Latest Flickr Photos
Stock Quotes
| DIG | 49.76 | ||
| XOM | 86.34 | ||
| PTR | 150.00 | ||
| INDU | 0.00 | ||
| NASDAQ | 2904.08 |
You reap what you sow
I find it amazing and ironic that the religious right is crying discrimination with regard to a provision in the stimulus bill to ban money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow “religious worship”:
These are the same people that argued that government should stay out of the affairs of private schools:
I do not feel that public funding should be extended to any organization that discriminates against an individual based on their sexual orientation. If you want your child to be indoctrinated, you’re going to have to pay extra for it.
Christian Intimidation
With the recent Easter holiday, I had a bunch of people ask things like “So what are you doing for Easter?” or “Are you going to church on Sunday?” I thought this was a little odd, akin to saying “So, what are you plans for Kwanza?” or “Did the Festival of Lights treat you well?” to people whose beliefs you are not aware of. If that’s not insensitive, how about “the look” I get when I tell them my true beliefs.
I don’t think Jesus would approve of your belligerence.
UW-Eau Claire Bible Study Controversy
While listening to WTAQ this morning on my way to work, I believe it was Jerry Bader who commented on a recent controversy at UW-Eau Claire regarding a resident assistant (RA) whom was conducting bible study sessions in the basement of the dorm where he lived and worked. Surprisingly, I couldn’t find any articles about this incident in The Spectator (UW-Eau Claire’s student-run newspaper), but Google News came to my rescue. Apparently, this RA was sent a letter forbidding him from conducting the bible study sessions within the dorm where he worked.
Not surprisingly, this created a controversy over the individual’s rights and freedom of speech. From the article linked below:
The controversy began on July 26, when UWEC Associate Director for Housing and Residence Life Deborah Newman sent a letter saying RAs could not lead Bible studies in their dorms at any time. Her reason for this was that students might not think Bible study-leading RAs were sufficiently “approachable.”
…and from this article:
They can participate in one, or lead one in another building. The school says if assistants lead bible studies in their dorm, it might make them seem unapproachable to some students. Administrators say it could also violate the separation of church and state because RA’s are university employees.
I think the ban is a good idea, since it appears to me that they are welcome to study by themselves, as well as participate in any other religious activities both on- and off-campus, so long as it’s not in the dorm where they work and live. They article below also mentioned, “Newman’s letter added that Koran and Torah studies would be similarly prohibited,” so I don’t see any discrimination there.
Finally, he is essentially an employee of the state in a state-run institution. Accepting the position of RA comes with several
restrictions, and this is one of them. Although I agree this policy should have been spelled out in some sort of handbook that he should have received, nobody put a gun to his head to become an RA. Such restrictions are a large part of the reason many students choose not to become RAs.
What do you think?
- College Bans Dormitory Bible Studies (Nice sensationalistic headline, there.)
November 4th, 2005 
News & Current Events, religion 
Tags: eau claire, news, Politics, religion, more... Recent Supreme Court Decisions
Eminent Domain
The Supreme Court voted to strengthen the power of government to seize private property for commercial developments last Thursday, a sad blow to the rights of the small and middle class property owner. Having known someone who was adversely affected by the use of eminent domain, I think this ruling was truly sad. From the Journal Sentinel article:
The court ruled 5-4 that local governments can buy property, even when it isn’t blighted, as long as the owner is fairly compensated.
I have two problems with this statement. First of all, local governments no longer have to justify their use of eminent domain beyond some sort of “public good.” Every proposed use of eminent domain likely has some benefit to a portion of the public at the expense of robbing the property owner. Furthermore, in my experience, “fair compensation” often means the current market value. I think it should mean fair market value, plus moving expenses, plus an inconvenience bonus. That doesn’t even take into account the emotional toll of losing land that one’s family may have owned for generations, or the feeling of being robbed by the community you’ve helped support and contribute to? All in the name of generating more tax revenue. I wonder when time come when eminent domain is used as a threat to defeat political opposition?
- From the Journal Sentinel: A looser rein on eminent domain
- Summary from the Houston Chronicle: Recent Supreme Court rulings unsettling
***Update***
The house has passed a bill that “would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.” Score one for the little guys!
File-sharing suffers major defeatAnother ruling to benefit mega corporations. If I use a screwdriver to kill someone, should the manufacturer be liable? What if I use my cell phone to threaten someone – should Sanyo be hauled into court? Here is the kicker:
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright … is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.
Well, I suppose that makes sense – anyone who promotes a crime probably should be held accountable to some degree. However, are the makers of Grokster and Morpheus, et al “promoting its use to infringe copyright?” I don’t think so, anymore than BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen does, or Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web. I don’t file share to the extent I did in college, but I also don’t feel that software should made illegal, only the actions of those who use it formalicious purposes.
US Bans Commandments in Court
Anothing ambigous ruling, although a partial victory for separation of religion and state I suppose. The justices ruled against the display of framed copies of the Commandments, but some displays would be permissible if they were “portrayed neutrally in order to honor America’s legal history”. I’m not sure how they can make such a distinction. It could be argued either way whether a particular display of the Ten Commandments is historical or a declaration of government support. Either way, I don’t find any display of religion in government as neutral, whether it be of Christian or Muslim or whatever origin. How does the atheist or Muslim feel about his or her chances while walking up the court steps past a monument of Christian beliefs? Seems intimidating, to me.
June 29th, 2005
News & Current Events, People, Politics Tags: eminent domain, michael jackson, news, Politics, religion, more... The people have spoken…
- Four more years of skyrocketting oil prices…
- Four more years of record deficits…
- Four more years of eroding the rights of GLBTs and pushing them further into second-class citizen status…
- Four more years of trading good jobs for crappy ones…
- And worst of all, religion will rule the bench for the forseeable future…
At least my taxes will be lower so I can pay for the heat bill… And I’ll sleep better knowing the evil homosexuals aren’t coming to get me.
November 3rd, 2004
Politics Tags: election, employment, george bush, glbt, jesus, Jobs, Politics, religion, republicans, more... The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Some would interpret it as a reason for us to leave the country we “invaded”, others would see it as justification for our war on terror. I tend to agree with the latter, but you can make up your own mind. The video is extremely graphic and I don’t recommend you watch it unless you have a strong control over your stomach.
Bush: “God Speaks Through Me”
Just when you thought the 2004 election couldn’t get anymore confusing or controversial, Bush opens his mouth. Yes, the man I was planning on voting for as a antidote to terrorism has decided to put himself in the ranks of the other religious fanatics. While addressing an Amish community last July, he admitted, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.” *sigh* Why can’t we have a leader who runs the country with expert guidance and reason instead of voices in his or her head? So should I vote for the will of God or the billionare communist? So many choices…
- Link: Google Search
Republican Convention
So far, I don’t think the Republican National Convention has gotten off on the right foot. The first day was quite disappointing. I thought it was particularly offensive to have Muslim chaplain talk about tolerance in the same city that was hit three years earlier. Even more strange is the fact that I would imagine a great majority of Republican constituents are likely Christians, so quotations from the Koran probably didn’t sit well. It seemed a little too preechy, like “Yeah, you were bombed, but get over it and embrace us.” As I’ve always said, freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. The other speakers were meaningless to me. Your thoughts?
Update: I watched last nights RNC. Although I thought the President’s daughters were lame and disrespectful, I think Schwarzenegger and Laura Bush had strong speeches. I’ve also come to realize the key difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats think we started the war by invading Iraq (funny how they never mention Afghanistan), Republicans think the enemy started the war and we are just defending ourselves. I tend to agree with the Republicans on that one.
Powered by WordPress.
