Which right is right?

Has anyone on here ever lived in a dorm?



Folks, we are talking about a small group of students, in a rented room, on off-duty time for a dorm monitor (and we all know how much clout they carry and respect they generate) who are there voluntarily. Not one among us would bat an eye if the topic of discussion were Stephen King, model trains, demonology, the price of knee highs in Bangladesh, or the African fruit fly. Take the gilders off and call it what it is. Some of y'all don't care for Christianity, and when you see a chance to limit it you jump on it. There. I said it for you.
 
Personally, I used to use my room for gathering with people in order to drink cheap cider and listen to cheesey rock and roll music. I don't really see why reading Bibles should be banned, though I prefer cheap cider and rock music nights myself.
 
Some of y'all don't care for Christianity
Click to expand...

i don't really, or any other organized religion (unless it gets me an extra day off of course). But it has nothing to do with my post. I don't think it is ok for a school employee to hoild any kind of meeting on school grounds without the schools permission, it makes it seem like the school is endorsing this persons beleifs.
 
Don't be silly. If it is organised by him in the home he is paying for, then why would it be against the rules simply for being about Christianity? unless it is expressly forbidden to hold meetings or social gatherings of any kind, it seems kind of ludicrous to sanction one simply based on religion.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Has anyone on here ever lived in a dorm?



Folks, we are talking about a small group of students, in a rented room, on off-duty time for a dorm monitor (and we all know how much clout they carry and respect they generate)who are there voluntarily.
Click to expand...


Most here are assuming he is a paid/compensated employee not a voluteer ,because of this


"As a state employee, you and I have a responsibility to make sure we are providing an environment that does not put undue pressure on any member of our halls in terms of religion, political parties, etc."
Click to expand...

If indeed he is a volunteer its a different matter,but as a State Employee ,the State probably pays part of his "room costs" .
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Don't be silly. If it is organised by him in the home he is paying for, then why would it be against the rules simply for being about Christianity? unless it is expressly forbidden to hold meetings or social gatherings of any kind, it seems kind of ludicrous to sanction one simply based on religion.
Click to expand...


sounds like they are sactioning religious meetings, not just christian ones. same they would a muslim one etc. school employee school land, still makes sense to me, like if he was having any other meetings that does not hold to school beliefs white supremacy black supremacy etc.
 
A resident assistant
Click to expand...

illegal endorsement of religion by a state employee
Click to expand...

Since he is not in the dorm as a private citizen, he cannot claim the rights and prerogatives thereof. If he doesn't like the rule, he needs to stop being resident assistant. :shrug: Pretty straightforward as far as I can tell.
 
chcr said:
Since he is not in the dorm as a private citizen, he cannot claim the rights and prerogatives thereof. If he doesn't like the rule, he needs to stop being resident assistant. :shrug: Pretty straightforward as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Let's not be ridiculous here. He is in the dorm as a private citizen regardless of his position. What you are effectively saying is that being employed in this position means a person gives up their right to organise a social gathering, simply because the thing the people have in common happens to be religion.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Let's not be ridiculous here. He is in the dorm as a private citizen regardless of his position. What you are effectively saying is that being employed in this position means a person gives up their right to organise a social gathering, simply because the thing the people have in common happens to be religion.
Click to expand...

Not at all. What I am saying is that a person in his position (an employee of the state) can and should be expected to be circumspect with regards to propriety of all kinds. The state pays at least a portion of his rent, therefore the state may dictate (within reason) what goes on in said room. He is certainly free to express an opinion on the matter, attend a similar meeting in anyone else's room, etc. but he is not free, given his position, to organize a religious gathering of any kind in his own room (again, at least partially paid for by the state). It's exactly the same as using his authority (little enough though it may be) to organize the gathering. The point is that it was not simply a social gathering but a specifically religious one. He is completely free to have a few like minded friends over to discuss their beliefs, but once it becomes a quasi-organized event (second Tuesday of each month or the like), the state has the right, perhaps even an obligation to say no. It seems a small thing, but it's the very definition of the separation of church and state.
 
A.B.Normal said:
Most here are assuming he is a paid/compensated employee not a voluteer ,because of this




If indeed he is a volunteer its a different matter,but as a State Employee ,the State probably pays part of his "room costs" .
Click to expand...

I think my grammar misled. Allow me to remove some extraneous words and clear the confusion.



me said:
Folks, we are talking about a small group of students...who are there voluntarily.
Click to expand...

