Young Mormon Woman Sues School over Religious Discrimination

[Okrahomer]

Here's an interesting news item out of California.  She was the valedictorian of her graduating class and an athlete.  She had been a member of the Fellowship since she was a Freshman, but when she was nominated to a leadership position within the organization, she was told she could not act in a leadership position because she was not a Christian.

These organizations existed in my high school as well; however, I avoided them, because 1) my perception was that they were more about the social side of things than doing anything meaningful or good; and 2) I would never have been brave enough to confront the sort of prejudice this young woman faced.  If I were her parents, I'm not sure how I would have advised her.  Thoughts?

[Jane_Doe]

17 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

  If I were her parents, I'm not sure how I would have advised her.  Thoughts?

The best possible way would be to:

Identify the person who made this decision.  Then send them an email saying, "hello, my name is XXX and I would like to talk with you about my faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  He is my personal savior, and I am saved through His grace.  I'm really excited about this, have had a great time in [organization] and would like to talk to you about it.  Could we meet sometime next week?"  Since she has the support of her local organization chapter, have them all add their signatures.  If they say agree to a meeting, then sit down and share your testimony, experiences in the organization and elsewhere.  Show them Christ's love and be wiling to address any misconceptions they have (again, focusing on the big picture).  Be ready for all the standard anti misconception (their response already shows them).  

 

Now of course we live in the real world where people have blind prejudice.  It is quite possible that they will simply hide behind a nameless wall and refuse to talk to you about Christ.  This is cowardliness on their part.  It is possible that they will meet with you you, and refuse to have ears to hear-- that's their problem.  All of these are issue and discrimination Christ faced.  

As to suing... I don't think suing ever got someone to open their ears.  Force policy change, possibly.  

[katherine the great]

Frankly, without knowing all the facts, I think its BS. The only one who will benefit from this is her attorney. I think the club is wrong but crikey! Suing? No. I suffered plenty of persecution for my religion in high school but never would have filed a lawsuit and would never encourage my children to do that for something like this.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Frankly, without knowing all the facts, I think its BS. The only one who will benefit from this is her attorney. I think the club is wrong but crikey! Suing? No. I suffered plenty of persecution for my religion in high school but never would have filed a lawsuit and would never encourage my children to do that for something like this.

Yes.  I tend to agree with you and Jane Doe. I can't see the wisdom of a lawsuit.

[Danzo]

20 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Yes.  I tend to agree with you and Jane Doe. I can't see the wisdom of a lawsuit.

Might be a good civics lesson for an 18 year old.  Good chance to teach how the legal system works.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Might be a good civics lesson for an 18 year old.  Good chance to teach how the legal system works.

Yes.  That's true too.  I hope it isn't very expensive though.

[katherine the great]

10 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Yes.  That's true too.  I hope it isn't very expensive though.

She's suing for emotional damages. Being so emotionally damaged at being told (erroneously) that she is not a Christian, how is she going to deal with the mudslinging she will receive from people in her school district over this?  I think she is going to regret this. I feel bad for her--she's just a kid.

[The Nehor]

I still have no idea what this organization does after looking at their website. I can sum it up as: “Ra Ra! Go God! Go Team! Go!” Not sure why you need an organization for that.

The law she is suing under seems a bit persnickety and basically means they cannot discriminate against members of a group that meets  on a federally funded campus. There is a simple solution. Refuse to allow any more LDS join ever and they can’t be discriminated against within the organization.

Is anyone going to scream hurrahs when that is won?

[Okrahomer]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I still have no idea what this organization does after looking at their website. I can sum it up as: “Ra Ra! Go God! Go Team! Go!” Not sure why you need an organization for that.

The law she is suing under seems a bit persnickety and basically means they cannot discriminate against members of a group that meets  on a federally funded campus. There is a simple solution. Refuse to allow any more LDS join ever and they can’t be discriminated against within the organization.

Is anyone going to scream hurrahs when that is won?

The “Ra Ra...” aspect also predomnated at my school, and it was so alien to my much more private and sedate LDS experience with religious devotion, that I could not see myself being a part of the group.  Some of my best friends were members though, and there was some very gentle pressure to join.  It just never appealed to me very much.  Of course, my experience took place when dinosaurs ruled the earth; and in those days, my folks would never have considered a lawsuit.  In fact, any kind of public confrontation would have been out of the question.  

 

[Okrahomer]

9 hours ago, katherine the great said:

She's suing for emotional damages. Being so emotionally damaged at being told (erroneously) that she is not a Christian, how is she going to deal with the mudslinging she will receive from people in her school district over this?  I think she is going to regret this. I feel bad for her--she's just a kid.

