[ms6852]

A club member at a recent meeting proposed that the Pledge of Allegiance be said at start of meetings and that the club be a Christian member only. It is now being considered. I have no problem with the first part only the second part. I don't believe that religion should be a part of the shooting club. What are your thoughts.

[mbogo]

It is up to the majority of members of a private club what form of club it should be (although there may be some state laws that also come into play).

Personally, I wouldn't have any problems belonging to a Christian-only shooting club, but I am a Christian. I see nothing that renders shooting incompatible with the Christian faith, nor are being a good shot and a good Christian mutually exclusive.

People can always vote with their feet by leaving the club if it changes into something they do not want to be a part of.

mbogo
P.S. They do realize that Jesus Christ himself would be excluded from membership in their club, don't they? He was a Jew ;)

[AK103K]

Maybe just wait and see where it goes. It may just go away. I'd still be looking just in case though.

Personally, the "pledge" has always been an annoyance to me. Why should you have to swear alligence to anyone or anything? Seems kind of odd too, since "we" are (or are supposed to be) the entity we are swearing to. Never made much sense to me. Not at all anti US or anything, just anti being "told" I should follow without question and do as I'm told, becasuse someone thinks its what I should do.

The second part, one religion is as scary as another to someone who knows why they exist.

[Tim the student]

It is a private club, and can pretty much do as they wish.

But, I wouldn't be giving them any money in any way. I wouldn't want to be part of a club that excludes members based on religion - especially a shooting club.

[Magoo]

1.5 cents worth

I see from your signature line that you are a Christian. That makes me all the more respect your stance on the situation. No, I don't think religeous beliefs should have anything to do with membersip in a shooting club either.

That being said, I respect the right of any private organization to establish whatever membership rules they want. I may well chose to not be a member, or even stand on the sidelines and call them out for the racist/sexist/X-"religeonist" that they show themselves to be though. Augusta National (golf course) has had a tough and public time with this, as have the Boy Scouts of America.

It will likely be tough for you to stand up for your beliefs within your (likely) small shooting community, but I applaud your thought and hopefully your speaking up on the issue.

[LemmyCaution]

I'm fine with a private club creating exclusionary policies, up to the point where they are invalidating the membership of persons who do not meet the exclusionary criteria, yet have substantive material investment in the club through membership fees already paid.

Say, for example, that a Muslim member of a shooting club will have her membership revoked as a result of not being an Xtian. Say she's paid hundreds of dollars per year in membership fees for several years that have been invested into the club's property.

While there's no legal recourse for said Muslim club member, barring some specific contractual violation in the change of bylaws, the club is morally in the wrong, as far as I am concerned.

That said, I question whether it is in the long term interest of shooting clubs and the RKBA movement, in general, to engage in exclusionary policies that have nothing to do with advancing the RKBA or the encouragement of the ownership and responsible usage of firearms. We need more people in the movement, not fewer.

[Old krow]

I don't believe that religion should be a part of the shooting club. What are your thoughts.

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it. Provided that they do not, and I will liberally use this word, "steal" money from members that have already paid and stand to lose something, it's fair game.

It'd be legal, but entirely wise in the business sense. There's no reason that Christians shouldn't be allowed to have clubs anymore than anyone else, and that's really what this boils down to. The only real difference is that they adopted these laws after they started operations and not before. If a church group decided to do this and never let anybody else join you'd never hear a word about it.

On the other hand, I always thought that Christians welcomed sinners so that they could spread the Gospel? I have always thought things that were strange.

If the goal is to get more people involved with RKBA it's a bad move. If the goal is to get more people involved with Christ, that's a bad move too.

Both subjects are under heavy fire. Both are rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. They basically have the same enemy. Personally, I would be opposed to it, even as a Christian, but not because they don't belong to together, because neither deserve to die.

[Unistat]

As a Christian, I have a problem with "Christian-only" anything. The social atmosphere of a shooting club is a perfect place to display Christian ethics, practices, and beliefs with out being an obnoxious turn-off. Christian only stuff is a lost opportunity, IMO.

