Originally Posted By TomSawyer <Bill O' Reilly is all over this subject> like a loofah on a showering coworker
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The policy refers to the ability for an employee to practice his religion as a private individual. As I said before, there would be no problem with that. The issue is that an RA is in a position of responsibility over the dorm residents, and it is not appropriate for him to hold Bible study sessions at the dorm. It is like if my boss started to hold Republican planning sessions in the cafeteria over the lunch hour. I would probably feel that if I didn't attend I could be jeopardizing my career even though I would have no interest in attending the sessions.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Actually, it is a pretty fair concern STPH. Or at least human concern. "If I/we can't then nobody else better be able to either." I think it is a legal fabrication which keeps this young man from having a bible study. It is ridiculous to imply that there is an coercion (sic) involved because of his position, but the legal precedent is there. Fine. I don't support the idea because I believe there is a fine line where rights are taken away, but instead of fight it, I would work around it. As a Korean war veteran once told me, not all hills are worth dying for. Pick your battles and know which hills are worth dying for.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Does it say anywhere in the article that the students were forced to attend?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think it's a matter of University policy. By taking the job, the RA agreed to abide by the policies of the university. Just because the issue revolves around Bible study doesn't make it any more or less right to ignore the policies of your employer.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If I sit in my office and read the Bible over my lunch hour; no problem. If I announce to the people on my team that I will be holding Bible study sessions in our conference room over the noon our and I would welcome their attendance; big problem.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I guess despite it being university policy, I just don't see the harm in what he's doing. And really if you're son or daughter is attending Bible study a few times a month wouldn't you be a tad more relieved they're doing that instead of beer bongs five nights a week. And speaking of experience from my college days I did more of the latter.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I guess despite it being university policy, I just don't see the harm in what he's doing. And really if you're son or daughter is attending Bible study a few times a month wouldn't you be a tad more relieved they're doing that instead of beer bongs five nights a week. And speaking of experience from my college days I did more of the latter.>> I certainly agree. But why not use one of the easy solutions suggested on this thread? 1) Have someone else lead the group. 2) Move the sessions out of the dorm.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Logic is not the question here DDman. Legal precedent with the intent to slowy erode rights is. But really, take it to Starbucks as I would probably be more comfortable if something like that occured in a public place like Starbucks instead of the basement of the dormitory anyway, especially if my daughter was involved (way too young thank God).
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I'm sure you could offend a few people at a Starbucks if you're holding a Bible study group.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Oh well, public place. It isn't illegal in public.....yet. Give the anti-christian fringe a few more years though. Now that would be a hill worth dieing on.
Originally Posted By planodisney How is having a Republican or Democratic meeting like having a Bible study? I cant see that anyones rights would be violated by this guy having a Bible study with like minded individuals. Now, if he was forcing, with his authority, people to attend this bible study, then I would see a problem. While he may be an employee of the school, he is also a free individual who pays a tuition to this college and has certain rights as an individual. You get to go home at 50 clock from work RoadTrip, but this guy sleeps where he works. I often see some of these issues as us Chrisitians geting a little too carried away, but this one seems ridiculous to me. Whose rights could this guy have been violating?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Yet another topic where the some members of the religious right can't see the forest for the trees. He's a state, meaning, government employee. He's also one whose job requires he be on duty 24/7. Given that, he's the government personified as far as the law is concerned in everything he does. Everything. Given that the law says the government (him) cannot show a preference for one form of religion over another, he is not allowed to lead bible studies on campus. Anything he does on campus is in in his function as a government employee, no matter what his intentions may be. If he was not a government employee, but say, a Target employee, he'd be fine. No one is stopping him from leading a bible study. He just needs to do it off campus. This truly is much ado about nothing.
Originally Posted By planodisney Yet another topic where STPH is condescending!!! Who is he hurting?? do you think that this would have been a problem 20 years ago, or even fifteen, or even ten? It would not have been. The leftists, like yourself, have attempted to redefine the constitution to get rid of religion in as much of the public square as possible. can you explain to me whose rights this guy is violating. i am not saying this isnt inconstitutional according to the modern leftist view of the constitution, but if he is hurting absolutely noone, and not violating someone elses free speach or right to worship, not worship or screw their brains out in the room next door, wouldnt you say that maybe the constitution, or interpretation thereof, is just wrong in this case?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 But what if he's reading the Bible with another student in his own dorm room? What's the problem there?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder This has nothing to do with condescension. That would be too easy. You guys just don't get it. it isn't a question of who he's "hurting", and it certainly isn't a "leftist" interpretation of the Consitution. Plain and simple, he's the government. As such, he can't favor the bible over another religion. Period. If he quits his job, he can do what he wants. On a much larger scale, it would be as if Bush came out and declared that the Baptist Church is the offical religion of the country, to the exclusion of all others. He obviously can't do that. As far as the law is concerned, since both Bush and this R.A. are the government, by leading a bible study on government grounds (the campus), he's saying the government endorses only those religions that utilize the bible in the way he teaches it. And no, this isn't an incorrect interpretation. Our government has no business telling people how to worship, which is what this is seen as being.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Like I said before, why can't he say it's a book club? << Because book clubs generally don't study one work exclusively at every meeting. I heartily agree with those who say the easiest way out of this is to take if off-campus. He's an RA and in a position of responsibility in his dorm and on University property. He's free to do what he will off-campus.
Originally Posted By woody "He's free to do what he will off-campus." I'm sure the University is no longer a free speech zone. Ooops, I suspected that a long time ago.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Once again, the RA is a govenment employee, a representative of the government and university. In his 24/7 on-campus role as RA, he cannot fully express himself without repercussions. If he were merely a student, he could form and lead any kind of group he wants. Your average activist student, not a University Employee, could protest the fact that his Bio professor has a severe case of flatulence and not be reprimanded. An RA, could lose his job.
