Posted on 08/29/2006 9:27:23 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Over 200 years ago our Founding Fathers changed history when they, with the stroke of their pens, declared that the United States would not only recognize, but protect citizens’ freedoms of religion and speech.
Yesterday, with the stroke of his pen, Governor Schwarzenegger declared that such freedoms are subject to the approval of a politically correct government. By signing SB 1441 (Kuehl-D) into law, the Governor decided that certain Constitutional freedoms will not be protected in the state of California.
SB 1441 adds sexual orientation (actual or perceived) and gender identity (actual or perceived) to the list of protected classes under California law prohibiting discrimination. According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “This clarification would greatly expand the effect this bill would have on programs and services provided or paid for by the state or a state agency.”
To enforce these new protections, the state may withhold funding from any organization that “discriminates” against homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, or anyone’s gender (actual or perceived). Now, under California law, simply living out your faith is considered discriminatory.
As applied, this legislation would prevent parochial schools, private schools, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, and many other religious universities, from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a student code of conduct preventing behavior deemed immoral by their religious beliefs.
In order to receive a CalGrant for your child’s education, you may no longer send your child to a religious school. This will put an unbelievable strain on California families as they will be forced to choose between their deeply-held religious beliefs and affording a college education for their children. If legislators truly desire diversity in California, religious institutions should receive the same equal protections sought by radical homosexual activists. Instead, with the signing of SB 1441, religious rights are secondary to the special rights created by this new law.
Instead of using their resources to educate future leaders, these schools will now be forced to defend themselves in discrimination lawsuits brought by the male teacher who perceives himself as female and wears a dress to school.
For those who still don’t believe that there is a radical homosexual agenda, keep in mind that the characteristics added to the protected list are designed to target people of faith alone. After all, who will be most directly affected by this legislation? Private schools, religious institutions, and faith-based businesses.
According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “the impact of this bill is both wide-ranging and deep.” Government services affected by this new law include police and fire protection, recreational programs, social services, health care clinics, and, of course, public schools.
This bill is yet another step towards discriminating against citizens with moral and religious principles who desire to express their beliefs and educate their children according to those beliefs. SB 1441 will inevitably result in reverse discrimination where individuals, organizations and businesses are discriminated against because of their bona fide religious convictions.
In creating special rights for a few, Arnold denies fundamental rights for the rest of us.
===================================================================
I don't have a "chip"; I have a legitimate grievance. It's not just a hypothetical exercise for my family, as it is with 95% of the folks posting here. The policy change referenced in this thread, for example, will almost certainly defund my daughter's CALGRANT this year. I'm not sure how we can cover the additional $5,000 in January. This is real to me.
Second, it's not "my religion". Christianity is "my relationship", with God and with other Christians.
What would Jesus do? Well, he might say:
Matt 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Or, maybe:
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Or possibly even:
Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Not everyone who claims "Hey... I got the religion too.. and you're a hypocrite.." are really what they say or think they are. But, hey, God Bless you, bro! Keep the "faith", whatever the metaphysical heck that may be. You're better at it than I am.
SFS
> how is your comment about "Gubmint" defunding of organizations at all constructive.
It's called "conservativism."
> That policy amounts to an "income transfer", from Christians to the rest of secular society
How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't churches tax exempt?
Excuse me, but why can't your daughter work and make up the difference herself?
Kids who earn their own education appreciate it better.
==============================================================
Try this, but consider the source (NYT)
To fully understand the issue, you'll have to review a 100 pages of the discovery litigation documents, as I did. I don't have the immediate reference link for it, but search on "ACSI v. University of California—Calvary Chapel Vista Student".
This reference may be more objective than the NYT
There is enough information out there to do the math. My daughter isn't the only top candidate rejected by the UC schools. And yes, her reject letters did state "unqualified", as if she hadn't attended high school, or fulfilled the college prep requirements, which she certainly did do.
SFS
Thanks for the links, I'll look at them a bit later. I had similar problems back in the early 80s, since I had spent a year abroad in an "unrecognized" private, foreign-exchange program. They didn't want to accept many of the courses on my transcript (even though some of the courses were taught by ivy league university professors). So, I went to a private Christian college instead.
"Until we know all of the facts behind UC's decision-making, it's hard to sort out why some of these Calvary courses were rejected. "
That's a lack of due diligence on the part of the author. The discovery documents prove what the UC's thinking is, i.e. the "facts behind UC's decision-making", because ACSI's lawyers required the UC to indicate, chapter by chapter, and book by book, what was "unqualified", and the obliged by citing every, single Christian related reference, ignoring the balance of the book's coverage of the subject. Rather than pointing out what was inaccurate academically, or what might be missing, they pointed to religious references, every single time.
Folks on FR think either that (a) I'm making this up, (b) I'm exaggerating, or (c) they're cheering the UC on because they feel Christians and their Creation Science have no place in academia.
And then they wonder why some of us "have a chip on our shoulder".
SFS
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Your synagogue has its own fire department?
People will not bother coming to the polls for someone they perceive as a "sure loser". The guy would have to inspire both the confidence and will to win.
Ironically, Arnie is using the GOP as a vehicle to become that kind of candidate, by being the "anti-GOP" RINO within the GOP. Well, Arnie hasn't got the integrity, credibility, or policy judgment to lead anything; he's a one term Govenator. His current staff of Democrats is preparing the statehouse for their next donkey candidate, but Arnie is too dense to realize it.
SFS
RE: now Cal may not fund vouchers for religious schools, orionblamblam wrote: "And this is a problem because....
The more organizations the Gubmint fails to fund, the better."
I agree. We already pay enough taxes for public schools. Have I got to pay even more to send peoples kids to private school? If private citizens want private schools, religious or secular, for their kids, they should damn well pay for it themselves.
Remind me again why Regan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire"?
California's a pretty state, but I live in Ohio. It's not perfect, but it's still easier to be a Christian here.
California's a pretty state, but I live in Ohio. It's not perfect, but it's still easier to be a Christian here.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
There is no protection for 'free exercise of universities' like there is for religion.
Like I said, its constitutional.
No, it's not.
The lunatics running the CA Gneral Assembly should serve as a reminder to the rest of the nation of what's in store should the RATS ever gain complete control of Washington D.C. The next steps are to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches who promote Biblical morality and demand churches that pushed anti-gay amendments to pay reparations.
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.