What a Crock!

[BluKitty]

So if gayness and gay people offend me an RA could not be gay, because we wouldn't want him unapproachable by a student now would we?

no don't go half way ..... it would have to be gay, and sending out flyers wanting a gay-study groups....

or hetro study groups , sending out flyers on how to study how to be hetro?

or a muslim study group, sending out flyers for Koran study night?  etc etc .....

should a RA be LEADING a cause in the dorm they are supposed to be superviseing?

they are asking that the RA leads the cause, whatever it may be, at another place

Is it the place of the the RA to be a leader/activist at their dorm?   What if it was for pro-life or pro-choice meetings?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

School policy, he must have been told when he became a R.A. and therefore agreed to it.

Knowing that, he should have found another means to have the bible study - like find a place off campus.

If he was never told the policy, then the issuance of basically a cease and desist told him. At this point it's up to him to fight the school policy to have it changed, or the school won't change and he'll have to agree to their policy or quit as a R.A. There are particular requirements of certain positions, and if you don't want to abide by them then you won't be staying in that position. Easy enough. Would you be as heated if this were an issue of a democrat R.A. holding a political meeting?
-SW

[parker00]

Gunslinger, in your rush to accuse the left or aclu (by the way they said they would look into it, they didn't initiate this) of being anti-christian you seem to of picked the wrong story. When he is in his room it works as his office and that means he's on the job. i don't see where his rights are being infringed upon. I mean hell they told him he could go to them just not lead them in his room or he can even have them outside of the dorm. Sorry just don't think you thought about this one long enough before you posted.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by parker00
Gunslinger, in your rush to accuse the left or aclu (by the way they said they would look into it, they didn't initiate this) of being anti-christian you seem to of picked the wrong story. When he is in his room it works as his office and that means he's on the job. i don't see where his rights are being infringed upon. I mean hell they told him he could go to them just not lead them in his room or he can even have them outside of the dorm. Sorry just don't think you thought about this one long enough before you posted.

yes and I said earlier that I wish the ACLU would help out, it would do them credit but they are a widley know anti-christian organization.  They probably won't be available for this because holliday season is coming and they will be out prowling for "offensive" santa clauses and nativity scenes.  

Either way restricting how he participates in the group is still a restriction of religious practices.  I could see if he was out in the hallways every night nagging people to come but that doesnt be the case here.  To me it seems like the school is pre-emting any future problems by restricting the RA's freedom.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by midnight Target


oh BTW read the establishment clause.

No, YOU read it. Never mind the fact that it doesn't apply to this situation, you obviously cannot grasp that all it does say is the the Feds cannot ESTABLISH a religion nor prevent one from being practiced.

It means that the Feds cannot establish or endorse a religion as the OFFICIAL and REQUIRED religion of the United States (this was done SPECIFICALLY to prevent something akin to the Church of England) and they can't single out and ban the practice of a particular religion.

NOWHERE in the "establishment clause" is there anything stating that religion of ANY type MUST be EXCLUDED from anything even remotely connected to the government.

For crying out loud, I wish they'd teach freaking English in the schools instead of drivel.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by JBA


seems to me these two men had a lot in common.

They're both dead.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, YOU read it. Never mind the fact that it doesn't apply to this situation, you obviously cannot grasp that all it does say is the the Feds cannot ESTABLISH a religion nor prevent one from being practiced.

It means that the Feds cannot establish or endorse a religion as the OFFICIAL and REQUIRED religion of the United States (this was done SPECIFICALLY to prevent something akin to the Church of England) and they can't single out and ban the practice of a particular religion.

NOWHERE in the "establishment clause" is there anything stating that religion of ANY type MUST be EXCLUDED from anything even remotely connected to the government.

For crying out loud, I wish they'd teach freaking English in the schools instead of drivel.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Doesn't say STATE religion or even A religion it says OF RELIGION. Maybe you need to read it in French?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by midnight Target
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Doesn't say STATE religion or even A religion it says OF RELIGION. Maybe you need to read it in French?

either way that has nothing to do with a STATE school.  and it's funny how you liberals allways cut off the second part

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[Suave]

Originally posted by Sandman
They're both dead.

Oh I call libruhl on you !

[Thrawn]

Cut federal subsidies to schools, problem solved.



Gunslinger,

"no one has the Constitutionally protected right to stem cell research."

Why the heck would you want to limit your rights and freedoms?  It was my understanding that the Bill of Rights was written to make make sure that explicit rights were written down.  But, that the implication was that freedom and the power to make choices was to be assumed to be had by the citizens, and the government should have as little power as possible...cause government is teh bad.


Yet, I see people on this bbs saying "No one has the Constituational right to do 'X' "

By implication it means that the government can deny people doing "X", how the heck can anyone support that?

[Gunslinger]

Suave you assume that by me saying somone doesn't have the right to something that I don't support it.  That's another issue.

What I said was a valid comeback to a pretty biased qusestion.  Last time I checked stem cell research or even the persuit of science for that matter wasn't in the constitution.......religious freedom was so his point was flacid.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
so you are saying you don't care about his civil rights?

Its not his civil rights that are being defended by the rule. Its the civil rights of those who he has been given authority over.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Pongo
Its not his civil rights that are being defended by the rule. Its the civil rights of those who he has been given authority over.

so you are saying he doesn't have civil rights in this case?  I don't see how the people he's been given authority over have had their civil rights infringed apon...explain.

[SOB]

You've fallen off the deep edge with this one, Gunslinger.  He can pray in his room, he can join in a prayer group, he can even go to church . . . in the Ecumenical Religious Center ON CAMPUS.  He just can't LEAD a religious or political meeting for the students he supervises...on campus.  He could, however, walk across the street and lead a prayer meeting there.

There are certainly some things going on in the U.S. that are cause for concern in going too far to eliminate religion to make people feel "safe" from being preached to, but this isn't one of them.

[Leslie]

Trying to understand something here.  Please explain how others' civil rights are endangered by the RA leading a bible study in the dorm, available to peaceable assembly by like-minded individuals.  Seems to me the constitution specifically addresses a right to assembly by the people.

I am of the understanding the Bill of Rights is a misnomer, as it does not grant rights so much as it points out what Congress cannot do.  The government has no rights.  People have rights.  Sooo...constitutionally speaking, yes the RA's rights are under attack, and if pursued in litigation (as a constitutional case) he has pretty solid constitutional means to continue with his bible study, as long as it's non-mandatory to attend.  There is also the issue, as previously mentioned, of discrimination if other secular groups are allowed assembly space in the dorm.

One of two outcomes would be to either deny any and all groups from assembly in the dorm (so as not to discriminate), or drop the discrimination and move on with new business.  Having perused a few websites concerning obligations and such of resident advisors, and having noticed almost universal consistency of the duties and obligatiions amongst the universities, RAs are to submit their plans for any activities to the head RA before putting plans in action.  If this was done, and he was given the OK, then he followed procedure correctly.  

Given that RAs are for the most part consciensious and responsible student staff members, cognizant of the fact they represent the university and work as a team with other RAs, it is hard to imagine a deliberate breaking of the rules on his part.  Simply too much would be at stake for him to lose his stipend and face possible disiplinary action (and consequently possible action to other RAs in his team.)

I therefore suggest that perhaps this is being done on the whim of some superior agent of the university to cover their own sorry butt in the interest of political correctness, which is so pervasive on campus these days.  As Guns so eloquently put it, it is a crock.  I hope this is sorted out eventually by common sense, however travesties of justice such as this case seems to be must be placed under scrutiny and met with eternal vigilance.





Les