I say, "Don't hide your light under a bushell."

[Tinpig]

If my rifle association adopted a "Christians Only" membership requirement I'd resign.
And I'm a Christian.

Tinpig

[ms6852]

1.5 cents worth

I see from your signature line that you are a Christian. That makes me all the more respect your stance on the situation. No, I don't think religeous beliefs should have anything to do with membersip in a shooting club either.

That being said, I respect the right of any private organization to establish whatever membership rules they want. I may well chose to not be a member, or even stand on the sidelines and call them out for the racist/sexist/X-"religeonist" that they show themselves to be though. Augusta National (golf course) has had a tough and public time with this, as have the Boy Scouts of America.

It will likely be tough for you to stand up for your beliefs within your (likely) small shooting community, but I applaud your thought and hopefully your speaking up on the issue.
The issue was brought up immediately after the proposal. The fact that it is still being considered was what angered me. The club has always been fine until recently that newer members began to show up. There are a couple of native americans and asians that do not practice Christianity as well as others who are don't practice any religion at all. What angers me more is the hypocrisy by this so called christians that are mere cowards that hide their racism and sexism under the veil of religion. This is not the place for religion. It is a place to mingle with other fellow shooters, learn from them, teach young shooters and just have a good time on a sport that we all cherish and love, and that a mix of people have in common.

[BlkHawk73]

It would be an aspect to be voted not but I think discounting those that don't follow that particular faith is sort of going against all that's taught in the Bible. What about the whole "love they neighbor", ""forgiveness" and the words all preach, "do unto others..." Dis-allowing other based solely on their religous views just makes hypocrites out of everyone then - going completely against what they're supposed to be like.

[longhair75]

Retroactively changing the membership criteria to Christians only leads one to ask just who would define Christianity for the group. For Example: Many self described Christians do not believe that our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are really Christians. The same has been said recently regarding Episcopalians.

It is one thing to start an organization from scratch defining what constitutes eligibility for membership. It is quite another to change the rules and purge those existing members, otherwise in good standing, because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

[twofifty]

Perhaps by closing the doors to non-Christians the cart would be put before the horse....

Meaning that your club membership ought to hold a discussion about what the club's overall aims are. Once these are pegged down and prioritized, then discuss how best to achieve these aims. Then structure yourselves and adopt bylaws and membership rules accordingly.

If a club has a mid to long-term project around which the membership and local community can rally -no matter their religion or political beliefs- all the better.

I've found the energy in clubs comes and goes over time, as does the quality of a club's membership. Poor leadership often leads to lower membership numbers and a less effective organization. Dispirited core members -the ones with skill and motivation- may migrate to where their energies can be put to positive uses.

[oneounceload]

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

The right of a private organization, however, it seems in these days when shooters are fewer and fewer, you would think any club would welcome every person interested in joining

[sprice]

Refer to the constitution! Christian values but except everyone!

[BluEyes]

Say, for example, that a Muslim member of a shooting club will have her membership revoked as a result of not being an Xtian. Say she's paid hundreds of dollars per year in membership fees for several years that have been invested into the club's property.

While there's no legal recourse for said Muslim club member, barring some specific contractual violation in the change of bylaws, the club is morally in the wrong, as far as I am concerned.


It is possible there may be recourse for existing club members who would be excluded by this, especially if they are long term members. Look into implied contract and grandfathering laws. Of course, this would rely on the excluded person pressing charges, but if they did it would at the least look *VERY* bad for the club - regardless of the outcome.

"Local shooting club changes by-laws to force out religious minorities!"

What is the motivation of the people who want to do this? IMO, they are not being very good ambassadors for their faith...

[twofifty]

Under different circumstances, the headline could also read:

"Local shooting club fights off Al-Qaida takeover bid".

Or:

"Godless Communists expelled by Christian shooting club"



It'd be great media coverage.
Just kidding.