I think I agree.  I wonder how much of this was the young woman’s idea and how much was her parents’?

[nuclearfuels]

Glad she sued though in CA, not sure it will leave much of an impact.

[LittleNipper]

This is the telling remark from the lawsuit: “She’s not looking to get rich off this case,” said attorney Jeremy Dobbins of Ayers. “She wants to make a change. She wants to set a precedent that you can’t discriminate against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other faith, any other belief.”

The problem is that the organization is "Christian". A Buddhist could certainly attend meetings but such an individual could not appropriately represent Christ as a leader. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

This is the telling remark from the lawsuit: “She’s not looking to get rich off this case,” said attorney Jeremy Dobbins of Ayers. “She wants to make a change. She wants to set a precedent that you can’t discriminate against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other faith, any other belief.”

The problem is that the organization is "Christian". A Buddhist could certainly attend meetings but such an individual could not appropriately represent Christ as a leader. 

The other problem is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christian.  All these people are doing is narrowly defining "Christian" so as to exclude those who otherwise believe, like they do, that Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.  If you want to argue that believers in Christ aren't Christians, I am not sure this is something that Jesus would do.  

Not that I agree with her suit.  She's entitled to do what she wants, however misplaced it is, but a private club is entitled to set its own rules and membership requirements.

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The other problem is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christian.  All these people are doing is narrowly defining "Christian" so as to exclude those who otherwise believe, like they do, that Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.  If you want to argue that believers in Christ aren't Christians, I am not sure this is something that Jesus would do.  

Not that I agree with her suit.  She's entitled to do what she wants, however misplaced it is, but a private club is entitled to set its own rules and membership requirements.

Do you believe Jesus was GOD in the Flesh? And that HE emptied HIMSELF so as to come into this world as a MAN. The main precept of Christianity is the TRINITY. I do agree with you concerning private clubs. I'm sure you many have Latter Day Saint clubs and I can imagine you wouldn't want a Baptist  or a Methodist officiating....

Edited October 11, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Do you believe Jesus was GOD in the Flesh? And that HE emptied HIMSELF so as to come into this world as a MAN. The main precept of Christianity is the TRINITY. I do agree with you concerning private clubs. I'm sure you many have Latter Day Saint clubs and I can imagine you wouldn't want a Baptist  or a Methodist officiating....

Parroting post-apostolic neopagan Greek philosophy at me isn't going to convince me that God is triune in the way Emperor Constantine's pet council at Nicaea propounded it.  And that's the primary failure in this argument.  A consensus god is not God.  Especially when it had nothing to do with revealed religion, but with the outfall of a committee, without any kind of revealed word supporting it.  And then to state that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the letter of that committee consensus isn't a Christian?  Profoundly unchristian, if you don't mind me saying so.  

What if God didn't agree with this consensus god that Nicaea came up with?  Does He get a vote, or rather, a veto?  Or must He accept this as binding on Him?   

 

[LittleNipper]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Parroting post-apostolic neopagan Greek philosophy at me isn't going to convince me that God is triune in the way Emperor Constantine's pet council at Nicaea propounded it.  And that's the primary failure in this argument.  A consensus god is not God.  Especially when it had nothing to do with revealed religion, but with the outfall of a committee, without any kind of revealed word supporting it.  And then to state that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the letter of that committee consensus isn't a Christian?  Profoundly unchristian, if you don't mind me saying so.  

What if God didn't agree with this consensus god that Nicaea came up with?  Does He get a vote, or rather, a veto?  Or must He accept this as binding on Him?   

 

I'm sure that Christians anywhere were never perfect. They were saved believers and not without sin. People who believe that everything they believe is perfect do not exhibit a Christian attitude. However, I believe in ONE GOD and I believe CHRIST is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is GOD. These three are ONE GOD. How that is possible, I do not pretend to understand; however, I know that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit all know what I pray and what I need. And that is very comforting... And it is true that I pray through the Holy Spirit, to the Father in the name of Jesus. They all hear me.

[Thinking]

On 8/2/2018 at 2:48 PM, Okrahomer said:

I can't see the wisdom of a lawsuit.

Sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to fix things.

[Gray]

On 10/11/2018 at 11:12 AM, Stargazer said:

Parroting post-apostolic neopagan Greek philosophy at me isn't going to convince me that God is triune in the way Emperor Constantine's pet council at Nicaea propounded it.  And that's the primary failure in this argument.  A consensus god is not God.  Especially when it had nothing to do with revealed religion, but with the outfall of a committee, without any kind of revealed word supporting it.  And then to state that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the letter of that committee consensus isn't a Christian?  Profoundly unchristian, if you don't mind me saying so.  

