Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Mark Shaw QC: ‘Muslims should be able to lead Christian Unions’

Cranmer reported last year on the plight of the Christian Union at Exeter University, which was being forced by the Student Guild to change its name to Exeter 'Evangelical' Christian Union following one complaint (in a 50 year period) by a student. The Guild also froze the CU’s bank account and wrote to them banning them from holding or advertising events on Guild premises.

Mark Shaw QC, the independent adjudicator appointed by Exeter University, strongly criticised the Constitution of Exeter CU because it restricted the membership to Christians, despite the fact its meetings were open to everyone – of all faiths and none. He held it discriminatory that the CU should be run by Christians and held that the Guild policies in forcing the CU to be led by members open to other faiths was ‘laudable’. He concluded that Muslims should be able not only to attend meetings, but also to lead the Christian Union. Cranmer looks forward to the counter assertion, yet to be brought, that a Christian should be permitted to lead the Mohammedans’ Friday prayers.

Ben Martin, the Christian student at the centre of the row over the Human Rights of members of the Christian Union, has rejected the Independent Adjudication into the case as ‘unbalanced and selective’. He will be seeking a Judicial Review in the High Court. On January 5, he filed papers at the High Court asking for a Judicial Review of the Guild's actions under the Human Rights Act. He was subsequently informed that the University would require the CU to go through an informal internal adjudication procedure before any external procedure could be followed.

First, the University tried to impose a leading lawyer with strong connections to the National Union of Students on the CU as adjudicator. The process was then delayed to after Easter (a time when students are revising or sitting exams). Following complaints, the University brought in another barrister, this time a QC, Mark Shaw (there is no obligation to appoint a barrister, only an independent person of standing in the community).

Ben Martin said: ‘The university established an internal appeals process to resolve the dispute and the CU engaged with the process in full seeking a non judicial resolution of the dispute. Out of primarily public funds, the university and Guild had access to leading firms of solicitors and barristers (including QCs) whilst the CU were denied all such assistance.

‘Mr Shaw determined that the process should be “legal” rather than informal as is usually the case, and also decided that the process should deal with substantive and procedural issues of law. He also stated that the CU should be prepared to pay the costs of the university and Guild which could have been more than £50,000.’

When the CU complained at the legalised process, asked for an informal process without lawyers and that they should not be subject to costs, Mr Shaw refused.

Mr Martin said: ‘Any criticism of this process by the CU resulted in a sharp response from Mr Shaw, together with claims that the CU was uncooperative. Only when the CU refused to continue with a process that could bankrupt them, was there a guarantee of no costs.

‘Mr Shaw held that the Guild were “laudable” in their aims, the University had no responsibility for the discrimination against Christians, and that the CU was wrong to require that those leading the CU should be Christians. That position, he said, could be held by anyone of any faith or none, provided they agree to the objectives of the CU!

‘In paragraph 92 (4) of his adjudication, Mr Shaw even goes on to suggest that on the Exeter University campus, the “Welsh Society should be open to Scottish members; the wine society open to teetotal members, the choral society should be open to non-singing members, and the cheerleading society should be open to male members ...”

‘Quite frankly, reading this from a QC, you don't know whether to laugh or cry! I would advise any student who wants to use the “informal” adjudication process to be prepared to face QCs and potential costs beyond their means.

‘I fully co-operated with Mr Shaw and he has treated my fundamental rights of religious association and belief in a derisory fashion. Issues of religious association and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights and not ones on which I, or the CU is prepared to compromise.’

The CU at Exeter has always said that taking the matter to Court would be a last resort, but in light of the Independent Adjudication from Mr Shaw, the CU finds itself in a position where it has no other option by to instruct the Human Right's barrister Paul Diamond to instigate Judicial Review proceedings against the University and Guild. Mr Diamond has recently advocated on behalf of Nadia Eweida (which was won) and Lydia Playfoot (which was lost).

The formal response of the University of Exeter can be found here.

Notwithstanding the risks, the judgement of Mark Shaw is absurd, and needs to be challenged. Cranmer can't stand the thought of tone-deaf students asserting their human right to join the Gilbert & Sullivan Society...


Anonymous Sir HM said...