[danez71]

The issue was brought up immediately after the proposal. The fact that it is still being considered was what angered me. The club has always been fine until recently that newer members began to show up. There are a couple of native americans and asians that do not practice Christianity as well as others who are don't practice any religion at all. What angers me more is the hypocrisy by this so called christians that are mere cowards that hide their racism and sexism under the veil of religion. This is not the place for religion. It is a place to mingle with other fellow shooters, learn from them, teach young shooters and just have a good time on a sport that we all cherish and love, and that a mix of people have in common.

Pretty well summed it up yourself. ;)

The 1A separation of church and state basically says government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion.

If you substitute "government" for "goverance", its still a good idea IMO.

Discrimination under the cloak of religion IMO.

If the shooting club started as a Christian shooting club... possibly spawned from a church outing.... thats one thing.

To change it now is questionable :scrutiny:

[MutinousDoug]

I should think that existing members should be extended the courtesy of being grandfathered in since there was formerly no discrimination based on religion. Attendees should be granted the option of standing (respectfully) silent while the "majority" recites the PoA before each meeting if that is their wont. I guess a club can do whatever it wants within its by rules. Any changes thereto should be put before the membership for a vote at least.
Ultimately, unless otherwise restrained, the club officers could decide to exclude all the other members and assume ownership of the club for themselves?
Nice.

[rbernie]

I don't think that this topic has anything to do with guns and everything to do with introducing politics or religion into a club environment. As such, I'm straining to see how this has relevance to THR.

[EddieNFL]

I don't think that this topic has anything to do with guns and everything to do with introducing politics or religion into a club environment. As such, I'm straining to see how this has relevance to THR.
RKBA issue? I know, no one is saying they can't own firearms, but if an organization, say the brady bunch, was attempting to close a range to non-LEOs, the thread would run multi pages. What does it matter if the group is religious, political or transgender?

[ms6852]

rbernie, I thought it had relevance as this forum has a great diversity of experience, intellect, and foresight about the passion of shooting. Twofifty's remark, " your club membership ought to hold a discussion about what the club's overall aims are", and, "Once these are pegged down and prioritized, then discuss how best to achieve these aims. Then structure yourselves and adopt bylaws and membership rules accordingly." is exactly the type of guidance I needed.

By asking this questions at the next meeting we can get back on track, and get focused on shooting, competitions, having clinics for novice shooters and educating the rest of undecided people who could easily be swayed to the other side of the fence supported by the Brady Bill.

By asking this question here I may be able to save the club from itself and keep it a shooting club, not a religious one. Mr. rbernie you have the power to let it go or let it stand. Either way I support your decision, but at least now I have some direction.

[NavyLCDR]

I would not join a shooting club that limits it's members to Christians only. Seems to me that being a certain religion is not a pre-requisite to the 2nd Amendment.

[ants]

If a club cannot focus on shooting, I'm not interested.

On the other hand, if the Church allowed target practice during Sunday services, I'm all in.

[Iam2taz]

As a Christian gun owner, I would be offended if someone decided to make my club Christian only. Very few of my friends could come and shoot. Sounds like someone needs to revisit their duty to be a witness. There is always someone who wants to over step their bounds. Have these folks ever read, "Twelve Ordinary Men?" These guys were fishermen, tent makers, a tax collector and Paul was a murderer. Not exactly the highlife of society. In fact I would bet they were pretty rough characters. These would all be the guys they would want to keep out? Seek other shooting avenues if it goes through.

[ms6852]

rbernie, I thought it had relevance as this forum has a great diversity of experience, intellect, and foresight about the passion of shooting. Twofifty's remark, " your club membership ought to hold a discussion about what the club's overall aims are", and, "Once these are pegged down and prioritized, then discuss how best to achieve these aims. Then structure yourselves and adopt bylaws and membership rules accordingly." is exactly the type of guidance I needed.

