Colorado Democrats block legislation to protect on-campus religious groups

[CatholicHockey7]

I came across this story today, and I have never been so outraged.

H.B. 14-1048 was written to protect on-campus religious groups who were insisting their leaders agree with the values of the organization from losing access to campus resources.

The Colorado Assembly’s Education Committee killed the bill with a 7-6 vote split down party lines.

The most aggravating thing about this story is the double standard of the Democratic majority. Two committee members specifically asked if a Catholic group would accept a gay person in a leadership role. The testimony given in reply was exactly what the church teaches, that all men and women are called to the virtue of chastity, which includes confining sexual relations to the marital union.

But because that teaching “discriminates” against married gays, it was not good enough for the democrats.

Meanwhile, an opponent of the bill was asked if he was okay with a straight, Baptist minister being a leader of the campus GLBT group.

“Absolutely, so long as his values didn’t conflict,” the student said.

In other words, it’s okay for a gay-rights group to deny me a leadership position because I believe their sexual activity to be sinful and don’t believe they can be “married,” but religious groups cannot deny that gay from being a leader in their organization when he rejects the values that religious group stands for.

Score another victory for “tolerance.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is one of a plethora of examples of the state imposing its religious views on the people that no one notices.

 

[acarlson]

Something good that us Colorado Catholics were able to do: kill a “right to abortion” law! We just need to get the people involved!

 

[MacBP]

In practice, I’m not entirely sure what effect this could have on Campus groups. I’m not sure what the rules are like in the states, but in Canada our student leaders (the president, vice president, etc) have to be elected from the general club membership by the general club membership. In other words, unless you that particular religious club wanted a particular person running their club, they won’t get that particular person running their club.

I suppose there could be a situation where the club is primarily made up of heterodox students and they elect a heterodox leader. At the point in time the chaplain would be powerless to overturn the results. But I can’t imagine this would be a common scenario.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

In practice, I’m not entirely sure what effect this could have on Campus groups. I’m not sure what the rules are like in the states, but in Canada our student leaders (the president, vice president, etc) have to be elected from the general club membership by the general club membership. In other words, unless you that particular religious club wanted a particular person running their club, they won’t get that particular person running their club.

I suppose there could be a situation where the club is primarily made up of heterodox students and they elect a heterodox leader. At the point in time the chaplain would be powerless to overturn the results. But I can’t imagine this would be a common scenario.

Mac, that’s generally the way it works here too. But the issue came up because of pro-life groups with religious affiliations requiring officers to accept statements of faith. When Colorado-Boulder officials found out about one of these groups, they pulled the group’s official on-campus recognition because the statements of faith didn’t fit their idea of “non-discrimination.”

 

[Bklynguy]

I came across this story today, and I have never been so outraged.

H.B. 14-1048 was written to protect on-campus religious groups who were insisting their leaders agree with the values of the organization from losing access to campus resources.

The Colorado Assembly’s Education Committee killed the bill with a 7-6 vote split down party lines.

The most aggravating thing about this story is the double standard of the Democratic majority. Two committee members specifically asked if a Catholic group would accept a gay person in a leadership role. The testimony given in reply was exactly what the church teaches, that all men and women are called to the virtue of chastity, which includes confining sexual relations to the marital union.

But because that teaching “discriminates” against married gays, it was not good enough for the democrats.

Meanwhile, an opponent of the bill was asked if he was okay with a straight, Baptist minister being a leader of the campus GLBT group.

“Absolutely, so long as his values didn’t conflict,” the student said.

In other words, it’s okay for a gay-rights group to deny me a leadership position because I believe their sexual activity to be sinful and don’t believe they can be “married,” but religious groups cannot deny that gay from being a leader in their organization when he rejects the values that religious group stands for.

Score another victory for “tolerance.”

This is beyond just disagreement; we are now seeing repeated examples of open, outward hostility toward Catholics from the Democrat party. I’m starting to think the Church should start excommunicating public figures in that party. I’m not joking.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

This is beyond just disagreement; we are now seeing repeated examples of open, outward hostility toward Catholics from the Democrat party. I’m starting to think the Church should start excommunicating public figures in that party. I’m not joking.

