Hate speech at Georgetown?

[Lighthouse 84]

If this was a story about a university that isn't a Catholic or religious university, that would be one thing. But a position that is in line with that of the Catholic Church should be acceptable at a Catholic university.  It makes me wonder, if another religious university (Muslim, Mormon, etc.) had a student group that openly advocated their views on marriage, which were in line with their religion but not necessarily in line with the LGBTQ community, would that group also be labeled a hate group?


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/georgetown-student-group-targeted-as-hate-group-for-catholic-beliefs-could-be-sanctioned.html

[mu03eng]

If this was a story about a university that isn't a Catholic or religious university, that would be one thing. But a position that is in line with that of the Catholic Church should be acceptable at a Catholic university.  It makes me wonder, if another religious university (Muslim, Mormon, etc.) had a student group that openly advocated their views on marriage, which were in line with their religion but not necessarily in line with the LGBTQ community, would that group also be labeled a hate group?


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/georgetown-student-group-targeted-as-hate-group-for-catholic-beliefs-could-be-sanctioned.html

Really just depends on whether they are standing up for religious marriage or the government benefit we call marriage. Religious marriage should be no issue whatsoever. If they are advocating that the government be able to limit "marriage" based on gender, sex, race, et al then they are in the wrong.

[Lighthouse 84]

Really just depends on whether they are standing up for religious marriage or the government benefit we call marriage. Religious marriage should be no issue whatsoever. If they are advocating that the government be able to limit "marriage" based on gender, sex, race, et al then they are in the wrong.

I agree with that. Though from the article, it appears to be a religious rather than a government based belief.

[tower912]

http://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176

They should let this guy speak.   

[mu03eng]

http://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176

They should let this guy speak.

Yes and ironies or ironies is that if Catholicism is born of Satan that the Baptist faith would be born of the same tree, correct?

[mu03eng]

I agree with that. Though from the article, it appears to be a religious rather than a government based belief.

Article is ambiguous on that and likely intentionally so.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Oops wrong topic.

[Jockey]

http://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176

They should let this guy speak.

And yet "christians" wonder why people are leaving churches in droves.

Could be Kaepernik's fault.

[muwarrior69]

Really just depends on whether they are standing up for religious marriage or the government benefit we call marriage. Religious marriage should be no issue whatsoever. If they are advocating that the government be able to limit "marriage" based on gender, sex, race, et al then they are in the wrong.

Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.

[warriorchick]

If this was a story about a university that isn't a Catholic or religious university, that would be one thing. But a position that is in line with that of the Catholic Church should be acceptable at a Catholic university.  It makes me wonder, if another religious university (Muslim, Mormon, etc.) had a student group that openly advocated their views on marriage, which were in line with their religion but not necessarily in line with the LGBTQ community, would that group also be labeled a hate group?


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/georgetown-student-group-targeted-as-hate-group-for-catholic-beliefs-could-be-sanctioned.html

Did you even read the article closely?  Georgetown has not labeled this organization a hate group -  one student senator did and got a couple of mopes on the student newspaper's editorial board to agree with him.  To quote the article, "The university released a statement that did not appear take sides".

In other words, one student is honked off - and the university has yet to give his gripe the due process that is required.

[mu03eng]

Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.

A government marriage is not the same thing as a religious marriage, therefore objecting to a government marriage on religious grounds has no merit or protection under the constitution.

Let's call a government marriage as "shelter" and religious marriage as "ceremony". The government can't pick who gets to partake in shelter based on any religious beliefs no more than they can limit or alter the definition/participation in ceremony. Love Saxa can object to the definition of ceremony but they may only object to shelter on legal grounds (not emotional/religious grounds). LGBTQ can object to the definition of ceremony but not via legal means, they can only object to Love Saxa's position on shelter via legal means (not emotional/religious grounds).

[Lighthouse 84]

Did you even read the article closely?  Georgetown has not labeled this organization a hate group -  one student senator did and got a couple of mopes on the student newspaper's editorial board to agree with him.  To quote the article, "The university released a statement that did not appear take sides".

