestrians and stupid drivers (we apparently disagree over which group has a higher percentage), and until we build some sort of bridge over every intersection in this community, you're going to have unfortunate accidents.
Well, I don't think I'm disputing the walk sign. If cars cross through the intersection with the 'walk' portion lit, then, yes, the driver is at fault.
Which is exactly what the protest was about.
Your larger point is accurate. Your specific one is less so.
We agree on bridges. Or whatever else needs to be done to keep pedestrians, bikes, and cars separate.
To add to your racist verbage from white dudes, you should check out last night's episode of The Real World, in which "The Gay Guy" character got drunk, got almost attacked by "The Big Angry Black Guy" for no apparent reason, and then went on to antagonize "TBABG," finally dropping the N-bomb in front of "The Christian Black Guy" but not in front of "TBABG," which the show did not bleep. It was a train-wreck of fantastic.
Can Andy Dick's comment actually be racist if he is attempting to be funny (funny or not) by enacting a parody of Richards after an onstage discussion of Richards?
I have driven through that intersection literally hundreds of times. I have spent literally hours of my life near that intersection that I will never get back. Although there are idiot pedestrians everywhere, the big problem at this intersection is the DRIVERS.
Specifically, many drivers going north on Lumpkin who make a right onto Baldwin simply choose not to stop for the red light, either because they're uneducated or extremely rude. Either way, they're breaking the law, and this is the biggest danger to the pedestrians at this intersection.
For some reason, drivers do not perceive a need to even slow down when turning and running that red light because it is a three-way intersection. I have seen pedestrians with the right-of-way cut off from even taking a step into the street because a continuous stream of cars drives through in blatant disregard of law and safety.
This intersection is a rolling crime scene, and the police departments need to crack down on it. The only thing the county needs to do is take away the pedestrian buttons here and at Baldwin/Sanford and program a walk signal to light on every cycle.
As a driver I sometimes get annoyed at pedestrians taking their own sweet time, usually not at crosswalks, but I've never had a problem stopping for them.
As a pedestrian and a driver I constantly marvel at how fast people drive--to the extent that they could not possibly stop if they had to. Especially in parking lots. Slow the hell down in parking lots, people!
Adrian: Again, I'm not disputing that there are tons of stupid drivers out there, but I also contend for every instance you cite of stupid drivers, that I can counter with an instance of a stupid pedestrian. The intersection is a train wreck, and I'm not convinced adding or subtracting safety lights/buttons/etc. is going to do much to change that. Ideally, you create a separate and safe pathway for folks to cross, but those things are expensive and, well, not exactly the most pleasant things to look at.
Russ: Wow. I haven't watched a Real World in years, though I saw a glimpse of one episode this season at Scott and Meimi's. Those four minutes was all I needed to realize that show was headed for a spectacular disaster. But, regarding Andy Dick ... yeah, he was just amazingly stupid and not necessarily racist.
As a matter of law, the pedestrian has the right of way even when he/she doesn't have the light/arrow/hand. Though, it is illegal for a pedestrian to step in front of a car not giving him enough time to stop.
This is what I get for watching the government access channel late at night.
I also contend for every instance you cite of stupid drivers, that I can counter with an instance of a stupid pedestrian.
And I again contend that the driver of the car is probably not going to die in a collision with a pedestrian. Stupid drivers are more dangerous than stupid pedestrians.
I stopped watching it, too, when it became a "let's meet each other and see how fast we can screw" contest. Key West is the most recent season I can remember where this didn't happen and ever since Vegas it seems to be the norm. I saw a teaser right before the episode aired last night promising violence and fighting -- I'm a sucker for violence and fighting, so I tuned in. I probably won't be watching any more episodes, though.
I do, however, recommend Rob & Big. That show is awesome -- if you haven't seen it it's about pro skater Rob Dyrdek and Big Black, his bodyguard / heterosexual lifemate. And their bulldog, Meaty. I can't figure out why for sure, but I find it hilarious.
And I again contend that the driver of the car is probably not going to die in a collision with a pedestrian. Stupid drivers are more dangerous than stupid pedestrians.