By asking this questions at the next meeting we can get back on track, and get focused on shooting, competitions, having clinics for novice shooters and educating the rest of undecided people who could easily be swayed to the other side of the fence supported by the Brady Bill.

By asking this question here I may be able to save the club from itself and keep it a shooting club, not a religious one. Mr. rbernie you have the power to let it go or let it stand. Either way I support your decision, but at least now I have some direction.

[mljdeckard]

Are we, as a movement, in a position where we can afford to start becoming hyphenated?

[russ69]

I wouldn't want to be a member of a shooting club that excludes any group of people, no matter what the type of exclusion they are embracing. I find this particularly offensive. I can say one thing that you will find is true, if you start excluding people one day you will become one of the excluded group. I think a persons character is far more important, than his religion or citizenship. If I joined a club I would want it to be a club of like thinking individuals, if this was the way they think, no thanks.

Thanx, Russ

[Tim the student]

Are we, as a movement, in a position where we can afford to start becoming hyphenated?

The more we include as shooters, the better. IMO, we need to be as inclusive as possible. Black, white, young, old, thin, fat, people with disabilities, Christians, Jews, straight, gay, wealthy, poor, etc etc.

To get the laws passed that we want, we need as many people on board as possible, regardless of any types of divisions that may be present. Excluding people is certainly not the way to do that.

[FatPants]

How in the world would it be enforced?

[1911fan]

So, what happens after they succeed in driving the non-Christians (by the way, how are they on LDS?) away and forcing everyone to say the Pledge? Does the suggestion that EBR's be procured, camo and body armor? Instead of range time, you get FTX's? Classes on stockpiling food and ammo?

Time to find another club. Talk it over with some of the older members and see if they are interested in forming a club that's just about SHOOTING!

As Barney Fife would have said, "Nip it! Nip it in the bud!"

ed

[Old krow]

I would try and make a case for its relevancy by saying that it does support the RKBA in the way that the propagating the "individual rights" culture and extending it as far as we can, does in fact support the RKBA.

It's the consensus of many of the posters in the thread that allowing the isolation in this particular case would be counter-productive and that the OP has a chance to speak up against it. The consensus of Christian shooters in particular speaking up against the merit of following through could not have been gained without introducing at least some amount of religion into the topic.

Should he/she get the information that they need to convince enough people it's a bad idea, there's a chance, albeit a small one, that the outcome of this thread could have some bearing (again, small, but can we really afford to give anything up?) on the shooting community as a whole.

This is of course speaking only on behalf of the topic itself and not the posts that have or will be posted. That's my case anyway :uhoh:

Ultimately it's your call, and I wish the OP good luck.

My advise to the OP is this; if your efforts fail and they insist on this change, leave and find another range. If you are truly willing and able to help others get into shooting, you'd be sacrificing the impact that you could make if you stayed there.

they cling to guns or religion

Personally, I wouldn't think that anyone who is exercising a right under the 1A should exclude anyone else's right under the 2A, because they're backs are up against a wall too and they CANNOT afford to be on an island either.

just my .02

[yeti]

As a private club it would be fine with me if it was done by a membership vote. I guess as an Agnostic Atheist lapsed Catholic I would not feel very welcome, but heck, I would not want to be a member of any club that would have the likes of me anyhow.

In a culture under strong pressure to limit members to only those who think or look like 'US' is foolish. There are a lot of reasons I may wish the guy shooting next to me was not a member, but the color of his skin or religion or 'orientation' don't enter into that feeling. I even enjoy shooting with the Glock Fellas... even they can be saved.

[dmancornell]

I'd leave the club if either rule is passed.

I might be OK on change #1 if the pledge is changed to loyalty to the Constitution.

[GEM]

I think that when I see this thread, an announcement for the JFPO appears. That should answer the question for club members who don't want to engage in primitive tribalism.

If the club wants to be a religious/political club that goes shooting - that's a different game. I'll tell you that if you changed my club and said you would grandfather me - so I was one of the "OK" ones - you could ....

