Welcome to the fold, brother!
But it's really "green" and it's not for your butt.
Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks
First, there's no court involved yet. Only a whining letter to the DOJ. Second, the professor is no bigot for saying: "If you don't grasp evolution, I don't care; but don't come in here and ask me to recommend you as a candidate for advanced science study."
What if the good Professor felt that Black people just couldn't be good scientists? And therefore they need not ask for recommendations.
Hey, yeah! And what if he stabbed his grandmother 50 times and kept her carcass in the trunk of his car? Right. Let's get that guy!
The only difference is that the area of discrimination is religion and not race.
This is not religious discrimination. If your religion required you to work nude with your butt painted blue, and your employer insisted on clothing, I'm sure you'd say that this was a case of bigotry. But it's not. Cultists can't have it their way all the time.
No, that's not what it is about. The teacher has no right to force his personal preferences on students and ask them to swear allegiance to an atheistic ideology. This is abuse of power. How would you feel if a teacher said that no atheists would be allowed to pass a course? This is not the role of a teacher. A teacher is there to instruct and nothing else.
Further, this Dini guy shows exactly why evolution is not science. The man is ideologue. What that means is that he has a closed mind. He is no scientist.
There is no reason why someone should be an atheist in order to practice medicine. In fact, the opposite should be the case. For one thing it has been scientifically proven that faith heals. For another, an atheist who has so little regard for human life that he thinks of it as just a little more advanced than a mouse should not be allowed to make life and death decisions.
At last you have given the definition of "creationist" which the evolutionists deny - a Christian who does not believe in evolution. Of course since evolution is a materialistic/atheistic theory DESIGNED by Darwin to drive Christians away from their religion in a subversive manner.
The students are not being punished for being Christian as much as they are for refusing to genuflect before the magickal life alchemy icon of Adept Charles Darwin.
Welcome to the fold, brother!
But it's really "green" and it's not for your butt.
you have made no connection between this particular fact pattern and a charge (criminal, no less) of "religious discrimination.
Again, I have not seen the complaint filed by the law firm with the Department of Justice. The word complaint suggests something of a criminal nature. The Department of Justice is federal. The word discrimination was used.
Looking at the Federal Statutes, Title 18 deals with Crimes and Criminal Procedures, Part 1 deals with Crimes, Chapter 13 deals with Civil Rights crimes.
You can investigate this yourself at this link. I see two possible Sections that might be applicable to the words they have used in this article: 241 and 245.
Section 245 are federal protected activities and 241 covers conspiracy against rights. If the professor and the school are seen as co-conspirators to discriminate against the student based on religion it would fall to 241. If it were the professor alone it would be 245.
With regard to the 241 possibility the associated press article indicates:
Texas Tech spokeswoman Cindy Rugeley said that the university stands by Dini, and that his policies do not conflict with those of Texas Tech.
From the above, a reasonable person would conclude that you are in fact stating that a student should be able to compel a college professor to write him a letter of recommendation provided that the school receives public funds or the instructor receives tax monies in any way, and said letter was necessary for the student's further career.
Am I misunderstanding you?
Yes, you are misunderstanding me. The issue has nothing to do with the right to a letter of recommendation. The issue has everything to do with discrimination based on religious beliefs.
As I stated on the earlier thread, this professor shouldn't require anyone to "accept" or "believe" anything; rather, if a student is able to fully explain evolutionary theory/science, both the student and the teacher have done their jobs and that should be the end of it.
As far as the rest of your spiel goes, what you are advocating is that public universities refuse to graduate individuals based on their religious beliefs, not based on their understanding of the subject matter, or their ability to articulate and apply it. Each of your questions posits whether one should or should not graduate based upon their beliefs. Thank goodness this country has never operated in such fashion. How can one identify what another believes? How can the state determine the strength of one's conviction in any particular belief? What if the most knowledgeable student believes that modern theory is flawed? Should the state preclude him from engaging in provocative thought because his belief system is not the same as that of his state-sponsors?
An adequate explanation requires no greater effort.
No problem, whoever wins can mail the other a gift certificate to a restaurant of their choice.
What right to a letter of recommendation?
Repeatedly on this thread I have made the statement that I would not prosecute a bigot. Please see post 339!
At most, the professor's opinion and his public announcement of it, is offensive to this student.
The professor’s problem is more than his offense to this student, he offended the first and fourteenth amendment to the Constitution!
If a professor hates hispanics, he must not post a webpage that says he will not recommend any hispanics. And a school is ill-advised to support any bigoted professor. It is an offense to Federal law. The law that protects against racial discrimination also protects against religious discrimination!
Undoubtedly. But are there any creationist orthopedic surgeons? Can any one honestly claim that the back and knee, for example, were 'intelligently' designed?
That is an imaginary right that Under the Radar asserted to debate with me. No such right exists. The rights that do exist are enumerated in the first and fourteen amendment:
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
This isn't the article. The student seems not to even have asked for a letter.
Absolutely. But for Him to do it as a matter of routine makes it deucedly difficult for us to use that gift He gave us--the gift to choose whether or not to follow and serve Him using our own free will...
I believe that He chose to use the natural laws He created for His own reasons, which I won't presume to judge or critique...
Yes.
Perhaps you have heard of Dr. Lorraine Day? From her website:
She has been invited to lecture extensively throughout the U.S. and the world and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows including 60 minutes, Nightline, CNN Crossfire, Oprah Winfrey, Larry King Live, The 700 Club, John Ankerberg Show, USA Radio Network, Art Bell Radio Show, Three Angels Broadcasting Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network.
The student doesn't have a "right" to a letter of recommendation. This is something that the professor may or may not give. What you seem to be asking is that letters of recommendation be entitlements. Conservatives used to believe that rights were different from entitlements.
A right is the freedom to take an action. Rights to not compel others to give in to your wishes. If the government were to tell the student that he may not belive in Creationism (and threatening him with jail or death), that would be denial of a right.
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.