I like Willie T's logic on the thread throughout. So many Doctrines are Really, concerned in the Church, about this sort of thing, and the stance of aggressiveness of evangelism vs friendliness with your neighbors and all that goodness.
I want to use Willie T's logic on something else! Lets say I am Identified with topics concerning the Great Pumpkin. An internal group graded conversation that is cultural awareness had its internal e-mails turned in with a lot of influence from the Great Pumpkin to Professors. Now, you're in trouble for Great Pumpkin conversations! T Now, just watch, as , all the Professors, Degrade a Great Pumpkin conversation, in favor of any other conversation. You have to Defend the conversations they Identify me the Student having that conversation. Well anyway, for being a protected group or stance, for a long time, that does nothing at the College level really. They really on this occasion anyway, will say that you are the guy in the first post, they initiate All offenses on the topic and claim pushing religion, and can even deny entry and the reason is "religion". How would a student without contacts or preference "push religion", how would they "harass professors" who gave no heads up for prevention, who initiated anti-Christian messaging as the stance of the class, as one example and you profess, simple topic. They say this is probably very likely that public universities will discriminate the Christian minorities against the law.
I notice most of these are individuals in the express purpose of evangelism or preaching. I don't think I ever made any distractions in my 4 year degree. We should have a legal argument solely about the valid religio-philosophy as it Fits in with the ongoing instruction. See Koreans are Sunday moms, white males never are political troublemakers, the Professors have co-pilot in Jesus.