Your Grace.

Thank you. You are ... gracious.

I do like visiting you.

Mr H I visit for fun and irreverence.

You I visit for seriousness and reverence.

I'm nothing if not balanced.

25 July 2007 at 10:07  
Blogger Didactophobe said...

Didactophobe sends his thoughts and prayers to the oppressed Christians of Exeter. It is obscene, and the first step along the route of the type of intolerance which led to Cranmer's sticky end, that Christians are openly discriminated against in this Christian country* of ours.

Mark Shaw's adjudication is truly risible and is a threat to every university society. Effectively, any one of them can now be infiltrated by people wishing to wreck it.

*unless the Act of Settlement has quietly been repealed.

25 July 2007 at 10:12  
Blogger Cranmer said...

'Sticky', Mr Didactophobe, is something of an understatement.

25 July 2007 at 10:20  
Anonymous VOyager said...

Strasbourg - ECHR

25 July 2007 at 10:39  
Anonymous Voyager said...

25 July 2007 at 10:50  
Anonymous Voyager said...

First, the University tried to impose

Who exactly ? It would be interesting to know the personalities involved which may well reveal prejudice and malfeasance with public funds.....who is the University Visitor or Chancellor ?

Floella Benjamin OBE, Hon D.Litt (Exeter) is the University of Exeter’s Chancellor, the ceremonial head of the University.

Floella, 57, is a broadcaster, actress, writer, producer and an active worker for the welfare, care and education of children throughout the world. Although best known for her work as a children’s TV presenter on iconic programmes like Playschool and Play Away

I guess that closes that option

The Rt Revd the Lord Bishop of Exeter

Lay Member of Council since 2001.

Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones

Lay member since 2006.

John Allwood

Lay member since 2006.

Managing Director of the Telegraph Group

25 July 2007 at 11:11  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Voyager,

Playschool may not close the option. The mentality would appear to on par.

His Grace has attempted to discover precisely who is speaking on behalf the university, but there is no indication.

A link has been added (towards the bottom of the post) of the university's formal response.

25 July 2007 at 11:21  
Blogger C4' said...

People like Mark Shaw QC are exactly why this country is in the mess it is.

25 July 2007 at 12:15  
Anonymous Voyager said...


everyone studying full-time at the University is automatically a member

How is automatic consensual ?

Section A of the Guild Constitution is Section 25 of the University Statutes. It basically just says, "There shall be a Guild". If it were ever necessary to alter Section A, it could only be done by the Privy Council.

How is it possible to create a body and automatically enrol everyone ?

# Registration in a given academic year as a student of the University for a programme of study of not less than 60 credits or the equivalent confers the right to full membership of the Guild for that year. However, in accordance with the terms of the Education Act 1994, all students have the right not to be a member of the Guild. Any student wishing to exercise that right must notify the Registrar within 14 days of registration in each year. Such a student shall not be unfairly disadvantaged with regard to the provision of services or otherwise, by reason of having done so. Full Members shall not pay a subscription to the Guild.
# The Constitution shall provide for the establishment of other categories of Guild membership, for the privileges attaching to each category and for the subscriptions payable by each category. It shall also provide for the withdrawal and suspension of membership and for the discipline of members

# The University shall make annual grants to the Guild and to the Athletic Union.

Therefore it receives Public Funding and is an Agency of the University

25 July 2007 at 12:56  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Any student wishing to exercise that right must notify the Registrar within 14 days of registration in each year.

Unduly restrictive opt-out provision. Shouldn't the law make it an Opt-IN ?

25 July 2007 at 12:57  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Having just graduated from Exeter Uni and being a member of the CU there I cannot fully express the level of anger I feel over this issue. The whole thing is beacuse of this one guy who wrote a broadly inarticulate letter to Expose, (our uni paper) that the CU was closed to those who don't have evangelical ideas, thus the change to the ECU. It didn't stop there, because (as common sense would dictate) you have to be a Christian to be on the committee, they began crying that it was discriminatory because as you say, homosexuals and non christians cannot join. Yet non-rugby players are still not allowed on the rugby committee, or girls either.. go figure right. What is worse is that Ralph Ollson (the guy who wrote the initial letter criticising the CU) and his small band of back-slapping goons have convinced the uni that they are at the apex of tolerance and liberalism... They have actually created a group on facebook where (and this is true) they all congratulate one-another on their enlightened thinking. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous, oh and Cranmer, Exeter is perhaps the whitest uni in the country, we would actually need a Muslim to enrol here before he/she could take a place on the committee...

