When my dad was a child, my grandfather refused to allow him to say any sort of oath. This was not something that Grandpa Lumpy came up with on his own but was an article of faith of the particular sect that he belonged to. As a result, the dad couldn't join the Boy Scouts. And, at the start of most school years there where a few people the dad had to beat up because he wasn't allowed to say the pledge.

Then, perhaps they need to start a gun club.

Dd

Then, perhaps they need to start a gun club.

Yeah, and I'm sure they'd require everyone to take the Charlton Heston Oath: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hand".

As long as they let everyone join. OK.

Oh yeah,puppy. I forgot to tell you. I picked up a new Springfield XDM for the hurricane kit. Nice.

Who wound up with Charlie's gun anyway?

Just curious as to whether anyone's opinion of the outcome of this case would change if it were a BGLT student group that required members to sign a pledge to be supportive of gay rights. Could the school refuse to recognize the group if the group refused to allow members hostile to gay rights? What if hostile students insisted on joining the club and hijacking its purposes? Isn't an inherent part of the right to free speech and to assemble the right to exclude those who don't share your viewpoint? (And that this is a public school doesn't answer the question; it's a long-standing principle that the government can't condition access to a public benefit on the relinquishment of protected rights).

silent.observer:

Sorry, I found the name of the court case amusing and I imagine it was intentional. :)

<link>

In one of those apparently rare cases where the Supreme Court doesn't overrule the 9th Circuit...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stop a school district from blocking a group of Christian students from forming a Bible club on campus.

The court refused to hear an appeal from the high school students who wanted to form the Truth Bible Club at Kentridge High School in Washington state in 2001.

The school refused to let the group be chartered as a school club. They cited the group's name, the fact that students would have to pledge to Jesus Christ to vote in the club and that allowing the club in would bring religion into the school. The club's would-be founders then sued the Kent School District, claiming discrimination.

Fortunately, the kids have other options. I hear they're called churches...

<link>

I wonder if the courts would have ruled the same way if it was a group of muslims trying to have a Koran study on the bus. Would "diversity" have trumped secularism in that case?

In my case, no, it wouldn't change my opinion of the outcome. But your characterization is a bit of an exageration. The club wasn't merely barring membership of those openly hostile to Christianity, but of anyone who wouldn't swear an oath that Christ was their personal saviour, which would include banning those Christians who take seriously the Bible's injuctions not to swear oaths.

"Just curious as to whether anyone's opinion of the outcome of this case would change if it were a BGLT student group that required members to sign a pledge to be supportive of gay rights."

Nope.

Hmmmm, an informal, not official Koran-study group on the bus is equivalent to an official school club that receives funding from the school? Not one of your brighter posts, Pogue.

kgswiger:

In my case, no, it wouldn't change my opinion of the outcome. But your characterization is a bit of an exageration. The club wasn't merely barring membership of those openly hostile to Christianity, but of anyone who wouldn't swear an oath that Christ was their personal saviour, which would include banning those Christians who take seriously the Bible's injuctions not to swear oaths.

Yes, the facts of my hypothetical were a little bit different from those of the Truth case, but not in a a way that changes the underlying point. Let's agree that requiring someone to swear an oath regarding their religious views is doctrinally suspect. But theological implications aside, my point is two-fold: First, full realization of speech and assembly rights requires the ability to exclude those who would undermine the avowed purpose of the assemblage. Second, a lot of people make up their minds on an issue like this based on their feelings about the group whose ox is being gored.

kgswiger:

Hmmmm, an informal, not official Koran-study group on the bus is equivalent to an official school club that receives funding from the school? Not one of your brighter posts, Pogue.

Ah whatever. For some reason I thought there was a bus involved in the Christian club. Anyway, take out the bus reference and lets say I meant a muslim club with the same conditions and restrictions as the Christian one.

The "Christian only" membership clause that silent.observer notes below is a little troublesome, but even then, I suppose that non-Christian students interested in studying the Bible (and I would think anyone truly interested in Western lit would be) could start their own club.

OK, so I've actually gone back and skimmed the 9th Circuit's decision -- imagine that! -- and I see the limits of the holding. Everyone will be relieved to know that I concur. ;)

<link>

Per the 9th Circuit, the problem was that the club restricted even membership to those who shared it's viewpoints; it was on that basis the school board denied its charter, and that was the only issue the court addressed.

The court specifically did not address the issue of whether the school board could have denied recognition on the grounds that leadership of the group was limited to practicing Christians, or whether the group could have insisted that the groups' actions were consistent with their view of Christian theology. The court specifically recognized that those issues could have raised more serious first amendment concerns, but because the school board did not rely upon them in denying the charter, it wasn't necessary to decide the case.

Anyway, take out the bus reference and lets say I meant a muslim club with the same conditions and restrictions as the Christian one.

If they welcomed all students without qualifications and no restrictions - no problem - and the same would be true of a Christian club. If they required voting members or officers to take an oath swearing that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet", they'd be subject to the same ban as the Christian club. The heart of the matter is the oath and the consequential restrictions on those members who refuse to take it.

What evidence in the case in point would make you think otherwise? I'd note that according to the articles, the school already has other religious clubs that have not had these problems since they presumably follow school policy on unrestricted membership.