[cottswald]

If they are a private organization, and do not recieve Federal or State funding, then they can do whatever they want. If they give you an opportunity to express yourself then do so. After that, if the outcome is not to your liking, either suck it up or walk.

[deadin]

I will get my 2 cents worth in before the lock.
1. I wouldn't want to associated with such a group of bigots.
2. If such a rule is passed I feel that the club should pay back all past fees and dues to any current member that will be excluded. (Grandfathering them just shows more bigotry.)

[Vector]

I will get my 2 cents worth in before the lock.


I think it would be absurd to lock this thread.

My take on this might be different than some others. Before I started to label the club with PC borne type of names, I'd like to know what the reason for the proposal is :confused:
Stipulating the Pledge of Allegiance be said shows they only want supporters of our country. Most people would not have a problem with such a provision even though it has no bearing on the ability to enjoy shooting at the club. However stipulating that only one religion be allowed to be a member must be based on something, but has anyone said why? Many religious people believe in the right to bear arms and support our countries constitution.
Based on the current atmosphere, I suspect this proposed rule is anti-Muslim/Islamic more than pro-Christian. Maybe several of the board members thought an Islamic radical might come in one day pretending to be "one of the guys" and open fire on everyone. While I think something like that is far fetched, I suspect that might be the motivation.
However all we can do is speculate, so I'd suggest the OP get a definitive answer from whoever proposed the rule to see what their reasoning is.

[jfdavis58]

A couple points: adding the pledge doesn't require the by-laws to be changed unless the by-laws are already pretty crappy. It's a simple procedural call that should be covered in your clubs rules of procedure--that should be at least one document separated from the by-laws. Changing the membership, likewise, is not a by-laws change but a Charter or Constitution change-another separate document(s).

The first-the pledge is no big deal from any standpoint. It's like adding a potty break to the way a meeting is run. The second is a deal breaker as it materially affects the way your club deals with both the public (government) and it's membership. In general, general consideration of such a change is so far down the line of proper procedure as to make the whole notion COMPLETELY out of order-in the very real technical sense-they way you present the facts in your initial post. Unless, of course, your catch all by-laws are so crappy as to be meaningless.

There are ulterior motives at work in your club and it's time to run for the hills.

This club needs two things: a parliamentarian to show them how to prepare proper club/organization documents and a lawyer to insure these documents conform to local, state and federal laws.

There may be a saving 'grace' in play. If your club filed paperwork with the state corporation commission concerning it's tax status, and/or filed a tax return for 2009/2010 (required if the first step is completed and income is above a certain level) and/or it opened a bank account with any proper bank and subsequently delivered a copy of organizational documents to that bank,

then

it may add the pledge on a simple majority vote but it MAY NOT change the clubs membership requirements without redoing all those steps just outlined with all new documents.




BTW, does this club have any assets? Me and some friends just love busting-stuff-up. We could be interested, if the money is right.

[flor1]

Nobody's business what believe or don't believe.
Personally I'd walkaway after I had told them why.

[Vector]

BTW, does this club have any assets? Me and some friends just love busting-stuff-up. We could be interested, if the money is right.

What would be your motivation to do such things?

[DCR]

Would a "Christian-only" shooting club be allowed to shoot weapons designed or manufactured only by individuals they also deemed "Christian?" Or ammo?

Keep the club, like the THR threads, simple and focused on gun-related stuff, and leave the rest for other forums.

[deadin]

A question not asked so far... Is the "club" being discussed leaning toward organizing a militia?

[mstrat]

This is among the worst things a shooting club can do.

Making religious preference a requirement for a shooting club is bigotry. Plain and simple. There are no two ways about it.

Even if the shooting club were officially part of a church, financed and housed by the church, you better believe they wouldn't exclude people based on their religion. Every church I've ever been to welcomed those of other faiths, with open arms.

Let me also note:
While your club only technically represents its members, to most people it represents the firearms enthusiast community at large. Your club's bigoted policy would be generalized by the community and media as the attitude of firearms owners altogether.

