Friday, February 18, 2011

Californicatia University Shows Bigoted, Leftist Colors Against Christians

Moonbat-institution spotlight now on UC Davis.


They deserve a big two-middle-fingers up!



They essentially say that "religious discrimination" means Christians opposing non-Christians.


“Christians deserve the same protections against religious discrimination as any other students on a public university campus,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “It’s ridiculously absurd to single out Christians as oppressors and non-Christians as the only oppressed people on campus when the facts show that public universities are more hostile to Christians than anyone else.”

The UC-Davis policy defines “Religious/Spiritual Discrimination” as “The loss of power and privilege to those who do not practice the dominant culture’s religion.  In the United States, this is institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian.”

Shouldn't they have avoided discriminating against Christains, rather than discriminating against them in formulating their hateful, bigoted, delusional, ideologically INSANE definition?

So... it's ok for Muslims to discriminate against non-Muslims but not for Christians to discriminate against non-Christians?

Really?

How do the moonbat poopheads at UC Davis figure this bullshit?  What, do they have a raging, insatiable hate-on for Christians or something?

Now... why would people hate Christians?

Perhaps they're motivated by some evil puppeteer who tells them whom to hate?

Sometimes the Devil assumes the form of a university in Californicatia.

7 comments:

Balbulican said...

"Shouldn't they have avoided discriminating against Christains, rather than discriminating against them in formulating their hateful, bigoted, delusional, ideologically INSANE definition?"

Not to mention ungrammatical. I don't think I'd send my kid to a university that used the phrase "this is institutionalized oppressions..."

But you're quite right. How hilariously Californian - an anti-discrimination that discriminates in its application. (You'll note exactly the same kind of seventies PR jargon in the definition of racism in the same document.)

Canuckguy said...

Balbul is Balbul
Sentinel is Sentinel
And never the twain shall meet.
Or so I thought.

Canadian Sentinel said...

You write that on the stall wall, Canuckguy?

Next to "Here I sit broken hearted..."?

∞ ≠ ΓΈ said...

I just wonder what the Balbster would think if the grammar was correct.
I just wonder what would the Balbster think if the grammar was correct.
I wonder just what the Balbster would think if the grammar was correct.
If the grammar was correct, just what would the Balbster think? I wonder.
Would the Balbster think if just the grammar was correct? I wonder what.
I wonder; what if just the Balbster would think the grammar was correct?

Find the error.

Canadian Sentinel said...

So it all hinges on grammatical correctness, then...

Balbulican said...

Err...no. Obviously not. I'm agreeing with you on the absurdity of the policy.

Canuckguy said...

All joking aside, no surprise we have agreement amongst all parties here on this. The policy is idiotic.