What if God didn't agree with this consensus god that Nicaea came up with?  Does He get a vote, or rather, a veto?  Or must He accept this as binding on Him?   

 

What do you have against committees? Doesn't Mormonism operate that way too? Mormonism adopted plenty of "post-apostolic neopagan Greek philosophy" too.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

What do you have against committees? Doesn't Mormonism operate that way too? Mormonism adopted plenty of "post-apostolic neopagan Greek philosophy" too.

Did it?  I suppose that some of that would have crept in, just because everyone joining the Church was rather steeped in it.  We cannot help what we were raised into, and shedding it can be difficult.  

As for committees, I note parenthetically that Heinlein once had one of his characters say that more than three people can't decide on where to have lunch, let alone decide the fate of nations.  I don't have anything against committees, per se.  However, the problem of a committee deciding who God is that this particular committee was not seeking God's will or revelation on the matter, but was attempting to come up with something they all could agree with.  Was what they came up with an accurate description of God?  Without God's input, 250 years after the death of the last person to know Jesus personally, I highly doubt it.  No, let me be more precise: what they came up with was a great uproar and passionate exclaim that ultimately means nothing. That's not God. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Did it?  I suppose that some of that would have crept in, just because everyone joining the Church was rather steeped in it.  We cannot help what we were raised into, and shedding it can be difficult.   

As for committees, I note parenthetically that Heinlein once had one of his characters say that more than three people can't decide on where to have lunch, let alone decide the fate of nations.  I don't have anything against committees, per se.  However, the problem of a committee deciding who God is that this particular committee was not seeking God's will or revelation on the matter, but was attempting to come up with something they all could agree with.  Was what they came up with an accurate description of God?  Without God's input, 250 years after the death of the last person to know Jesus personally, I highly doubt it.  No, let me be more precise: what they came up with was a great uproar and passionate exclaim that ultimately means nothing. That's not God. 

What makes you think they weren't seeking God's will or weren't guided by God?

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

What makes you think they weren't seeking God's will or weren't guided by God?

Because they got it wrong. Duh.

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because they got it wrong. Duh.

Why didn't I think of that?

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Gray said:

What makes you think they weren't seeking God's will or weren't guided by God?

That's an interesting question.  I'd like to hope that God guided them to the extent they were guidable, but given the First Vision I'm quite sure they didn't hit the nail on the head.

Maybe Mohammed was guided by God, too, right?  Maybe Buddha was, and maybe whoever founded Hinduism.  They can't all be right, however, unless one believes there is no God and as the Old Fritz once said: "Jeder soll nach seiner Fassung selig werden."  Everyone will be saved according to his own conscience.  Just in case you're not familiar with the Old Fritz, that's Frederick the Great's nickname.

[Okrahomer]

On 10/14/2018 at 6:20 PM, Thinking said:

Sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to fix things.

I agree with this; however, I just don't see this as one of those.

[LittleNipper]

On 10/11/2018 at 12:12 PM, Stargazer said:

Parroting post-apostolic neopagan Greek philosophy at me isn't going to convince me that God is triune in the way Emperor Constantine's pet council at Nicaea propounded it.  And that's the primary failure in this argument.  A consensus god is not God.  Especially when it had nothing to do with revealed religion, but with the outfall of a committee, without any kind of revealed word supporting it.  And then to state that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the letter of that committee consensus isn't a Christian?  Profoundly unchristian, if you don't mind me saying so.  

What if God didn't agree with this consensus god that Nicaea came up with?  Does He get a vote, or rather, a veto?  Or must He accept this as binding on Him?   

 

It doesn't matter that you don't believe it. Christians do believe it and have accepted that God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three beings united as one essence which is ONE GOD. Peter believed this, Timothy believed it (MY LORD AND MY GOD). Paul believed in the trinity. Constantine merely was (according to tradition and nothing biblical) trying to get some clarification and a united consensus on its meaning. Jesus could have reprimanded Timothy --- he didn't. Jesus was revealing his LORDSHIP to the rich young ruler when Jesus himself said, "WHY do you call me GOOD? Only GOD is good. We all know that JESUS was GOD and perfect and became the perfect sacrifice ----- JESUS is/was GOOD and so HE is in fact GOD! GOD the Father accepted this, I accept this. BUT You don't think Jesus is GOOD? Jesus is either GOOD and GOD, or HE is not GOOD and not GOD. You cannot have it both ways. I believe Mormons tie themselves in knots trying out shine Christianity.