So many things have happened over the past year at Iowa State regarding the plight of the Christian movement. Movement - as in a series of actions or activities intended or tending toward a particular end - is what I believe to be a well-intended gesture to appropriate rights toward religious freedom. Considering the overwhelming majority of Christians in Iowa, any actions that seem to be discriminatory toward their religion are quickly a hot topic.

These issues are becoming misleading and heading toward extremes. It begins with the Constitution, the idea that everyone has religious freedom and what that really means. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This means the government cannot pass any legislation that would burden a practicing religion, but also means it cannot favor one religion over another. Therefore, it's common practice that the government not be involved with religion altogether, as to avoid promoting it. Certain issues on campus within the last year have pushed religion to the forefront, and since Iowa State is a public institution, a lot of these issues have been controversial. When people aren't automatically given consideration because of religion, they get angry.

For instance, three things at Iowa State and within the Ames community within the last year that have fostered hostility toward religious and nonreligious groups: The denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, the hesitation over hiring a chaplain for the football team and the changes in the student organization recognition policy to allow religious organizations to discriminate against potential members.

In all of these cases, the religious "side" of the debate has always come forward with incredible force. If they are denied something because of their religion, they are targets - discriminated against for what they believe in. In most cases, this fury tends to come from Christians who ask that their spiritual beliefs not be the reason that decisions are made. This would be totally understandable - if it weren't for the fact nobody is discriminating.

Sure, there are those who will target Christians solely because of their beliefs. It's because of this intolerance that there is a knee-jerk reaction to any opposition - a notion that the matter at hand is a problem because nobody can agree on God. That's simply not true. The fact that these overly sensitive zealots cannot see the real reasons, even when explained, makes them look incredibly childish and irrational, and is probably a bad example of someone who is spiritually fulfilled and trying to be a role model.

If you don't know what I mean, let me target someone for an example. President Geoffrey recently denied the tenure appeal of Gonzalez, and issued a statement that read, "I, in the end, tried to separate myself from all of those interested parties," and that he based his decision on the strength of his research, scholarship and the possibility of future excellence. Yet, Gonzalez is still convinced that he was denied because people are prejudiced toward religion.

In an Associate Press article, Gonzalez was quoted saying "… some of the intelligent design research can have positive religious confirmation - that's why it angers atheists."

In a statement about his tenure denial, he said "It is now clear to me that this decision, in effect, had been predetermined by August 2005, when Hector Avalos and other ISU professors began circulating a petition statement condemning intelligent design," implying that President Geoffroy could be unprofessionally swayed by personal influences.

Numerous religious groups have supported Gonzalez on this conclusion, and refused to be appeased by the fact that maybe he just wasn't cut out for tenure - they use religious discrimination as an excuse. They condemn people when they feel their religion has influence on unfavorable decisions, but then turn around and scream, "Atheist!" when they're denied.

The tenure denial is just an example. The controversy over a team chaplain and the SORP brought up the reasons why religion just doesn't matter in these decisions. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu - we don't care who you worship. Practice whatever you'd like in your personal life, but a public institution such as Iowa State is compelled to deny any proposals that promote religion over nonreligion or one religion over another. Also, they are obligated to consider nonreligious issues without dragging God - or whoever you worship, or they worship - into it. This self-righteous attitude about discrimination is a fallacy and a testament to why the First Amendment was adopted in the first place.

Luci Van Scoy is a junior in anthropology from Newton.