If we’re going to excommunicate people for their political beliefs, we’d have to kick out BOTH parties. I’ve said it before on other threads, you cannot be Democrat/Republican and be Catholic.

Republicans disagree with the Church on important issues like immigration and universal health care (which the Church actually supports outside of the contraception mandate).

Democrats disagree with the Church on important issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

To be completely accepting of either political party would be to go against the Church’s teachings.

Instead, our focus should be on using these opportunities to educate others on what the Church truly teaches. Unfortunately, we cannot make them listen.

 

[Elizium23]

If we’re going to excommunicate people for their political beliefs, we’d have to kick out BOTH parties. I’ve said it before on other threads, you cannot be Democrat/Republican and be Catholic.

Republicans disagree with the Church on important issues like immigration and universal health care (which the Church actually supports outside of the contraception mandate).

Both of these are matters of prudential judgement, about which there can be legitimate debate and different ways to proceed, depending on the time and place of the legislation. The Church has no infallible teachings regarding these areas, no matter how much the USCCB and/or the Nuns on the Bus want you to believe.

Democrats disagree with the Church on important issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

To be completely accepting of either political party would be to go against the Church’s teachings.

Instead, our focus should be on using these opportunities to educate others on what the Church truly teaches. Unfortunately, we cannot make them listen.

The Church does have infallible teachings about abortion and homosexuality. There is the difference: fundamental planks of the Democratic party platform are diametrically opposed to binding Church teaching, while no such impediment exists for the Republican party. It is true that neither party lines up perfectly with Catholic beliefs, but it is still possible to be a Republican and Catholic in good conscience.

 

[Bklynguy]

If we’re going to excommunicate people for their political beliefs, we’d have to kick out BOTH parties. I’ve said it before on other threads, you cannot be Democrat/Republican and be Catholic.

Republicans disagree with the Church on important issues like immigration and universal health care (which the Church actually supports outside of the contraception mandate).

Democrats disagree with the Church on important issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

To be completely accepting of either political party would be to go against the Church’s teachings.

Instead, our focus should be on using these opportunities to educate others on what the Church truly teaches. Unfortunately, we cannot make them listen.

Nice try, but the Church doesn’t have official teaching on immigration legislation or universal health care.

 

[estesbob]

If we’re going to excommunicate people for their political beliefs, we’d have to kick out BOTH parties. I’ve said it before on other threads, you cannot be Democrat/Republican and be Catholic.

Republicans disagree with the Church on important issues like immigration and universal health care (which the Church actually supports outside of the contraception mandate).

Democrats disagree with the Church on important issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

To be completely accepting of either political party would be to go against the Church’s teachings.

Instead, our focus should be on using these opportunities to educate others on what the Church truly teaches. Unfortunately, we cannot make them listen.

The Church neither endorses nor opposes the republican party approach to health care or immigration.

 

[Muzhik]

In practice, I’m not entirely sure what effect this could have on Campus groups. I’m not sure what the rules are like in the states, but in Canada our student leaders (the president, vice president, etc) have to be elected from the general club membership by the general club membership. In other words, unless you that particular religious club wanted a particular person running their club, they won’t get that particular person running their club.

I suppose there could be a situation where the club is primarily made up of heterodox students and they elect a heterodox leader. At the point in time the chaplain would be powerless to overturn the results. But I can’t imagine this would be a common scenario.

What you would see then is an organized war against certain student organizations. For example: a pro-life organization suddenly gets an influx of new members. New members elect new president, treasurer, etc. Now the governing committee turns out to be all pro-choice, and start to shut down activities for reasons of cost, safety, etc. Within a year or two, the campus organization ceases to exist for all intents and purposes. When a new group tries to organize, it’s turned down by the student senate because “there’s already an organization for that” or if the original group has disbanded, the new group is denied because it doesn’t fit the school’s diversity or political-correctness guidelines.