Prof to student: Keep the faith, lose the grade

[MSGT]

A community college in New York has been presented with a demand letter from the American Center for Law and Justice to halt a professor's classroom practices that allegedly have damaged at least one student – so far.

The letter from the ACLJ targets Suffolk County Community College and will be the prelude to a federal lawsuit if the issue isn't resolved, the organization said.

At issue is a professor's demand that students "change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct" on religious issues, according to the letter.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61283

[DeclinetoState]

I would assume that the "community college" is a public institution, and therefore subject to the laws forbidding either the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof enshrined in the Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

[oldcoastie]

Liberal "educators" don't need no friggin' laws...

[Trance]

I don't see anybody requiring him to open his mind, or lose his job.

[DesertFox]

He's another liberal extremist who badly needs a visit from the Nation of Islam.

[Taylor1]

He's another liberal extremist who badly needs a visit from the Nation of Islam.

No, he needs to visit the nation of islam and tell them how he doesn't like islam.

[PrezLeefun]

Its a good thing I dont go to that school or he'd get a swift kick in the ass.

[DesertFox]

Any chance you might transfer? That guy really does need what you have to offer. His school needs for him to get it. His students really need for him to get it. You'd be a hero!





A heroine, anyway

[PrezLeefun]

Nope. I am lucky enough to go to college free as of now. No way in hell I am giving that up.

[DesertFox]

What are you studying, Prez?

[PrezLeefun]

Forensic Psychology

[Trance]

Somebody from another forum said it better than I ever could

Imagine the backlash that would ensue if he demanded that Athiests forsake their own beliefs (or dis-believe in this case) and embrace Christanity or recieve a failing grade. I can almost hear the ACLU chants, demanding for his immediate firing, now

[EveningStar]

If this is true, this prof needs to be canned.

Are there any other sources for this story besides WingNutDaily?

[MSGT]

ACLJ (https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3341&ac=1)

[buckeyepete]

Its a good thing I dont go to that school or he'd get a swift kick in the ass.

Do us a favor, turn him around BEFORE you kick...................

[PrezLeefun]

Awww... can't I just do both?

[EveningStar]

ACLJ (https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3341&ac=1)
Never heard of 'em.

[MSGT]

In his position as current Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Alan Sekulow, a Messianic Jew, has argued numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The following are some of the cases Sekulow and the Center have argued before the Supreme Court [1]:

* Locke v. Davey, (2003). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case involving the free exercise rights of a college student who was denied a state scholarship because he declared his major to be pastoral studies. The Court held that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit Washington's policy of denying state scholarship funds to religious studies students. However, it based its holding largely on provisions of the Washington state constitution, and did not directly address the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution prohibited states from providing such support.



* McConnell v. FEC (Campaign finance reform), (2003). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments on behalf of a group of minors who were prohibited from contributing to political campaigns. The Court unanimously held that minors cannot be prohibited from participating in political campaigns. The Court held that "minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment."

* Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 808, 123 S. Ct. 58 (2002). Sekulow served as counsel of record for Operation Rescue. The Court concluded that pro-life demonstrators were not racketeers engaged in extortion and that the RICO statute—a federal statute targeting drug dealers and organized crime—could not be used against them.

* Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 120 S. Ct. 2266 (2000). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments on behalf of student-led prayer at high school sporting events. The court ruled that such prayer was unconstitutional.

* Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S. Ct. 2480 (2000). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case that centered on a Colorado law that restricted free speech activity outside abortion clinics. The Court held that such restrictions were constitutional.

* Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357, 117 S. Ct. 855 (1997). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case that focused on the constitutionality of speech-free "buffer zones" around abortion clinics. The Court held that "fixed buffer zones" were constitutional, but "floating buffer zones" were not.

* Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, 508 U.S. 384, 113 S. Ct. 2141 (1993). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case involving the equal treatment of religious organizations and their use of public school facilities after-hours. The Court held unanimously to reject the school district's decision to refuse to allow school property to be used for religious activities. (In this case, both ACLJ and ACLU were on the same side of the issue.)

* Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 113 S. Ct. 753 (1993). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case determining whether pro-life demonstrations could be regulated by the application of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Court held that in this case, the act could not be applied.

* ISKCON and Brian Rumbaugh v. Walter Lee and The New York Port Authority, 505 U.S. 672, 112 S. Ct. 2711 (1992). Sekulow served as co-counsel in favor of distributing literature at airport terminals. The Court held that the airport's ban was reasonable.

* United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 110 S. Ct. 3115 (1990). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments against the prohibition of literature distribution and fund solicitation at post offices. The prohibition was upheld by the Court.

* Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 110 S. Ct. 2356 (1990). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented the oral arguments in favor of the Equal Access Act and the formation of Bible and prayer clubs on public school campuses. The Act was upheld by the Court and the Bible club was formed.

* Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569, 107 S. Ct. 2568 (1987). Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in favor of the distribution of religious literature at airport terminals. The Court agreed with Sekulow and held that the airport's prohibition violated the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Center_for_Law_and_Justice

[DesertFox]

I'm glad ACLJ is there, but don't make the mistake of contributing to them. They are assholes themselves who won't leave you in peace once you contribute.

[EveningStar]

In his position as current Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Alan Sekulow
Thanks. I already checked out the Wikipedia article. I noticed that the ACLJ is Pat Robertson's outfit. :rolleyes:

[DoctorDoom]

Thanks. I already checked out the Wikipedia article. I noticed that the ACLJ is Pat Robertson's outfit.And?

