Posted on 02/28/2014 2:06:07 PM PST by Altura Ct.
Purdue University, which once defended the right of a private speaker to blaspheme Jesus, has banned an alumni donor from using the word “God” on a plaque because it might offend someone.
Dr. Michael McCracken and his wife made a $12,500 pledge to the university’s school of mechanical engineering. In return, Purdue, a large public university in Indiana, offered the McCrackens the opportunity to name a small conference room in a lab building. They were also invited to supply language for a plaque that would be installed in the room.
McCracken chose to name the room after his father, Dr. William McCracken, who graduated from Purdue with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, and his mother Glenda, who died recently.
The plaque was inscribed with the following message:
“To those who seek to better the world through the understanding of God’s physical laws and innovation of practical solutions. In honor of Dr. William ‘Ed’ and Glenda McCracken.”
McCracken says the university had rejected the message because it amounted to an “impermissible government endorsement of religion.” He was stunned.
Without notifying the family, the university installed a plaque that only mentioned McCracken’s parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They will hear the words “Depart from Me, I never knew you!”
Matthew 7
” He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS. ‘In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’
Luke 13
“Confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 10:32 and 33
The university should send the family $12,500 and tell them that they wish to go to Hell and do not need any money from people who believe the Truth.
“Of course, they already have his money.”
That’s a good donation, not huge. I imagine if there is a written agreement the U. might be in violation of it which would give him grounds to sue to get his money back.
Let this story put all donors on notice. These people don’t care about the alumni,the students, the country, knowledge and learning, they care ONLY about lining their own pockets.
It is the media and the ed. establishment that together have brought this country to the brink of ruin. I’d be pleased to see their heads on pikes at any time.
or the plaque could read “To the glory of our great leaders Stalin, Mao, Polpot, Ceausescu, Gobbels and all the wonderful contributions to physics they have contributed...”*
Removed God but kept the money..
How typical....
Send your money to Hillsdale college instead! They will not bend to the government blackmail.
Purdue IS a public university.... I had always assumed the opposite, simply from the name. I was just about to make an arse of myself by attacking this line. Glad I looked it up first! LOL
PU is being hypocritical if they ever accepted money with “In God We Trust” on it.
Most of the remainder of this post was taken from a related thread.
First, regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted Constitution-ignorant citizens to think about Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation," the real Jefferson had clarified the following about the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to "government" power to address religious issues. Jefferson had indicated that the states had made the 10th Amendment to clarify in part that the states had reserved government power to address religious issues uniquely to themselves, regardless that the states had also made the 1st Amendment in part to clarify that Congress is prohibited from having such powers altogether.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed (emphasis added); …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
The reason that Christians have been inexcusably letting their freedom of religious expression slip through their fingers is this imo. As a consequence of not studying the Constitution and its history for themselves, FDR's anti-religious expression justices got away with twisting how 14th Amendment lawmakers had intended for that amendment to be understood in order to rob the states of their power to address religious issues.
More specifically, regardless that the 14th Amendment clearly indicates that only priviliges and immunities protected by the Constitution are to apply to the states, FDR's justices wrongly went beyond just privileges and immunities and applied the 1st Amendment's prohibition on Congress's power to address religious issues to the states. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws (emphasis added). The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
Glaring evidence of the Supreme Court's impropriety with respect to twisting the 14th Amendment is the following. john Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified, on several occasions, that 14A did not take away any state rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)“No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So since Jefferson had clearly indicated that the states had the unique, 10A-protected power to address religious issues long before 14A was ratified, Bingham's words confirm that the states still had such power after 14A was ratified.
On the other hand, what good are our constitutonal protections when parents don't make sure that their children are taught the Constitution and its history as constitutional lawmakers had intended for it to be understood?
I am offended by the anti-Christian -therefore anti-American Purdue U Stink!
My attorneys would Notify the Purdue U Stinkers that the University must return the pledge in its entirety forthwith.
To my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ,
Abandon this cesspool. There is no percentage in defending that which is not of Christ. All institutions fail God; let us not bind ourselves to the handiwork of man.
As my Rose-Hulman-graduate son says, friends don’t let friends go to Purdue.
Simple really. Cut them off from any money from alums. I cut of my university and told them the reason they would never get another penny from me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.