I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has given me a powerful tool to use in my war against the godless. Earlier this week, the Court ruled that a public university may require all student organizations to admit any student as a voting member or officer. The decision applies even to a student who is openly hostile to the group's fundamental beliefs.
So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism. Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist-haters willing to join atheist student groups across the South. I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.
My friend, and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President, Greg Lukianoff has a different take on this recent Supreme Court decision. He says “FIRE will continue to fight for the rights of expressive campus organizations to form around shared beliefs and for the principle that the College Democrats have the right to be Democrats, the College Atheists have the right to be atheists, and the College Christians have the right to be Christians." But I disagree with Greg. As a member of the dominant majority, I recognize the power of Martinez to destroy campus dissent.
And I like it. I like it a lot.
It was a close a 5-4 decision, in which the Court ruled that the University of California - Hastings College of Law did not violate the First Amendment rights of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) when it denied the group official recognition. That denial was on the basis of the group’s requirement that its voting members and leaders sign a "Statement of Faith" expressing belief in CLS' particular religious worldview.
By denying CLS recognition, the group is stripped of access to university benefits such as physical meeting space and student fee funding. The majority opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was authored by Justice Ginsburg. She held that Hastings' policy is constitutional. That means the same policy that has been used against a Christian group in San Francisco can now be used against heathen dissidents in the Deep South.