25 July 2007 at 15:26  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"the whitest uni in the country, we would actually need a Muslim to enrol here before he/she could take a place on the committee..."

so you're telling me you've never seen a white Muslim before? I'm amazed.

P.S. I do think it's quite stupid to have a Muslim leading a Christian union.

25 July 2007 at 16:18  
Anonymous m.d. said...

no I haven't seen a white muslim before. Save your amazement for Gladiator re-runs on Challenge TV.

25 July 2007 at 17:04  
Anonymous Hooded_Claw said...

Your opinion is negated by the fact that you have to speak through a swathe of cloth.

25 July 2007 at 17:06  
Anonymous Hooded_Claw said...

Oh yes, that was a Niqab reference

25 July 2007 at 17:07  
Blogger A S Grey said...

As leader of my own Christian Union I feel particular sympathy with Ben Martin. I highly commend his efforts to defend the rights of his CU in a passive manner and not to submit to the irrational and somewhat absurd suggestions made by Mr Shaw.

I wish to pose two questions:

1) Has anyone considered funding a psychiatric inspection of Mr Shaw?

2) When are Christians going to stop being as if we have no rights, or as if our rights are an infringement of the rights of every other faith in the country? (Especially as, to date, I have never known a member of another faith complain about Christianity in this manner?)

25 July 2007 at 18:24  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

How totally absurd. Your Grace, you always write such interesting posts.

m.d. - I am curious about Exeter's clubs. Is there a 'Womens Club'? I assume, if there is one, men are not allowed? You say the university is very white, but I assume there must be some non-whites about? Normally universities have clubs for them like a Caribbean Club or a Black Caucus club. Is there anything of the sort of Exeter? And again, can anyone join? I do wonder what Mr Shaw's views would be on this.

Oh, and I am left wondering from what you said whether Christian homosexuals are allowed to be members of the CU? Or are they also banned? While I fully support the idea that membership should require the Christian faith, I am not sure I can agree with the idea of banning Christian homosexuals.

25 July 2007 at 18:38  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Has anyone considered funding a psychiatric inspection of Mr Shaw?

The practicality of that suggestion founders on his volition or an enforceable Court Order.

The fact that he approaches the question with an idee fixe is clear, however, that he was even called in to adjudicate on such an issue suggests a University that chose its Chancellor aptly

Such matters are not a matter for lawyers, certainly not for QCs, and certainly not for secular bodies.....I should have thought the Bishop of Exeter might have had some opinion........

25 July 2007 at 18:40  
Anonymous Voyager said...

While I fully support the idea that membership should require the Christian faith, I am not sure I can agree with the idea of banning Christian homosexuals.

Since I believe clubs should be self-governing I find an Evangelical Christian cLub is perfectly entitled to refuse membership to an homosexual since it is a transgression of Scripture - the alternative is that you prohibit Christians from adhering to Scripture in breach of the UN Charter.

I am unaware of the exact percentage of White Police Officers in the Black police Association or the percentage of Christians in The Association of Muslim Police (AMP) aims to:

* assist Muslims in the police service to observe their faith, and to promote understanding of Islam within the police service & the wider community.
* provide a forum for Muslims in the police, and support their religious and welfare needs, with a view to improving their immediate working environment and retaining them in the Service.
* assist in the recruitment and retention of Muslim staff, and to assist in the creation of a fair and just working environment for all cultural minorities’

The AMP is formally recognised by the Metropolitan Police Service. It is active in pursuing faith-friendly policies and has been instrumental in ensuring the provision of many facilities to the benefit of Muslim staff, including Hijaab for female officers, ability to wear Islamic/cultural dress when not in uniform, provision of Halaal food and facilities for Salaah (Islamic Prayer).