Right, but I'm not arguing that. My point is to dismiss this notion that drivers are more at fault than pedestrians. Both sides share the blame, for sure, and we need to find ways to ensure the safety of pedestrians crossing the street. Please believe me, I'm not disputing that at all.
I've stood at that intersection to wait to cross as a student, as well as driven it as both a student and graduate. I just think that all too often we tend to jump down the throats of the drivers when, quite frequently, things happen that are outside of their control.
Let's talk about the Christian frat, if we could. My understanding is that it only allows Christians to be members. But JMac talked about it like they wouldn't even let non-Christians come to their meetings.
I'm sure First Baptist "opens its doors" to anyone who wants to come visit, but if a Baha'i or Muslim tried to join the church as a member I imagine there would be a problem with that.
Of course, what's a meeting at a frat? The analogy isn't the best. Frats don't really have "meetings", do they, unless rush counts. But I don't see the problem with having an exclusively "x" frat. In fact, this story only surprised me because I would have assumed there were already a number of such places.
Anonymous, as a matter of law, you are wrong. Pedestrians do not always have the right of way. You made me break out the Code:
"Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian signal, pedestrians facing any green indication, except when the sole green indication is a turn arrow, may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk." O.C.G.A. § 40-6-21(a)(1)(C) (2006).
"Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian signal, pedestrians facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the roadway." § 40-6-21(a)(3)(G)
"A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device specifically applicable to him, unless otherwise directed by a police officer." § 40-6-90(a).
"Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway." § 40-6-92(a).
Of course, you're right to say that a car must yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-91(a) ("driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching and is within one lane of the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning"), but it is wrong to say that the pedestrian has the "right of way" when a no-walk signal or red light is facing the pedestrian going into that crosswalk.
Now, "right of way" isn't defined in the code, so there is room to argue over the semantics. I mean, a driver has to yield to a pedestrian who has disobeyed a signal and entered a crosswalk. Saying that pedestrian has the "right of way," though, suggests that it is legal for the pedestrian to enter against the signal, and that is not true. I mean, without doing more research, I'm pretty sure you have a duty not to hit a car that you see has run a red light and you have time to stop, but you wouldn't say that car has the "right of way."
JMac, I agree with your generalization about pedestrians, but the question was brought up over a particular intersection. At that particular intersection, it appears to me that drivers are much greater fault than pedestrians.
I think I left out a paragraph about a pedestrian facing a circular red signal, but oh well. Time to do other things now.
You mean discussions of usage of the right-of-way aren't entertaining enough? :)
You're right Xon, and that was a mischaracterization on my part. The story clearly doesn't state that BYX won't permit non-Christian visitors, and that's my fault for wrongly wording my original statement.
I was basing it on the fact that the cited organizations, like the Baha'i Fellowship, have language in their respective constitutions which do not set up a requirement for membership. That appears to be, in the University's mind, the problem ... that such language does exist in BYX's charter.
However, I agree with your central point - that if someone who wasn't a Christian attempted to join, say, the Wesley Foundation we'd have a problem (though, I'm not sure about this ... but does the Wesley Foundation even fall under this category ... is there a difference between an on-campus ministry and an on-campus organization).
The Baha'i Fellowship, from what I know of it from the times I've dealt with its members, is a decidedly liberal religiou sorganization which does permit Christians or Jews or Muslims to join their membership.
I suppose the first thing we need to find out is if there is a difference between college ministry and college organization (I think there must be, but am not sure). Whether there is or not, I think, is important to understanding this.
"I suppose the first thing we need to find out is if there is a difference between college ministry and college organization (I think there must be, but am not sure). Whether there is or not, I think, is important to understanding this."
Sure. This is the crux of it I guess, from a legal/constitutional standpoint. I mean, things like the Wesley Foundation don't have "members" at all, do they? They just have weekly events, and everyone is invited. Fraternities, on the other hand, are all about having a membership roll, and picking certain 'kinds' of people to be on that roll. I have a lot of trouble seeing why religion should not be an acceptable means of association in this regard.
"The Baha'i Fellowship, from what I know of it from the times I've dealt with its members, is a decidedly liberal religiou sorganization which does permit Christians or Jews or Muslims to join their membership."
