University Christian Group in Legal Action
Posted by thenewconstitution on 1 January, 2007
Last month I wrote this article on so-called religious persecution: http://thenewconstitution.wordpress.com/2007/01/01/religious-persecution/. At the time, a BBC newsreader had just, allegedly, been stopped from wearing a cross on her necklace on air. Jack Straw had revealed that asks his constituents to remove face veils when they come to his surgeries. A British Airways worker was sacked for wearing a cross. A number of University Christian Unions had been suspended by their respective guilds because of apparent exclusivity. It seemed like freedom of religious expression was being eroded before our very eyes.
A media frenzy was whipped up; people took sides in the “should women be allowed to wear a full veil” debate, and much airtime was devoted to the issue. For what it is worth, I consider it of little importance what the newspaper columnists think of Jack Straw’s remarks. The simple fact remains that of all of the women Jack Straw says he asked to remove their veils, none of them complained to the media. It was his comments that caused all of the attention.
And if a newsreader wants to display a cross, why shouldn’t they?
The swimming club would hardly function if everybody attending was afraid of water.
I comment on this today following the news that the Exeter University Evangelical Christian Union has launched legal proceedings against the guild. They had their bank accounts frozen and were suspended from the guild because they only allowed membership to those who signed a statement of belief that Jesus Christ is their Saviour. Committee members are expected to agree to a slightly more comprehensive statement of belief.
This is simply common sense. It is only natural that the Christian Union wants its members to be Christian. Anyone can attend their meetings, but if you want to play an active part in the Union, it is only sensible to presume that you would be willing to sign up to their beliefs. Likewise, if you join the politics society it is only natural to assume that you are interested in politics. The swimming club would hardly function if everybody attending was afraid of water.
As such, the actions of the guild begin to look like active discrimination. The CU is merely trying to exercise their right to be run by those who believe in the common cause of Evangelical Christianity. Any non-Christian who wants to join up should expect suspicion: why would somebody want to join an organisation that they fundamentally disagreed with? Their intentions are unlikely to be positive.
Surely it must be acknowledged that a Christian Union deserves the right to be run by Christians? Just as a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. society should be run by those who have its best interests at heart. What I want to know is why the University guild wants to deny them the right. It seems to me that the only logical explanation is that they wish to undermine the Christian Union. If this is the case, then open discussion with the Union would be a far more sensible course of action. They should be attending the CU’s meeting, not stopping them taking place!
—
I suppose I should add that I write this as an Evangelical Christian, although that is hardly relevant.
botogol said
I think this is more complicated than you allow.
- are the religious groups actively opposed to the values adopted by the overall student body? eg. The student union may have non-discriminatory policies on gay-rights that the CU don’t buy in to. Is the CU objecting to the exisitence of other groups?
- is their funding involved? is the dispute about the right of the CU to exist, or about the right of the CU to receive funding? (I am perfectly happy for religions to exist, but very unhappy about government money – or my student dues in those days) being used to fund them.
thenewconstitution said
- The only issue in question, as far as I am aware, is that of their “exclusivity” in not admitting those who do not accept their Christian belief. University policy may well be against such exclusivity, and the Union might lose the court case, but I would argue against the University’s policy. I cannot speak for the CU’s policy on homosexuality, but that is a different issue altogether. If the University’s problem with the CU is their policy on sexual orientation, then they should use that as their reasoning for suspending the CU.
- Would you as a footballer, for example, wish to fund the basketball club also? I’m sure the debating society do not want to pay for dance facilities. So long as university students attend the society’s functions, they have the right to be funded by the university.
bgprior said
You are quite right to be incensed by this, whether as an Evangelical Christian, or, like me, as an agnostic. As you say, one’s personal beliefs make no difference – everyone should be equally angered by this attempt to constrain people’s freedom to associate with whom they choose, how they choose, provided that their activities do not intrude on other people’s freedoms.
A difference with the overall student body’s values (whatever they might be – by my recollection, most student values involve drinking a lot of beer) is irrelevant. It is not the job of student bodies to inflict their values on others, apart from when one of their subsidiary groups infringes on the freedom of another of their members. What sort of education establishments do we want? Do we want variety, experimentation, broadening of the mind, and learning to live and let live, or do we want homogenisation? I realise that many believe that the world can only be made acceptable if it can be forced to conform with their own views, but such ignorance does not belong at university (though we perhaps ought not to be surprised at increasing ignorance at universities, given this Government’s determination to send more and more people to institutions to which they are not intellectually suited and from which they and society will gain little).
At the root of this issue is the question of what is liberty? Is it “freedom from” things, or is it “freedom to” do things? For the definitive answer to that, read Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty. If, like Hayek, you believe it consists of little more (ignoring the subtleties) than freedom from coercion, then the CU are not infringing on the freedom of others in refusing to accept non-Christian members. It is the overall student body who are infringing on the liberty of the CU by trying to force them to accept members they do not want. If, on the other hand, you believe that liberty is the freedom to do things, which approach underlines most egalitarian and socialist philosophy, then you might have to agree that the CU are infringing on people’s freedom to do what they want (join whatever group they choose), and that the overall student body are right.