The AMP is available to provide support and advice to Muslim candidates

6. The initial name change from CU to ECU was proposed by a Christian student.

The initial motion (Motion 14/05) was proposed at the 2006 Students' Guild AGM by Ralph Olsson, an Orthodox Christian, following consultation with members of the Catholic and Methodist & Anglican Societies.

There are seven religious societies at Exeter University - four Christian societies (CathSoc, MethAng, NOOMA, ECU), the Islamic Society, the Jewish Society, and the Buddhist Society.


There are those Christians (including myself) for whom the very concept of a doctrinal basis is utterly alien. Orthodox Christians are excluded from the CU by the existence of a doctrinal basis alone, without looking into the content of that basis. For us Christianity is a philosophy and way of life, not a list of required beliefs to which we must conform.

Secondly we have:
The Lord Jesus Christ will return in person, to judge everyone, to execute God’s just condemnation on those who have not repented and to receive the redeemed to eternal glory.
The meaning of this is clear – ‘if you do not believe that non-Christians will be condemned then we do not want you in our club’. Yet the very concept of condemnation goes against traditional Christian thought. Saint Paul was clear on this subject – “we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of believers.” It is hard to see how those who believe the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God can jump so readily from ‘of all men, especially of believers’ to ‘of all men, on the strict condition that they are believers’.

We live in a world in which the dangers of promoting one world view to the exclusion of all others are more apparent than ever before.

It would appear that the author is unfamiliar with The Bible and in particular the Words of Jesus Christ - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John XIV: 6

25 July 2007 at 19:04  
Anonymous Observer said...

should require the Christian faith

What exactly is the Christian Faith ?

Would you care to elaborate on what exactly it entails ?

25 July 2007 at 19:06  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Matthew 19:17

17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Matthew 5:19

19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

This attempt by Ollison is a return to 17th Century politics and an attempt to punish Protestants believing in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide from practising their is the kind of attack upon Christian Believers that goes to the heart of the English Civil War

It seems we are moving more and more towards those issues of the 1640s-1700s which established the English State and established the Colonies in Virgina and Massachusetts founded on the Geneva Bible

25 July 2007 at 19:17  
Anonymous m.d. said...


There isn't a female only club at our university but you don't have to look far to find other societies which exclude as a course of their specialization i.e. the many sports clubs who restrict membership etc. There was an Islamic society, but I think I'm right in saying that although it is still listed as an Exeter soc, it has stopped simply because of a lack of numbers (as far as I'm aware).

The CU doesn't allow homosexuals onto it's committee, as far as membership goes, I think that being a practicing homosexual would mean that you cannot join, but you could still go to the meetings if you wanted to.

25 July 2007 at 19:19  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Observer, I thought being a Christian had something to do with believing Jesus to be the son of God because he is the way and the truth and all that. But I brace myself for what you are about to say in response...

Voyager, I'm not sure why you are mentioning the Muslim Police Association. Yes, I support the idea of groups restricting membership. My only point was that Christian homosexuals remain Christian and should therefore not be barred. There are many gay Christian groups who argue that it is possible to be both gay and Christian.

Are they just lunatics?

25 July 2007 at 21:26  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

m.d. - Sorry, I should have said thanks.

25 July 2007 at 21:27  
Anonymous Voyager said...

My only point was that Christian homosexuals remain Christian and should therefore not be barred

If you believe in Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura show me in The Bible where homosexuality is part of God's Design ?

25 July 2007 at 22:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

...and all that.

That is an interesting piece of Soteriology...could you elaborate ?

25 July 2007 at 22:19  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Why is it that any discussion on Christianity tends to end up at some point bogged down in the sordid topic of homosexuality? Am I the only one thoroughly bored with this recurring blight on His Graces blog, All Christians who trace their faith back more than half a century or so fully understand the teaching on this subject, others and secularists do not and seem unable to square the contradiction in there minds between their liberal desires and the mistaken belief that because we preach peace and love we should also accept anything society wishes to indulge in. Not to do so is, strangely enough, believed to be anti-Christian.

26 July 2007 at 09:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it very strange that people so object to the idea of a society being required to select its leadership by OPEN DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. The fact that the leadership of Exeter CU appears not to trust the judgement of their membership speaks volumes about the society.