Sure they do. Just like the Unitarians. But the obvious problem with the University saying, "We'll allow religious organizations on campus as long as they are nice and include everybody, like those great Baha'i folks," is that this excludes by definition less liberal religions.
The liberal ideal of pluralism comes in here and acts as a "religious test" for campus organizations. You can be welcomed in, as long as your religious views of people who don't share your faith are like these other people over here.
Not to sound too much like the lawyer here (and thanks for the OCGA cites, Adrian), but isn't a discuss of whether drivers or pedestrians are "more" at fault, in a general sense as opposed to in particular cases, pointless?
A problem occurs when either the pedestrian or the driver screws up. It's a case-by-case determination. For each instance when a car almost hits (or does hit) a pedestrian, one of them is in the wrong. Talking about the cumulative wrongness of drivers versus pedestrians is silly (at least without empirical data).
I'm going to be quiet now and go back to my private geek-dom.
Darren
Oh, and there's this on the frat thing:
UGA to recognize Christian fraternity
University plans to review nondiscrimination policy
By ANDREA JONES
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/07/06
The University of Georgia will recognize the Christian fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi as a student organization and plans to review its nondiscrimination policy to consider allowing groups to select members based on religion, UGA officials said Thursday.
The fraternity filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in Athens Wednesday claiming the university refused to recognize them because they required all of their members to pledge their belief in Jesus Christ. The group, which was founded by six students in 2005 and now has more than 30 members, has 16 other chapters all over the nation. UGA recognized the group as a student organization last year but denied them continued recognition this November.
To register as a student group, a student organization had to fill out a form stating "membership and all privileges, including voting and officer positions, must be extended to all students, without regard to age, ethnicity, gender, disability, color, natural origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status," according to the suit.
UGA spokesman Tom Jackson said Thursday the university will remove the religion clause from the policy for the Christian fraternity to settle this particular situation and is discussing "an exception to religious discrimination (that) could be put into place much like an exception to gender discrimination is in place for same-sex social fraternities and sororities."
Timothy Tracey, a lawyer with the Christian Legal Society, which was representing the fraternity, said he was encouraged by the news.
"We're concerned that there is a long term solution," he said. "If they amend their policy, we hope that will solve the problem."
Darren
First, I think both drivers and pedestrians are equally at fault for the mess at Lumpkin and Baldwin. Many drivers pay no attention to their surroundings; they are focused only on the green light, their cell phone, or their passengers, not the pedestrian trying to survive crossing the street. Pedestrians should expect the right-of-way, especially with a walk sign, but they should still be cautious and aware of their surroundings, especially at that busy intersection. Self preservation needs to win over self righteousness as law will not always protect you against blunt force trauma. The issue is never that black and white but I think both sides should be equally policed to make it fair. A set of traffic cops should be posted there at random days during lunch hour and write violators a ticket, be it bad drivers or jay-walkers. That will slow everybody down.
Second, Andy Dick is known for being a dick, so it's no surprise that he pulled a stunt like this. He's probably excited because he's in the spotlight once again. I'm amazed someone that annoying can get so much PR. But then again, Britney Spears is still working it.
Third, I think that UGA should allow the Christian fraternity to be officially recognized, and then allow them to embarrass themselves. If they are true to their Christian roots, every Christian would be accepted and maybe they would do good deeds. I remember being a member of the Y Club in high school, and while we wern't the most upstanding Christians (and who would be in high school), we did a good job of accepting everyone and volunteering in the community. If they are Southern Baptists in disguise, they will eventually ban gay Christians as Satan and get kicked out for discrimination.
Darren, I didn't mean that one party would be more at fault in a particular accident. I meant that overall more danger is posed by the way drivers behave at this particular intersection, and it's because the continuous line of cars running the red light.
And also, there is plenty of legal theory in criminal and tort law that deals with two parties doing wrong but one being more at fault. I don't know how it works in Georgia because I have been spared being issued any citations, but in some states the police assign a percentage of fault in an accident.
"If they are Southern Baptists in disguise, they will eventually ban gay Christians as Satan and get kicked out for discrimination."
Well, I don't see why they should be forced to accept "gay Christians", either.
1. In principle, could a group ban every person from joining? If the discrimination is universal, is it still discrimination?
