Posted on 02/26/2014 10:42:52 AM PST by marshmallow
A federal district court has ruled that public universities may discipline professors for religious speech.
In 2009, a graduate student at the University of Southern Mississippi, referring to a law professor, complained that “sometimes during conversations with Dr. [Thomas] Payne, religion or Bible verses are usually brought up by him in some way. This makes me and others very uncomfortable … Dr. Payne made the statement that anyone who is not a Christian is going to hell.”
Subsequently, Payne alleged that the university “subjected him to various adverse employment actions … including, but not limited to, the denial of promotion, adverse annual performance reviews, the denial of permission to engage in outside employment, and the receipt of a notice that his contract would not be renewed,” according to the court decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
The Founding Nanny States did not intend for our Bill of Rights freedoms to be absolute. In fact, using 1st Amendment as example, Thomas Jefferson had indicated that that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the states had reserved government power to reasonably regulate our Bill of Rights freedoms uniquely to themselves, regardless that they had made the 1st Amendment to prohibit such powers to Congress entirely.
“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. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.aspThe Bill of Rights did not apply to the states (only to the feds) until the states ratified the 14th Amendment, obligating themselves to respect those rights. However ... John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified that that the amendment did not take away states' 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 the states still have constitutional authority to reasonably limit our Bill of Rights protections which Jefferson had indicated. The courts must balance between 10A and 14A.
The problem concerting the professor in question is that he possibly rubbed people the wrong way concerning religious expression because article suggests that he thinks Bill of Rights freedoms are absolute.
What is about unbelievers that gets them riled about being told they'll end up in a place they don't believe in?
Would they fire a professor for saying, "You'll end up in Oz?"
No prob.
At this point in time, it’s “What part of the Constitution are they trying to shred today?”
My question is: If the Constitution is the LAW of the land, and he keeps breaking the law, when are the “professionals” going to show up and arrest the Turdbucket and his little DOJ henchman and do their sworn duty... You know, “uphold, protect, and defend...” that sort of thing.
Just asking...
Im not sure I understand this line of thinking. So, its OK for him to discuss anything as long as its not religion. Wouldnt those topics also control the hearers future?
They’re probably still trying to find someone who hasn’t been blackmailed with NSA info.
That’s a good point and probably truer than we’d ever want to believe...
but how come anti-religious speech in the class is protected?
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.