26 July 2007 at 11:12  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why is it that any discussion on Christianity tends to end up at some point bogged down in the sordid topic of homosexuality?.

It is because so very few people have any proper grounding in Christianity beyond lip-service that they are easily sidetracked by contemporary chatter in their world of celebrity and media.

Unfortunately the established churches became seduced by the type of graduates they recruited and the influx of women that they became more self-absorbed with staffing and personnel issues than any reveerence of respect for God.

As for Anonymous - best so - no point in embarrassing yourself by attaching a name to stupid comments....go away and will probably hurt the first time but mental exercise is stimulating if persisted

26 July 2007 at 11:47  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Recusant - I believe gay Christian groups do trace their faith back as other Christians do. The little I have read makes a powerful argument. I only wish I had the time to respond to you appropriately and show you how.

My liberalism (as it is this of which I am accused) is not responsible for me questioning the desire to ban homosexuals. I am simply aware that there exist people who are both Christian and homosexual. If the requirement for membership is that one be a Christian, it logically follows that Christian homosexuals should be allowed membership.

But I can only assume therefore that both you and Voyager are saying that these people are misguided and are not Christian at all, and for this reason, should not be allowed membership.

26 July 2007 at 15:19  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If the requirement for membership is that one be a Christian, it logically follows that Christian homosexuals should be allowed membership.

No the condition is acceptance of The Bible as inerrant - not as a pick-n-mix.

You should learn more about Evangelical Christianity - it is not quite as wishy-washy as you seem to think.

Show me in The Bible where homosexuality is part of God's Design ?

26 July 2007 at 18:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

are saying that these people are misguided and are not Christian at all.

They are not in conformity with Scripture therefore they are not Evangelical Christians....

26 July 2007 at 18:20  
Blogger Tim said...

Just for accuracy's sake, all Exeter University clubs and societies are open to all Guild members, and their committee elections open to all society members. This goes for the sports clubs as well; though obviously you're not guaranteed a place on a team. No society other than the (E)CU has ever appeared concerned about a 'takeover'.

Perhaps this is a particular fear for the (E)CU because they want to call themselves the Christian Union, therefore having a lot of different types of Christians joining and potentially electing non-evangelical Christians may be a plausible possibility.

26 July 2007 at 18:26  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

Next call:

Archbishop of Mecca and Medina.

26 July 2007 at 19:13  
Anonymous The recusant said...

You see Miss Snuffleupagus that is the nub of the problem; liberal thought will not accept the reality of sin and the commandments of God. Homosexual inclination is not sin, engaging in homosexual sex is. How do we know this? From natural law (we are born male and female and have the associated pluming which has well defined function) and for the procrelationally challenged it says so in the Bible. Now the confusion some modern liberal Christians have is this (keep up it gets better), how could George Carey--a good Evangelical Bible believer-- endorse women's ordination in the first place. When people raised 1Timothy 2:12 (Where St Paul says he does not allow women to have authority over men in church) the argument among Evangelicals of Carey's ilk was, "We are not certain that was written by Saint Paul, but even so, we now have a better understanding of male and female roles in the church and are not bound by the cultural restrictions of that time."

Only problem was, when Dr Carey and his fellow feminists tried to exclude the homosexualists, they pulled the same argument on him. When told that the Bible prohibited homosexuality the homosexualists simply said, "We're not certain those passages were written by Saint Paul, but even if they were, we now understand more about human sexuality than they did back then, and we are not bound so much by the cultural understandings of that time."

What can you do with reasoning like that? With that kind of slippery thinking you can do what you like. It's like wrestling in jelly. Where is a sincere Anglican to turn to find some sort of answer? The whole house has been built on quicksand. Where is there a solid rock on which to build?

And so there you have it, I’ll be round to rob your house because the Christian ethic is that every thing is a gift from God to be used for the betterment of humanity, i.e. where your treasure is so is your heart, so I’ll relieve you of the burden, you see we understand possessions so much better these days!

Now can we drop the whole homosexual subject, it really is quite inconsequential if only people would see it for what it is.

26 July 2007 at 20:43  
Anonymous Voyager said...

if only people would see it for what it is.