In other words, one student is honked off - and the university has yet to give his gripe the due process that is required.

Yes Chick, I read the article, obviously more closely than you read my post. Where did I say Georgetown labeled the organization a hate group?   Some from the LGBTQ community labeled the group as a hate group.  My questions were aimed at whether the LGBTQ community at an "other than Catholic university" would do the same when it came to a different religion's beliefs about marriage.   

[warriorchick]

Keep in mind that only 44% of Georgetown students self-identify as Catholic.  That means despite what the University's official position is, you have the great potential for the majority of students to disagree with a particular aspect of Catholic Doctrine.


Don't forget that Sandra Fluke was a Georgetown student.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.

Has the LGBTQ community demanded that churches opposed to gay marriage conduct such marriages anyway?

No.  So you have made a false equivalence. 

[Pakuni]

Keep in mind that only 44% of Georgetown students self-identify as Catholic.  That means despite what the University's official position is, you have the great potential for the majority of students to disagree with a particular aspect of Catholic Doctrine.


Don't forget that Sandra Fluke was a Georgetown student.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke

A sizeable majority of Catholics disagree with that particular Catholic doctrine as well. And, I would guess, that the younger the Catholic, the more likely they are to disagree.

[Jockey]

Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.

Loony Town.

[warriorchick]

Yes Chick, I read the article, obviously more closely than you read my post. Where did I say Georgetown labeled the organization a hate group?   Some from the LGBTQ community labeled the group as a hate group.  My questions were aimed at whether the LGBTQ community at an "other than Catholic university" would do the same when it came to a different religion's beliefs about marriage.   

You used the passive voice - "would that group also be labeled a hate group?" and did not specifically mention any other organization or person other than the University that was referenced in the article, so I don't think it was a stretch for me to assume that you were talking about Georgetown.

But thank you for the clarification.

[Lighthouse 84]

You used the passive voice - "would that group also be labeled a hate group?" and did not specifically mention any other organization or person other than the University that was referenced in the article, so I don't think it was a stretch for me to assume that you were talking about Georgetown.

But thank you for the clarification.

Nada.

[naginiF]

A government marriage is not the same thing as a religious marriage, therefore objecting to a government marriage on religious grounds has no merit or protection under the constitution.

Let's call a government marriage as "shelter" and religious marriage as "ceremony". The government can't pick who gets to partake in shelter based on any religious beliefs no more than they can limit or alter the definition/participation in ceremony. Love Saxa can object to the definition of ceremony but they may only object to shelter on legal grounds (not emotional/religious grounds). LGBTQ can object to the definition of ceremony but not via legal means, they can only object to Love Saxa's position on shelter via legal means (not emotional/religious grounds).

WAY more civil, and much more articulate, than i would have responded.  Nicely stated.

Loony Town.

Still more civil than i would have responded......but we're getting closer.

[muwarrior69]

A government marriage is not the same thing as a religious marriage, therefore objecting to a government marriage on religious grounds has no merit or protection under the constitution.

Let's call a government marriage as "shelter" and religious marriage as "ceremony". The government can't pick who gets to partake in shelter based on any religious beliefs no more than they can limit or alter the definition/participation in ceremony. Love Saxa can object to the definition of ceremony but they may only object to shelter on legal grounds (not emotional/religious grounds). LGBTQ can object to the definition of ceremony but not via legal means, they can only object to Love Saxa's position on shelter via legal means (not emotional/religious grounds).