[DeclinetoState]

ACLJ is a sort of counterpoint to the the so-called ACLU.

[NowhereMan]

The article lacks a lot of background info (we don't know what kind of essays the student wrote or their contribution in class, whether the Professor has approached the student in any other way than the threatening message, etc.) so this is going to be based on speculation, though no more than anyone else in the thread.

It sounds a lot like the student simply won't acknowledge the possibility that God doesn't exist, in a philosophy class you need an extremely good argument behind that kind of position. Hell there's over 2,000 years of arguments regarding a perfect creator God in philosophy, the Platonists were coveringthis before Jesus was born and noone's gotten anything close to a logical proof. It doesn't sound like the Prof. is opposed to arguments for the existence of God but instead that the student is assuming God's existence as a premise for arguments.

The article seems to suggest that it should be enough that the student demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of philosophers' positions should be enough but if the student really is being basically obstinant about the possibility of God's non-existence then I can see a bad grade or a failure being appropriate, unless of course the student offered a thorough, rigorous and logically sound argument against the position. And frankly in that case they'd probably have been published in a top ranking journal.

[CzechPrince]

Thanks. I already checked out the Wikipedia article. I noticed that the ACLJ is Pat Robertson's outfit. :rolleyes:

While I despise Robertson, I don't mind that, on the contrary, I think it serves a purpose in balancing litigation.

[The_Elucidator]

The article lacks a lot of background info (we don't know what kind of essays the student wrote or their contribution in class, whether the Professor has approached the student in any other way than the threatening message, etc.) so this is going to be based on speculation, though no more than anyone else in the thread.

It sounds a lot like the student simply won't acknowledge the possibility that God doesn't exist, in a philosophy class you need an extremely good argument behind that kind of position. Hell there's over 2,000 years of arguments regarding a perfect creator God in philosophy, the Platonists were coveringthis before Jesus was born and noone's gotten anything close to a logical proof. It doesn't sound like the Prof. is opposed to arguments for the existence of God but instead that the student is assuming God's existence as a premise for arguments.

The article seems to suggest that it should be enough that the student demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of philosophers' positions should be enough but if the student really is being basically obstinant about the possibility of God's non-existence then I can see a bad grade or a failure being appropriate, unless of course the student offered a thorough, rigorous and logically sound argument against the position. And frankly in that case they'd probably have been published in a top ranking journal.


:popcorn:

[PrezLeefun]

The article lacks a lot of background info (we don't know what kind of essays the student wrote or their contribution in class, whether the Professor has approached the student in any other way than the threatening message, etc.) so this is going to be based on speculation, though no more than anyone else in the thread.

It sounds a lot like the student simply won't acknowledge the possibility that God doesn't exist, in a philosophy class you need an extremely good argument behind that kind of position. Hell there's over 2,000 years of arguments regarding a perfect creator God in philosophy, the Platonists were coveringthis before Jesus was born and noone's gotten anything close to a logical proof. It doesn't sound like the Prof. is opposed to arguments for the existence of God but instead that the student is assuming God's existence as a premise for arguments.

The article seems to suggest that it should be enough that the student demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of philosophers' positions should be enough but if the student really is being basically obstinant about the possibility of God's non-existence then I can see a bad grade or a failure being appropriate, unless of course the student offered a thorough, rigorous and logically sound argument against the position. And frankly in that case they'd probably have been published in a top ranking journal.


Did you read that article? This is a clear case of discrimination based on religious beliefs. The young woman was doing very well in class until her teacher realized what her beliefs were. She had already been accepted in and was passing the class and then because of refusal to compromise her personal beliefs and ideals was told she would fail the entire course and by extension not graduate despite the fact she had been an excellent student.

If you cant figure out that this is wrong and not case of a bratty student then your head is shoved up your ass. I will be happy to pull it out for you. Just say the word.

[DoctorDoom]

If you cant figure out that this is wrong and not case of a bratty student then your head is shoved up your ass. I will be happy to pull it out for you. Just say the word.Are you sure you want to touch that thing? Or its head? You could get liberal/atheist cooties.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^ I am impervious to liberal/atheist/extremist/stupid people cooties or any other ailments the previously listed groups and their equally inadequate sub-groups may carry.

[DoctorDoom]

A natural immunity. You are indeed blessed!

[DeclinetoState]

^^^ I am impervious to liberal/atheist/extremist/stupid people cooties or any other ailments the previously listed groups and their equally inadequate sub-groups may carry.Wear rubber gloves.

[DoctorDoom]

Full PPE is required.

[The_Elucidator]

I knew this would get interesting after NM's post...

[LivingDeadGirl]

I might not have as big of a problem if this class weren't required for graduation. But to require someone to take a class then require them to change their religious beliefs...unacceptable.

[dajoga]

A community college in New York has been presented with a demand letter from the American Center for Law and Justice to halt a professor's classroom practices that allegedly have damaged at least one student – so far.

The letter from the ACLJ targets Suffolk County Community College and will be the prelude to a federal lawsuit if the issue isn't resolved, the organization said.

At issue is a professor's demand that students "change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct" on religious issues, according to the letter.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61283


In addition to the lower grades, the ACLJ said, the professor has called the student "closed-minded," "uncritical," "hurtful," and "blinded by belief."



Hey, prof? Perfect self-description, you liberal twit! :dunce:

BTW, :dimbulb:, how has Gina's faith hurt anyone?