Posted on 11/02/2005 11:47:38 AM PST by NavVet
In a shameful attack on freedom of religion, the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (UWEC) has banned resident assistants (RAs) from leading Bible studies in their own dormitories.
The university claims the ban is necessary because some students might not feel RAs who lead Bible studies are "approachable.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
"So they are on duty 24/7 with no breaks and no time off? How in the world do they attend class, do homework, relax, recharge, sleep, eat, etc?"
If they're in their rooms, they're on duty. It's pretty light duty. Most of the time, nobody demands anything of them, you see. They don't have to be in their room at any particular time. They're free to be elsewhere at any time. But, when they're there, the residents are free to knock on the door and get whatever service they need.
It's like being on call, but very flexibly. The reality is that most RAs can go for days with no calls whatever on them. Then, they might get woken up at 3 AM one night. Comes with the territory. If they don't want the job, they needn't take it.
"The "God hates fags" is not legitimate Christianity. Phelps is a lawyer, every member of his "church" - who also happen to be his family members - are all lawyers. He's either a regular nutcase or a closet leftist nutcase. But actual Christian who represents a lof of actual Christians? No way.
I wonder what other kinds of groups are allowed or disallowed for RAs at either this school or other schools. Are they allowed meetings of other kinds in their rooms?"
Why is running a non-mandatory Bible studies group mean that one is not "being par of the world and accepting it for its flaws" or "turnign one's back on sinners and nonbelievers until they accept it on one's terms". That is completely illogical and a non-sequitur. Basically, you want to deny a Christian's freedom to practice his religion as he sees fit. I don't see why a Bible study group would disqualify an R.A., and I see no need to pander to student biases against Christian students. I am sure that if a Moslem R.A. were to hold Koranic prayer sessions, the school would not dare disqualify him.
You seem to want to do away with R.A.s unless they fit your ideal.
If you can cite where I said anything of kind, please do so.
I trust the colleges to know best what students need.
I have zero trust that colleges will fairly respect Christian believers and their rights. Just go the thefire.org website for numerous examples.
Fair enough. But does that mean they are on the payroll 24/7?
It seems to me that as long as it wasn't a school sponsored activity, or in anyway connected with the school, it's a different issue even if the employee was in residence.
Did I misunderstand?
Why should RA's that happen to be "Christian" refrain from Bible Studies??..
Do they not have 1st ammendment liberties too?
Can they not also not only function as RAs for a public U. and still be American citizens (and Christians...?)
Not only that but that also brings up the issue of so called "seperation of church ang state" that is a holy idol to the left, but means totally opposite that they say it does: The first ammendment was NEVER ment to deny American citizens (where ever they may be, Govt, Private, family, ect..) from being able to practice their religion: there are only a few circumstances where religious activity is restricted: say when it violates someone else' liberty, propery or explicit rights! And this circumstance does not do that, so I'd say this is just another example of liberal bias against Americans of (Christian) faith :-(!
You're joking, right?
Phelps is definitely a nutcase: he has been a longtime admirer of Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., hasn't he?
If you're saying that the university should prescribe what flavors of Christianity -- or of any other religion -- are "legitimate," then the blanket ban on Bible study is far less offensive.
No one is saying they should. Just that they shouldn't hold them in the dorms they supervise.
If my employer tells me not to hold Bible study in my office, that has nothing to do with my right to do so in the park or on the sidewalk or in the parking lot.
I'm amazed by the hysteria this thread has spawned. An RA is asked to supervise one building (or one floor, or one wing, whatever). As a condition of his employment, he is told not to teach Bible classes in that one building. One building on the planet. And for that, we get this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth?
??? I was responding to MM who used Phelps' as an example of Christianity.
This whole argument is turning into speculative nonsense.
The bottom line is if RAs are not allowed to have a Bible study, in their own private rooms, are they allowed to have any other kind of voluntary group meetings in their rooms? If they are, then this rule is a bad one.
Singling out religious expression as "bad" is not only unconstitutional, but subverts the basic principles upon which our country was founded.
The hatred against religious expression which is growing quickly and gaining traction here on FR, in public institutions, in the courts, in schools - basically everywhere (except among the general public) will destroy us more quickly than terrorism or any other external enemy ever will.
Are you suggesting the story isn't true? If so what's your evidence.
The underlying reason for this is fear of lawsuits, I'm guessing. That is the real enemy - those with the anti-Christian agenda have bent the tort system to do their dirty work for them.
Paging Jay Sekulov!
There's "true," and then there's true. Newsmax an WND are highly selective with which facts they choose to share. They don't lie outright, but they spin like a Bolshoi ballerina on a meth bender.
Example: The headline atop this thread says that UWEC banned dorm Bible study. That is false. At most, it banned RAs from leading Bible study in the dorms they supervise.
Example: We do not know what other forms of association and organization RAs are prohibited from engaging in. NM offered carefully-pruned quotes and a misleading headline to cultivate outrage. Judging from this thread, they know what makes their garden grow.
Example: This alleged outrage occurred on July 26, and NM posted it on November 2. If this such an atrocity, why sit on it for more than three months?
No, I cannot prove that the story isn't true. I also can't conclusively disprove the existence of BatBoy, the Weekly World News favorite. As NM and WWN have roughly the same credibility, I find the stories equally plausible.
Well I guess they could have a two paragraph headline and explain that perhaps not every single instance of bible study would be banned,and perhaps there are other things that RA's aren't allowed to do, but given the fact that they have one sentence to work with I think they hit pretty close to the mark.
Given the fact that they provide names and and information that can easily be verified, I think your analogy to "bat boy" is simply a smart#@!# remark that serves as another way of saying, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I sure have an axe to grind with Newsmax and WND. I can't prove a single thing they are saying is a lie, but they sure do suck."
And by the way, I doubt they "sat on anything". Newsmax is just like drudge, they put links and summaries of stories up as they come to their attention, they don't claim to have reporters on staff. I imagine a story like this that gets no play in the MSM, was not known to the Newsmax staff on the day it happened.
In some sense that was true... I attended class, went to movies, plays, etc., but when I was back at the dorm, I was more or less constantly available - my office was always open (my bedroom was private), and I was awakened on two separation occasions in the middle of the night for an emergency - one guy came in beat up, and one girl had a seizure.
There were 2 other RAs (different floors), both Jewish, but they had no ostensible Jewish symbols in their offices. We DID have Xmas, Hannaka parties (and once an EID party). There wasn't such a polarised atmosphere concerning religion back then, but I'd never considered having a Bible study or prayer group in my office either.
In response to us discussing this issue, you choose to play the role of a drama queen, exaggerating what we're doing. Good performance! Now go ahead and take a bow.
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.