Please take an open, vocal, LOUD stand against this.

p.s. These are the viewpoints of a fellow Christian.

[AK103K]

What would be your motivation to do such things?
Youre kidding, right?

[labhound]

I think the club members should ask the member wanting the changes made his reasons for doing so. This would shed a lot of light on the discussion at his club and on this forum.

[Wispa]

As a Christian, I have a problem with "Christian-only" anything. The social atmosphere of a shooting club is a perfect place to display Christian ethics, practices, and beliefs with out being an obnoxious turn-off. Christian only stuff is a lost opportunity, IMO.

I say, "Don't hide your light under a bushell."
That's exactly right. The idea of a Christian only club is in itself not a Christian way of living.

[seuss]

As gun owners this would be a step backwards. If we would like to move forward in gun rights, everything except firearms needs to be put aside for another time. Power is in numbers.

[SSN Vet]

We are priveledged to have the freedom of association protected in the COTUS and I have no problem with a group of people that want to start a Christian shooting club.

Changing in mid. stream, potentially alienating/excluding a group of members, upon whose membership dues and volunteer labor the club was supported and maybe even built, doesn't quite seem like the Christian thing to do, imho.

Personally, when I consider private ranges/clubs, I look more at good facilities, light traffic, low fees, amiable people, and most importantly high standards for safety.

I'm really lucky to have found all of these, just 4 miles down the road.

[Konstantin835]

I respect the right of a private club making such exclusionary rules but morally I am deeply disturbed. I have no problem with religion but I do have a problem with discrimination and in todays modern age I think that we are better than that. Also remember that Christianity first spread because of its message of acceptance and tolerance. What kind of message would it send if you excluded others from your club? That being said I respect the right to create such rules but I would not support any such organization myself. On the issue of the pledge of allegiance I don't think its necessary but it is a nice tradition and a small gesture showing support for your country. Just my $.02

[FLAvalanche]

So one member suggested the club say the Pledge of Allegiance AND be Christian-only?!?!

I would have to suggest that the club vote on removing this guy from it's ranks because he's going to be a future problem. A BIG future problem.

[ny32182]

We have Christian clubs all over the place; they are called churches.

I'm at a gun club to shoot, not engage in enforcing my religion or social ideals on others. I would not be part of a club that adopted that rule, and if whoever suggested it was a board member I would take every opportunity to help get him out of there.

[SSN Vet]

I would have to suggest that the club vote on removing this guy from it's ranks

that's just reverse intolerance

just out of curiosity, how big is this club anyways?

[ms6852]

It is not big 63 members only, and sorry guys there are no assets to bust up. Everyone has brought up very interesting points some stronger than others. Normally I am not the type to get involved in anything my life is pretty sweet, unless someone creates a ripple. Than I get to look at the particular individual like an insect crossing my path...it is my choice whether I step on it or let it pass.

Your views will definitely be vocalized in such a manner at the next meeting that hopefully will shed light to the club. I had no idea many of you felt like I did. Maybe this is what was needed, someone to speak out because there are those that will remain quiet so as not to be singled out or not to create trouble.

[Yoda]

If you don't want to utter the words, "under God," then just don't say those words. If you don't want to say the pledge at all, then just stand respectively as others say it. If you don't want to stand, then sit and deal with it. If you can't stand to hear others say the Pledge in your presence, then leave the room...

You don't HAVE to conform, but a bit of tolerance for the quirks of others would be mature and considerate.

- - - Yoda

[Arkansas Paul]

I wouldn't have a problem with the pledge, but to restrict membership based on religious beliefs I would have a problem with. I wouldn't join such a club, and if a club I was a member of adopted such a rule, I would politely terminate my membership.