It is the Paramountcy of Man over The Word of God - the Suzerainty of The Present over The Eternal - The Golden Calf in place of the tabernacle

27 July 2007 at 08:35  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Anon: "I find it very strange that people so object to the idea of a society being required to select its leadership by OPEN DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. The fact that the leadership of Exeter CU appears not to trust the judgement of their membership speaks volumes about the society."
This objection entirely ignores the principles that on which a society might have been founded. If the principles include strict adherence to Biblical morality, a certain exclusiveness follows, and what is wrong with that? Liberal or homosexual Christians (or any other group) are free to found their own society.

27 July 2007 at 16:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Little Black Sambo,

Your response highlights two points relevant to this debate.

First, that this issue has nothing to do with Muslims or members of any other faith group leading Christian Unions. The UCCF's press release on which this blog post is based brings up the issue of Muslims for one reason, and one reason only: to pull the wool over the eyes of those who have not yet formed an opinion on this issue (they clearly have not read the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness"). The UCCF are not worried about Muslims or Jews or Atheists leading the society, it is obvious that they wouldn't want to. What the UCCF is worried about is that the 'wrong sort of Christian' might try to lead the society. You have made it clear that the UCCF's dismissal of OPEN DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS is based on nothing more than the fear that a Catholic Christian, or an Orthodox Christian, or a homosexual Christian, or (shock, horror) a LIBERAL Christian might be elected by the membership if the UCCF allowed them a say in who runs them.

The second point you have highlighted is the hypocrisy of the ECU's case. You claim that this issue is simply a case of the rules of the society; if other Christians do not like those rules then they should just leave, and set up their own society. On the face of it this is a very compelling argument. Once one looks a little further however, one sees that it is exactly the same argument as is being used by the Guild; the Guild is saying "if you don't like our rules then leave and set up on your own". Why is it that when the ECU says this they are being perfectly reasonable, yet when the Guild says it they are accused of breaking the law and are dragged through the courts?

Oh, and speaking of hypocrisy:

Voyager wrote: "As for Anonymous - best so - no point in embarrassing yourself by attaching a name to stupid comments".

Yeah, because "Voyager" is clearly your real name, just like this blog is really being written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556).

30 July 2007 at 15:14  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

The whole thing is deeply sinister. Only oppressive regimes try these sorts of tricks. Exeter CU is an innocuous society and always has been. Which of us could not be targetted by enemies in this manner? The demands are merely a pretext, of course; I doubt anyone cares who runs most university societies.

The actions of Exeter University smell of Nazi-style justice. The university authorities forfeited the trust of the CU early on. For them to impose an independent 'mediator' is the sort of thing Goebbels would have loved!

Judging from the tone of some of your comments, the CU have good reason to fear that if people who didn't subscribe to their creed could be voted in, then people like the SU would arrange for just that to happen. Powerless and unpopular groups have to take measures to protect themselves from takeovers.

It's all very nasty, and very Nazi. Forced name-changes? Yeah! And why not force them to wear a yellow star as well?!Seizing their funds and trying to give them away before any appeal can be heard? Great! Why not break into their lodgings and steal their stereos as well? We could then jeer at them for not being willing to 'give up everything'!!

Exeter is clearly a university that needs reform. No reputable public body should be presiding over a witchhunt like this.

Why not just leave the CU alone? Is it too much to ask?

4 August 2007 at 21:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why not just leave the CU alone? Is it too much to ask?"

Because calling themselves the "Christian Union" is false advertising given that they ban Christians from membership.

Reeling of a venomous and utterly unfounded attack on the Guild of Students does not change the fact that they are seeking to protect Christians, not persecute them.

If the Christian Union stops discriminating against Christians they will be left alone. Simple.

6 August 2007 at 10:43  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

""Why not just leave the CU alone? Is it too much to ask?"

Because calling themselves the "Christian Union" is false advertising..."

After this extraordinary excuse for abusing the CU -- from an anonymous poster! --, there seems little more to be said. Such hate.... such malice... it makes one feel ill to witness it.


Roger Pearse

11 August 2007 at 17:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Such hate.... such malice... it makes one feel ill to witness it."

Well stop peddling it then.

13 August 2007 at 10:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older