Congratulations. You come down firmly on the right side – the (classical) liberal side. Now you just need to apply that philosophy to some of your other views. Nationalisation (a classic case of coercion), for instance, or any notion that there are “fair” levels of wages (who is going to set those levels, and why would people accept them without coercion?).
thenewconstitution said
I would argue for nationalising certain industries (e.g. trains, water, gas) because the provision of the service can only come from one provider.
Take trains, for example. The East Coast Main Line from London to York and beyond consists of a series of tracks that are served almost exclusively by GNER. GNER won the government contract to run the route, and exists as a private company with the sole purpose of running that route. They charge fares, which translate into profit – although GNER seem to be struggling to do this.
In the South East, the newly awarded Capital Connect tender was won by FirstGroup, who are paid by the government to run a train service. They also charge fares, which adds to their income. If income is greater than expenditure, they make a profit.
The problem with this system is simple. Passengers cannot opt to use a different, cheaper service. They have to use the service provided or go without. Therefore, companies are able to act ruthlessly because they know they will guarantee to make a profit. This is not good for commuters.
It would be far better to nationalise the industry, so any profits can be translated into benefits for the rail network, not for the rail company.
But more on this when I write a full post on the subject…
bgprior said
Passengers can opt (a) to fly, (b) to take a bus, (c) to drive (or take a taxi), (d) over shorter distances, to cycle or walk, or (e) not to travel. I’d agree that there is such a thing as a natural monopoly (pipes and cables for essential utilities, for instance), but they are not as common as is often claimed. Railways (and post offices) are not amongst their number, nor is the production and supply of electricity and gas. Even where there is a natural monopoly, it is a complex question how best to deal with that, and history teaches that nationalisation is not a very good answer.
thenewconstitution said
The status quo is hardly ideal – where GNER is massively in debt because they were awarded a tender they couldn’t afford to uphold. Now, the government is bailing them out because they have to provide an essential public service. Privatisation (at least in the way it has been done) has not worked.
Most people would agree that a rethink is necessary… I happen to think that that should include nationalisation.
bgprior said
But why nationalisation? On what principle is that founded? It can’t be based on experience, given the almost complete bankruptcy both of the country and of the nationalised industries during the 70s. You do not refute my argument that railways are not natural monopolies. I can see there are problems, but I don’t see how you get from there to nationalisation.
There is a strong argument that the problem with the railways is their regulation, and that rail operators should be allowed to charge what they believe is necessary to run a successful service. This might drive some people off the railways, but I don’t see any way to square the rampant congestion on the trains at rush-hour with artificially-suppressed prices. What we need is investment, and to get investment, you have to allow prices to rise to the level the market demands.
thenewconstitution said
The problem is the natural monopoly of the railway line. Only one company can run such a route, so they are able to do as they please. Government regulation is the only thing keeping the railways affordable. I completely disagree that the best investment will be from companies: privatisation and competition only work when there are several competitors battling for the same customers. The privatisation of BT, therefore, was very good for the telecoms industry. Not so with complete monopolies such as railway lines.
bgprior said
Each owner of a mine, quarry, farm or any other physical asset has a monopoly in that asset, but they don’t have a natural monopoly.
The monopoly question is: is there a practical alternative option to the goods or services supplied by a business?
Not: does the company own something that it is not practical for others to replicate?
Even more specifically than that, the question should be: is there anything preventing an alternative option from being made available if it doesn’t already exist? But in this case, the competition already exists, so this latter nuance is not relevant.
As I already pointed out, there are acceptable alternatives to the services of any of the train companies. There is plenty of competition for the customers. The trouble for the railways is not that there isn’t competition, but that the competition is too strong. For most people, travel by car or bus, and often even by air, is better value than travel by train. Nationalisation will not change that reality.
I am bemused by the comparison with BT. How are BT’s cables (other, possibly, than the national loop) any less of a natural monopoly than the rail companies’ lines? The physical aspects of both are natural monopolies in the sense that it doesn’t make any more sense having multiple lines on a route than it does having multiple switches/exchanges and local loops. The latter have never emerged, so by your definition, BT still have a natural monopoly. And yet you regard this as fertile ground for competition?
thenewconstitution said
The problem is that the railways are often the only choice. Many people cannot afford cars, and those with children are not likely to use coaches. Suggesting that each owner of a mine has a monopoly in that asset is inaccurate: if only one person could mine the tin that is used in the South East, it would be illogical to claim there is no monopoly because they could use lead instead. Likewise, different modes of transport are not interchangeable in regards to practicality, cost, and efficiency.
BT is an interesting example, and perhaps not the best one to use. The cables are owned by BT, but by government intervention they have to lease some of their bandwidth to other providers. Thus no undue cost is made to BT, and the other companies are not penalised for not owning the wires, so they both approach the same customers with the same overheads. This allows direct competition. The railways can only support a number of trains per hour, so only one company can run them. There is no competition, and an absolute monopoly on the service. This is hardly good for commuters.
shesteGait said
I agreed with you