And I'm a preacher's kid who still attends church at least twice a week. One thing my father instilled in us was that we still respected those with different beliefs, in spite of our differences of opinion. I remember a guy getting mad at him because he wouldn't sign a petition against gambling. His reply was that while he didn't agree with it, he had no right to make that decision for other people. While he is a preacher, he is also a Vietnam veteran and takes freedom very seriously. I think he's spot on, and while this example differs some, the principle is the same.

[Vector]

Youre kidding, right?
No I was not kidding, nor do I understand why it should come as a surprise that I asked the question.

[ms6852]

If you don't want to utter the words, "under God," then just don't say those words. If you don't want to say the pledge at all, then just stand then respectively as others say it. If you don't want to stand, then sit and deal with it. If you can't stand to hear others say the Pledge in your presence, then leave the room...

You don't HAVE to conform, but a bit of tolerance for the quirks of others would be mature and considerate.

- - - Yoda
I do not have a problem in saying the pledge of allegiance and prefer to say it in its original form not in the form that is politically correct. This thread was not about the pledge of allegiance, it is about the proposal of an only christian member club. I believe you miss read the opening statement I made.

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Not cool, if I were you I'd see how it goes, speak your mind at meetings, and if they pass the measure, let them know how you feel and then find some other club to go to.

It's their club so if they wanted to say everyone has to say the pledge, be a christian, and wear purple socks and orange shoes at meetings then they can. But nothing says you have to be a part of it.

Personally I think they are shutting themselves away. What if some guy like me is a great club member, always cleans up, volunteers to help whenever they can with work at the range, helps others there out etc. but I'm an atheist so I'm no good enough for them? Yeah OK, cya guys later! I'd say.

[FLAvalanche]

that's just reverse intolerance


So we should be tolerant to bigots? Next you're going to tell me to hug Al Queda?

[Neverwinter]

So we should be tolerant to bigots? Next you're going to tell me to hug Al Queda?
That's a false equivalence. Al Qaeda is significantly different from someone a person who voices an opinion. If the person were to start threatening or physically harms the club if their position isn't taken, then they should be expelled.

I'm looking forward to seeing if the OP will be able to convince the club that the proposal doesn't advance the club's goals but potentially retards it.

[BluEyes]

So we should be tolerant to bigots? Next you're going to tell me to hug Al Queda?

Yes, we should be tolerant of bigots to hold their bigoted opinions. Remember, not everyone has the same opinion of bigotry and others might be offended by your speech, too. As Voltaire said: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Freedom of speech is your freedom to say whatever you want, even it it makes you look like an ass.

I don't see how this relates to people who may want to shoot you. :scrutiny:

[jfdavis58]

One thing continues to be obvious-most Americans know squat about parliamentary procedure or the US Constitution and US or state laws. There is a gut feeling shared by most participants here (as is usual) that something is wrong with changing an organization as the OP suggested but few seem to realize that it is immoral, unethical and (most importantly) against the law.

It's really sad that arrogant social progressives and weak-willed mamby-pamby types have removed important American classes like civics from most, if not all education in the US. A good civics class would spend at least a couple weeks on the operations of meetings, the importance of procedure (parliamentary or other) and the uniquely democratic nature of our dealings with one another. Today far too much emphasis is placed on the 'rule of the majority' and the equally important (most parliamentarians say the more important) 'protection of the minority' is 'swept under the bus'. The OP's group is just another glaring example of the failure and activity.

One question was aimed directly at me so I'll answer it. Why would I take a few knowledgeable friends and bust-up a club such as the one the OP cites?

There are a spectrum of reasons: at one end is that it is un-American-it violates the law. At the other end, it probably has some dollar assets that can be applied as damages-and if not 'in the group' then certainly 'as individuals'. It's against their own rules; one part of busting-up such a group is proving they violated their own rules without sufficient cause; this makes individuals personally responsible and liable. It's a good bet some if not all of them have assets to forfeit. A wide range of discriminatory and financially damaging actions will be committed against members should 'the group' make this (out of charter/out of procedure) exclusionary modifications to their rules.