1b. Isn't there a difference between a fraternity and a church, Xon? PST doesn't allow anyone to join who is not a philosophy major with a certain GPA, but anyone can come and watch the movies or join in the debates. But, we also don't dispense the holy sacraments. I get confused easily, though, and it's late.
2. It's not unusual for both or all parties involved in a traffic accident to have contributed to it through negligence or wilful intent. Both parties on the same accident form can be assigned contributing factors, and both parties can be given citations for their particular violations.
2b. People interpret "right on red" to mean you can go "through" the intersection when the light is red so long as you are turning right. It seems to me this is how the accidents are happening, not necessarily someone driving straight. Someone taking that turn going 35 mph is driving recklessly.
It also seems to me that only constant enforcement of this law generally will get people to stop doing this. But, it also seems to me that a large majority of officers are reluctant to cite for that particular "failure to yield to traffic control device" violation. Since, afterall, most of them do that themselves off-duty...
3. It's fortunate that our most egregious act of violence is a car hitting a pedestrian, and not a car detonating around pedestrians.
4. Weatherby does have one good point: the appropriate response to cold-hearted pride and greed masquerading as realistic pragmatism is to roll one's eyes.
It's fortunate that our most egregious act of violence is a car hitting a pedestrian, and not a car detonating around pedestrians.
And, you know, it's fortunate we haven't been invaded and enslaved by aliens too...
Pedestrians - Any time a car hits a pedestrian, except in rare situations (intentionally causing self-damage, incapacitation, others), the driver has a certain degree of fault. Sure, pedestrians can make bad decisions, disobey the law, etc., but when was the last time any of us drove without breaking the speed limit or failing to completely follow all traffic laws?
In the case of intersections proved to be dangerous, are we supposed to let the engineers and planners just give up after trying once or twice to fix the problem? If so, the alternatives are to prohibit pedestrians completely or to leave it unchanged and accept that people are going to be injured and likely killed there. Neither of these are acceptable to me, and enforcement in Athens has proved to be a complete joke - just like the smoking ban, the PD has more important things to do than write tickets for, let alone seek out, traffic violations.
The problem with separating bikes and pedestrians from cars is that not every street has bike lanes, sidewalks, and crosswalks (shared-used paths are very rarely acceptable in urban areas), and Athens-Clarke County has not stepped up to the plate to move toward this. Getting cyclists and pedestrians off the street/sidewalk conditions people NOT to see these folks while they're driving. So, if you were successful in separating the various users in some areas, you'd actually be putting people in more danger in other places. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and on-street bike lanes are the best way to make streets safer for everyone (besides, of course, enforcement and more willing self-enforcement of laws) because they provide the most predictability and visibility.
I'm not sure if any of that was relevant...
Christians - How can the University a) allow this group to discriminate on one important ground as long as they don't discriminate on the others, and b) capitulate so easily? My only argument here is that there are surely UGA students who might like to form campus groups based solely on their having certain less common or accepted traits (you fill in the blank), and that they would surely be tagged with the discrimination label, rightly so. What differentiates this fraternity's blatant intent to discriminate from another that would not allow certain students for BEING Christian?
Christian Pedestrians - Walk slowly and carry a big cross?
Adrian,
You are correct that tort law in many states recognizes allocation of fault between or among parties (comparative negligence, contributory negligence, etc.). I'm not aware of Georgia criminal law apportioning fault in the traffic context (I think the criminal approach is to ticket all who broke some law, and let the civil/insurance system sort out monetary compensation), but it's been awhile since I spent time in Title 40 of the Code.
My point was not that, in a particular incident, the fault lies solely with one party or the other (although ultimately, even if a comparative negligence situation, one party is usually found more at fault than the other; what effect those percentages have on the plaintiff's ability to collect damages varies from state to state). Instead, my point was that each incident is different, each incident requires determining who was at fault that time, and that any drivers-are-worse or pedestrians-are-worse argument, without statistical data, is anecdotal at best, gut reaction at worst. And I'm not sure you were making such and argument - certainly not s strongly as Mrs. Brown was.
Darren
Darren, the point I was trying to make is not necessarily that drivers are _more_ at fault (although I may have phrased it that way), but rather that they bear a greater responsibility due to having much more physical power. It's the Spider-man argument when it comes down to it.