Proponents of traditional marriage oppose same-sex marriage not because they hate gays or want to deny them human dignity; they do so because they believe marriage is not a social construct, but a reality based in the order of nature which cannot be redefined. What I find remarkable is that the LGTQ community cannot even tolerate that position and label Love Saxa a Hate Group for espousing Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Even Pope Francis, the top Jesuit whom I assume espouses Jesuit values warns that same-sex marriage 'threatens the family' and 'disfigures God's
plan for creation'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pope-francis-warns-that-same-sex-marriage-threatens-the-family-and-disfigures-gods-plan-for-creation-9986028.html

[Pakuni]

Proponents of traditional marriage oppose same-sex marriage not because they hate gays or want to deny them human dignity; they do so because they believe marriage is not a social construct, but a reality based in the order of nature which cannot be redefined. What I find remarkable is that the LGTQ community cannot even tolerate that position and label Love Saxa a Hate Group for espousing Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Even Pope Francis, the top Jesuit whom I assume espouses Jesuit values warns that same-sex marriage 'threatens the family' and 'disfigures God's
plan for creation'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pope-francis-warns-that-same-sex-marriage-threatens-the-family-and-disfigures-gods-plan-for-creation-9986028.html

Are they labeling them a "hate group" for espousing Catholic teaching, or are they labeling them a hate group for trying to impose Catholic teaching on others?
They can espouse the belief all they want. But when they want to foist that belief on others via government, it's more than just espousing a belief.
The essay from the member of the organization is pretty ambiguous on that question, but there's certainly room for interpretation to think they're advocating against legalization of same-sex marriage.

Love Saxa’s definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples, as we believe that marriage is a conjugal union on every level – emotional, spiritual, physical and mental – directed toward caring for biological children. To us, marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults.
http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint-confessions-college-virgin/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Just because something is a religious belief doesn't mean it's not also hateful. Religious beliefs from every creed have been used to justify acts of hate throughout history. In this case, believing that marriage is between a man and woman is a religious belief that many hold (and a right that should be defended to the death), but whatever the intent, it sends the hateful message that LGBTQ individuals are less than, illegitimate, or even worse than that. Now does that warrant labeling a group a "hate group"? I would say no. Just like people aren't only defined by their sins, I would say groups are not defined by the worst message that they support. I'm not familiar with this particular group. If they are a Christian based group and this is one of their many beliefs, I would say they are not a hate group. If they are a Christian based group and this is their main purpose and mission, then maybe they are a hate group.

[warriorchick]

A sizeable majority of Catholics disagree with that particular Catholic doctrine as well. And, I would guess, that the younger the Catholic, the more likely they are to disagree.

I agree.  My point is that unlike Marquette, which is 68% Catholic, Georgetown has a big head start on people who don't "have to" agree with Catholic teachings. I wouldn't be surprised if Georgetown is the least Catholic of all the major Catholic Universities.
 

[warriorchick]

Just because something is a religious belief doesn't mean it's not also hateful. Religious beliefs from every creed have been used to justify acts of hate throughout history. In this case, believing that marriage is between a man and woman is a religious belief that many hold (and a right that should be defended to the death), but whatever the intent, it sends the hateful message that LGBTQ individuals are less than, illegitimate, or even worse than that. Now does that warrant labeling a group a "hate group"? I would say no. Just like people aren't only defined by their sins, I would say groups are not defined by the worst message that they support. I'm not familiar with this particular group. If they are a Christian based group and this is one of their many beliefs, I would say they are not a hate group. If they are a Christian based group and this is their main purpose and mission, then maybe they are a hate group.

Has this group done anything but express an opinion that aligns with the accepted tenets of a major religion?  I read the article and the blog post, and I don't see anything about attacking LGBTQ people, lobbying for a change in legislation to reduce their legal rights , or otherwise engaging in hateful speech or actions.

I don't agree with what they stand for, but so far, I don't see any evidence that they are a hate group.

[buckchuckler]

Are they labeling them a "hate group" for espousing Catholic teaching, or are they labeling them a hate group for trying to impose Catholic teaching on others?

I don't really want to get too involved here, but are they imposing Catholic teaching on people who willfully attended a Catholic University?  Shouldn't that be at least a little expected?  Wouldn't one be ignorant to think that they would attend a Catholic school and completely avoid Catholic teaching?