| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2005 10:42:34 AM |
| Object: |
Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin |
Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0511250212nov25,1,4135553.story?coll=chi-newslocalwest-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Chicago Tribune - United States
MADISON, Wis. -- This is one legal fight Atty. Gen. Peg Lautenschlager
will sit out.
She has used her office to go after oil companies, hospitals and even other
government agencies, but she is declining to step into a debate over a
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire policy banning resident assistants from
holding Bible studies in their dorms.
By refusing to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the policy, the
Democrat avoids taking a position on a controversial issue as she gears up
for a tough campaign for a second term as the state's top law enforcement
official.
Conservatives, including a Republican running for governor, have repeatedly
called the policy an attack on students' right to practice religion.
Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have said it was
needed for the separation of church and state.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin |
28 Nov 2005 09:06:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0511250212nov25,1,4135553.story?coll=chi-newslocalwest-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Chicago Tribune - United States
MADISON, Wis. -- This is one legal fight Atty. Gen. Peg Lautenschlager
will sit out.
She has used her office to go after oil companies, hospitals and even other
government agencies, but she is declining to step into a debate over a
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire policy banning resident assistants from
holding Bible studies in their dorms.
By refusing to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the policy, the
Democrat avoids taking a position on a controversial issue as she gears up
for a tough campaign for a second term as the state's top law enforcement
official.
Conservatives, including a Republican running for governor, have repeatedly
called the policy an attack on students' right to practice religion.
Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have said it was
needed for the separation of church and state.
While living on campus, dorm rooms are essentially the students' home. While there are many restrictions that are certainly
necessary and beneficial for the school to make -- when I lived in college dorms, there were no pets, no open flames (candles,
etc.), no illegal substances, etc. -- I would agree that prohibiting things like Bible studies is too far.
That the prohibition is specifically aimed at RAs is irrelevant: they are also residents and are entitled to the same rights as all
other residents. If the resident assistant is coercing or otherwise pressuring residents to attend... that is an entirely different
matter.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
28 Nov 2005 06:16:47 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0511250212nov25,1,41355=
53.story?coll=3Dchi-newslocalwest-hed&ctrack=3D1&cset=3Dtrue
Chicago Tribune - United States
MADISON, Wis. -- This is one legal fight Atty. Gen. Peg Lautenschlager
will sit out.
She has used her office to go after oil companies, hospitals and even oth=
er
government agencies, but she is declining to step into a debate over a
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire policy banning resident assistants from
holding Bible studies in their dorms.
By refusing to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the policy, t=
he
Democrat avoids taking a position on a controversial issue as she gears up
for a tough campaign for a second term as the state's top law enforcement
official.
Conservatives, including a Republican running for governor, have repeated=
ly
called the policy an attack on students' right to practice religion.
Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have said it was
needed for the separation of church and state.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
28 Nov 2005 08:24:19 PM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2005 10:16:47 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Conservatives, including a Republican running for governor, have repeatedly
called the policy an attack on students' right to practice religion.
Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have said it was
needed for the separation of church and state.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
You cannot have "equal protection" as a US Citizen when
one state legislature can force religious nuttery on
citizens residing within it's boundaries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin; discussion fails10th Amendment test |
28 Nov 2005 09:14:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 10:16:47 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Conservatives, including a Republican running for governor, have repeatedly
called the policy an attack on students' right to practice religion.
Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have said it was
needed for the separation of church and state.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
You cannot have "equal protection" as a US Citizen when
one state legislature can force religious nuttery on
citizens residing within it's boundaries.
You can not have equal protection when one person or group of persons (in this
case, resident hall assistants) are prohibited from the free excercise of their
own religion in their own living quarters. How would you feel if, as an RA, you
were prohibited from having friends over and discussing freethought?
The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the RAs are coercing or
otherwise pressuring residents to attend. If there are specific problems (such as
a RA who forces students to attend his Bible study) then they need specific
solutions (such as firing the RA in question.) This kind of blanket approach very
clearly oversteps constitutionally protected personal freedoms.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
29 Nov 2005 02:13:23 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:14:00 -0800, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> wrote:
You cannot have "equal protection" as a US Citizen when
one state legislature can force religious nuttery on
citizens residing within it's boundaries.
You can not have equal protection when one person or group of persons (in this
case, resident hall assistants) are prohibited from the free excercise of their
own religion in their own living quarters.
*****
The "Dorms" are government property---and "living
quarters" aren't the same as YOUR private property.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
02 Dec 2005 07:04:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:14:00 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 10:16:47 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Conservatives, including a Republican running for governor, have
repeatedly
called the policy an attack on students' right to practice religion.
Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have said it was
needed for the separation of church and state.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
You cannot have "equal protection" as a US Citizen when
one state legislature can force religious nuttery on
citizens residing within it's boundaries.
You can not have equal protection when one person or group of persons (in
this
case, resident hall assistants) are prohibited from the free excercise of
their
own religion in their own living quarters. How would you feel if, as an RA,
you
were prohibited from having friends over and discussing freethought?
The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the RAs are coercing or
otherwise pressuring residents to attend. If there are specific problems
(such as
a RA who forces students to attend his Bible study) then they need specific
solutions (such as firing the RA in question.) This kind of blanket approach
very
clearly oversteps constitutionally protected personal freedoms.
So, this is just another situational ethics problem.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&in
vol=02-102
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible study ban in dorm re-examined in Wisconsin; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
28 Nov 2005 08:40:17 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 10:16:47 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Conservatives, including a Republican running for governor, have repeatedly
called the policy an attack on students' right to practice religion.
Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have said it was
needed for the separation of church and state.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
You cannot have "equal protection" as a US Citizen when
one state legislature can force religious nuttery on
citizens residing within it's boundaries.
Implying that the dorm Bible study is an example of "forcing religious
nuttery on citizens" shows very poor judgement on your part. In fact,
you are an enemy of the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments where freedom of religious expression is concerned.
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
