Originally Posted By JeffG >> "You mean to tell me that he couldn't be in his OWN dorm room. Where he lives and where he sleeps and not hold a bible discussion. Am I reading that right?" << The RA is living in that dorm room as a part of his employment. It isn't home that he personally owns or rents. To use a more readily familiar example, the White House is the President's residence, but there are restrictions on how he can use that residence. In fact, this same basic restriction would certainly apply if President Bush decided to start running bible studies in the White House for his staff. -Jeff
Originally Posted By AladdinAZ Plain and simple the government and school is restricting the free excercise of religion by the RA, in not allowing the RA to lead a Bible study where they live. Telling the RA's to go away or give up the bible study is NOT a practical could not even be considered reasonable. You might as well tell any other students residing there sorry no personal time, no personal items, no thinking, no personal expression, no personal feelings, in and about the dorm area you are living in. It's preposterous, and it's CERTAINLY NOT the law. To say say, sorry, that's that law, there's no way you can be taken seriously, just as the 24/7 rule some purport to be "truth" as absolute falsehood.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Plain and simple the government and school is restricting the free excercise of religion by the RA, in not allowing the RA to lead a Bible study where they live. Telling the RA's to go away or give up the bible study is NOT a practical could not even be considered reasonable. You might as well tell any other students residing there sorry no personal time, no personal items, no thinking, no personal expression, no personal feelings, in and about the dorm area you are living in. It's preposterous, and it's CERTAINLY NOT the law. To say say, sorry, that's that law, there's no way you can be taken seriously, just as the 24/7 rule some purport to be "truth" as absolute falsehood." Respectfully, you're mistaken. It IS the law. Whether a lowly R.A. or the University President or the Governor, they're all government employees and cannot engage in endorsing one type of religion (here, one that uses the bible) to the exclusion of others. An R.A.'s job description is that he's "on the clock" while he's on campus, whether in the dorm or in a class, hence 24/7. To be blunt, "practical and reasonable" don't even enter into the equation. This is not some "new" law or interpretation, designed by "lefties" or some "activist court". It's been this way since the Consitution was ratified. To the people who don't like this, how would you feel if this R.A. was leading an atheistic study group, that loudly proclaimed all religion was nothing more than fairy tales for losers. Or an R.A. led radical Muslim group that made no secret that they would just as soon blow your families away as look at you? Or a Wiccan group? None of these would be allowed either for the same exact reason as the actual R.A. in question.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<To the people who don't like this, how would you feel if this R.A. was leading an atheistic study group, that loudly proclaimed all religion was nothing more than fairy tales for losers. Or an R.A. led radical Muslim group that made no secret that they would just as soon blow your families away as look at you? Or a Wiccan group? None of these would be allowed either for the same exact reason as the actual R.A. in question.>> With the exception of the radical Muslim group I would be for the RA holding those sessions. If the RA was teaching the true meaning of Islam, not the radicalized theory of Islam today, I would be for that too.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Translation.... I THINK IT"S A STUPID LAW AND RULE." No need to yell. FWIW, it's worked very well for us the last 225 years or so. The very fact you'd exclude the Muslims is why it's there. The government is not allowed to favor one over others, lest it appear it's favoring one. You, as a citizen, get to do what you want.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Okay I just looked at the course curriculm at UW-Eau Claire and they have a class on the New Testament. <a href="http://www.uwec.edu/oakdev/RAR100/spring/RELS.htm#RELS240" target="_blank">http://www.uwec.edu/oakdev/RAR 100/spring/RELS.htm#RELS240</a> Let's say the RA has taken that class and invites others in the class for a study session, where does that fall?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Let's say the RA has taken that class and invites others in the class for a study session, where does that fall" That's distinguishable as it is instructive, tantamount to studying yoga, let's say. Once people start praying, worshipping, etc., then it is not permissible.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Yoga isn't a good example. Call it tantamount to studying Gone With The Wind or some other seminal book.
Originally Posted By planodisney Roadtrip, i find it hillarious that somehow you can equate this guy leeding a voluntary bible study, as government endorsment of religion. by gosh liberals have lost their freakin minds in this country.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Roadtrip, i find it hillarious that somehow you can equate this guy leeding a voluntary bible study, as government endorsment of religion. by gosh liberals have lost their freakin minds in this country." Read the thread. Or the Consitution. Or both. It has nothing to do with liberals.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Let me ask this for anyone. The basketball coach for the women's team before the game just wants to say a little prayer for a good game, nobody gets hurt, little things like that. Any objections? Bear in mind he or she is a state employee.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "STPH this religion thing is kind of a slippery slope isn't it?' I can see why you'd ask that, but it really isn't. The question you posed was easy to answer because courses like that have been taught for a long time. They're usually done in a very dry, straightforward, analytical way. People who read the bible for inspiration or mostly associate it with church sometimes don't understand how such an instrument can be looked at by others as just another book. Some classes have analyzed the bible for its writing style, others as allegorical fairy tales, some purely as a work of fiction. Another example. An image of Moses at the Supreme Court is acceptable because he's seen as one of the first great law givers. It stops there. Sure, it was the Ten Commandments, but most of those aren't enforceable laws, anyway.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder He can say that prayer to himself, but he can't lead the team in one.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<He can say that prayer to himself, but he can't lead the team in one.>> And you can honestly say that's never been done?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "And you can honestly say that's never been done?" I never said that. I'm sure it has. Doesn't mean it's legal.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder This reminds me of when we're watching boxing. After a fight, invariably the winner wants to thank God for helping him win the bout. Which, of course, implies that God wanted the other guy to get his --- kicked. How exactly does that work?