The vast majority of lawsuits are about 10s of thousands of dollars (and often less), not millions. We've stalled similar activities in a clubs of 35 members. Their annualized income (dues and activities) hover about $20,000 (in a good year). They usually have no real property (land). The do, typically have tangible assets with some dollar value. Even more important is that normally several members involved in the illegal activities are business owners with significant personal fortunes! In the end the groups paid all fees, sizable damage and penalty awards and most continue to live under court scrutiny and a set of permanent injunctions restricting their activities.

Their membership is permanently stalled and these folks continue to pay-down the loans used to satisfy the judgment. More than one individual in these group paid judgments from personal funds after they were found to have acted outside the groups rules. (Take particular note of this last fact-the dollar amount was significant, houses, cars and non-retirement savings along with future incomes hung in the balance!) Discrimination is easy to prove and can involve federal jail time if the offense is sufficiently egregious to garner federal scrutiny).

[PRM]

Guess I've missed something. If you don't agree with something a particular club does or does not do ~ don't join it.

[Art Eatman]

Look, folks, the basic issue is the interjection of patriotism and religion into the bylaws of a shooting organization. Too many of the posts in this thread are wandering off that issue.

SFAIK, the religious thing is against federal law. If I'm correct in that belief, that's the end of discussion on that subject.

As far as the Pledge, that's customary for many social organizations. My own opinion is that it is not something which belongs in the bylaws. The organization supports RKBA and shooting, right? Should the bylaws limit membership to US citizens only? How about the stray Canadian? :D Why offend such a person with a mandatory recitation of the pledge as a condition of membership? That's silly.

Bylaws should be limited to the fundamental purposes of the organization, Promotion of RKBA is not furthered by hostility--which is why THR has rules about courtesy and politeness.

[Webbj0219]

I dont see an issue. From what Ive heard its a private club, if they want to limit membership to patriotic christians thats there prerogative. To the best of my knowledge they arent breaking any law. The seperation of church and state is not a law. You wont find it anywhere in the constitution. And as far as I know it doesnt exist in any states law. Its a quote that ppl have run away with. A suggestion from Thomas Jefferson, I believe? Im sure there have been laws made based on it, but its never been a law in itself. ok nough of my rant on that.

Say I want to start a gun club for the avid golf loving labrador retriever owning sentimental nudists. I mean that would be pretty silly and I doubt I would get any members Or I would lose most of my current ones. I doubt they would agree with the direction I was going. I think its just as silly to try and retaliate from some perceived slight. Better off going and joining another group or even better starting your own judgment free club, like planetfitness. As long as they arent hurting anyone or breaking any laws let them do what they want.

I dont know maybe I am biased? I do happen to be a christian and I love my country. Trying to keep as clear head as Im able I really dont see they are doing anything wrong. A little odd yes

[ms6852]

"Bylaws should be limited to the fundamental purposes of the organization, RKBA is not furthered by hostility"-- this is exactly the ammunition I need to bring up at the next meeting". Thanks Art Eatman.

And jfdavis58 your statement is very eloquent.

Thanks for your time and input.

[withdrawn34]

It's a private club. They can do whatever they want.

However, if I were you, and such a measure had a hope of passing, I'd try to get back my application and member fees and leave the club.

As far as the actions of that man, he is only serving to damage the cause of RKBA. Selfish fellow.

So we should be tolerant to bigots? Next you're going to tell me to hug Al Queda?

non sequitur. Just because one tolerates someone does not mean one has to approve of or love that person.

[ms6852]

I am not leaving until such measures have passed. In the meantime the individual who brought it up can leave if this by law has passed. With all the information I have gathered this matter will be resolved soon and hopefully everyone will get back to shooting like before.

[Sunray]

There's no place for religion, of any kind, in sport.
Don't know about Texas, but up here, discriminating based on religion could get the club sued. And Canada is far less litgitious than anywhere, Stateside.

[mdug59]

Too much time on their hands.....shooting club = shooting issues.....K.I.S.S