On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


Again, what is an 'official' religious student organization. Is it 'official' only because
California used the word? This is twice you've used it, but apparently you do so only because the
state of California did.

Your argument is meaningless. No one has suggested any of the students are being forced to do
anything religious.