The students are in this room, attending this "meeting", voluntarily.

The guy's status as a dorm monitor is inconsequental if he is participating in this on HIS time.

Put another way...would any of you object if a dorm monitor was DMing a Dungeons & Dragons game on his own time in his dorm room? And yes, the first one of you who says you would I will call a hypocrite as soon as I see it, because not one of us would. Explain to me the difference.
 
chcr said:
Not at all. What I am saying is that a person in his position (an employee of the state) can and should be expected to be circumspect with regards to propriety of all kinds. The state pays at least a portion of his rent, therefore the state may dictate (within reason) what goes on in said room. He is certainly free to express an opinion on the matter, attend a similar meeting in anyone else's room, etc. but he is not free, given his position, to organize a religious gathering of any kind in his own room (again, at least partially paid for by the state). It's exactly the same as using his authority (little enough though it may be) to organize the gathering. The point is that it was not simply a social gathering but a specifically religious one. He is completely free to have a few like minded friends over to discuss their beliefs, but once it becomes a quasi-organized event (second Tuesday of each month or the like), the state has the right, perhaps even an obligation to say no. It seems a small thing, but it's the very definition of the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand how a private meeting in a person's own room, whatever it is about, can be regulated by his employer's. Even if they do pay part of his rent, I don't see how that precludes him from observing or talking about his own faith in it, or even having people around to talk about it.

Should it be a situation where anyone of faith should not be allowed to work for an institution or the state lest their behaviour in private be taken as institutional/state endorsement of the religion?

I would understand the argument if he was using school grounds as a platform to convert, recruit etc. but I'm not aware of it in this case. If anyone else is, maybe it would make more sense.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
I'm afraid I don't understand how a private meeting in a person's own room, whatever it is about, can be regulated by his employer's. Even if they do pay part of his rent, I don't see how that precludes him from observing or talking about his own faith in it, or even having people around to talk about it.

Should it be a situation where anyone of faith should not be allowed to work for an institution or the state lest their behaviour in private be taken as institutional/state endorsement of the religion?

I would understand the argument if he was using school grounds as a platform to convert, recruit etc. but I'm not aware of it in this case. If anyone else is, maybe it would make more sense.
Click to expand...
They don't preclude him from talking about it. They do preclude him form having an organized meeting involving it. I'm sorry, but this is so obvious to me. It's been understood since I was a kid (and that was a very long time ago). You may not use a government provided facility to hold an organized religious event. A bible study group is an organized religious event and the student administrator's room is a government provided facility, whether or not he lives there. Hold it in someone else's room or else stop being a student administrator. Everyone seems to think that it's surprising how the state reacted, but this would have been dealt with in exactly the same way thirty years ago when I was in college. :shrug: As I say, this is blindingly obvious to me. I simply fail to understand what all the shouting is about. A lot of this stuff is ridiculous, but IMO they're doing exactly the right thing in this case.
 
You may not use a government provided facility to hold an organized religious event
Click to expand...

Which, in no way, reflects the Bill of Rights nor the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
 
What in that document does reflect those ideals anymore?

I still say, if it were trading baseball cards, no one would give a flying fuck if he was a hall monitor or not. I'll even go so far as say that had it been a pagan, wicca, or druid rite no one would be upset.
 
I've lived in the dorms too.

At Fresno State, the RAs were paid a very small pittance. Their rooms were paid for, as was a meal plan in the dining hall. That was in lieu of paychecks worth the paper they're printed on, though.
 
Gonz said:
Which, in no way, reflects the Bill of Rights nor the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

So you've said before. I disagree of course. I think that it is specifically implied. It's not specifically stated because it was so clear to them.

Inkara1 said:
Their rooms were paid for
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.
 
chcr said:
They don't preclude him from talking about it. They do preclude him form having an organized meeting involving it.
Click to expand...

dot dot dot...if he's acting in the role of RA. If he's "off the clock" (not on duty) then he can do what he pleases in his room, just like any other student.
 
rrfield said:
dot dot dot...if he's acting in the role of RA. If he's "off the clock" (not on duty) then he can do what he pleases in his room, just like any other student.
Click to expand...

I've never had a job where even on my day off I could go in and be like "any other customer" ,I still had to reflect the standards of the business i.e. I could go in drunk etc...When your an employee there are certain expectations on or off the clock when your on company property.these are usually explained when you start working there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top