"What differentiates this fraternity's blatant intent to discriminate from another that would not allow certain students for BEING Christian?"
Nothing. And I have no problem with an anti-Christian fraternity, either. If secular humanists want to have their own frat, then I'm all for it. Free. Association.
"Christians - How can the University a) allow this group to discriminate on one important ground as long as they don't discriminate on the others, and b) capitulate so easily?"
Because the University shouldn't want to put it itself in the position of imposing a religious test on campus organizations. If UGA says, "We will approve religious groups, so long as they themselves don't care what religion their members are," then UGA is itself "discriminating" among religions. Because, see, not all religions are universalist (In fact, most are not). Saying "You can be religious, as long as your religion conforms to the liberal pluralistic ideal" is the same as telling most religious people that they can't in fact follow their religion.
Didn't mean to come off so snarky. My heart is happy. Cheers.
Hillary, I do not disagree. That's a whole other conversation about non-reciprocal risks, which might lead me to taxing those who create greater risks to others more than those who create less risk -- i.e., an Excursion creates a much greater risk of killing others not in the vehicle than does a Civic.
Darren
Great points, for sure (didn't think they might be snarky until you suggested so). Especially "Because, see, not all religions are universalist (In fact, most are not)."
My beef, which I failed to articulate, is that the University *has* an anti-discrimination policy. I'm not certain if UGA's actually does, but wouldn't this usually include religion (whether you are one religion or not another shouldn't make a difference) along with sex, race, orientation, nationality, height, weight, hair color, Yankees/Red Sox, Visa/MC, less filling/tastes great?
If not, then this new fraternity has a point and UGA has acted accordingly. If so, the University has caved, and how can it avoid doing so in the future? If so, who's to stop the worst-case scenarios out there?
which might lead me to taxing those who create greater risks to others more than those who create less risk
Boo freakin' yah. i.e., I concur, sir.
"which might lead me to taxing those who create greater risks to others more than those who create less risk"
"Boo freakin' yah. i.e., I concur, sir."
Does this same reasoning apply to matters other than tax policy, like say to health insurance? Sorry, couldn't resist!
anon, I think that the frat has a point regardless of what UGA's official anti-discrimination policy actually says. If UGA doesn't make religion an issue in that policy, then obviously (as you say) the frat has a point. But, I would go further and say that even if UGA does include religion in its non-discrimination policy, that the frat still has a point. That point would be something like this: UGA has a stupid non-discrimination policy that it cannot enforce within violating its own liberal ideals.
If UGA 'caved', then I hope it marks a trend for these sorts of policies.
Besides, surely UGA's non-discrimination policy includes gender as something that is not to be discriminated against. Yet I'll bet there are still clear exceptions, such as frats not being forced to admit women as members or sororities not being forced to admit men.
If the journalism department were refusing to admit women, that would be a problem. But if a group that defines itself in terms of its gender wants to have a presence on campus, I don't see any problem. Shouldn't we rinse, lather, and repeat this argument in terms of religion?
A bunch of Taoists want to join together for mutual encouragement in walking the Taoist path in the midst of a modern and foreign environment that does not understand that path. They meet together for mutual support, for times of fellowship, for discussions of ways in which they think that the university could benefit from their presence, for ways in which their religious convictions enable them to speak and act for truth and goodness among the University community. But, of course, since the whole point of this thing is to be a place where Taoists can mutually encourage one another, it's only open to Taoists.
Now, either UGA has a policy against this kind of thing or they don't. If they don't, then there's nothing more to talk about. If they do, then that's retarded and they should change, and if the university tried to shut down the Taoists ("Alright, what's all this noise, then? Hey, where are the Hindus?! Sorry, you guys are outta here!") I don't think we should have any problem with them appealing to a higher court. And if the University then backed down when they made this appeal, I don't see why we should call it "caving." Sometimes people just come to their senses, and we should all praise the Tao.
Does this same reasoning apply to matters other than tax policy, like say to health insurance? Sorry, couldn't resist!
Ha! Of course not. Do I claim to be perfectly consistent in my views? I do not.
Post a Comment
<< Home