Which right is right?
- Thread starter SouthernN'Proud
- Start date
A.B.Normal
New Member
rrfield said:
No,but if his room and board is subsidised by his employer then its part of his.If he isn't being remunerated than why doesn't he simply resign and then he can hold whatever meetings he wants.
chcr
Too cute for words
A.B.Normal said:
That's all I'm trying to say. I can virtually guarantee that something in his job description involves abiding by the rules of university employees and comporting himself in a seemly manner in accordance with university guidelines. Bottom line is if they pay the rent (even part of the rent) they can say yea or nay, as they have. If he doesn't like it he can quit.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
And y'all never saw a drunk RA?
C'mon.
He is hurting absolutely no one. And I'm still waiting for a reply about the D&D comparison...
C'mon.
He is hurting absolutely no one. And I'm still waiting for a reply about the D&D comparison...
chcr
Too cute for words
SouthernN'Proud said:
Saw one get canned for being "drunk and disorderly' too. To be fair, he was exposing himself out the window, but technically he was in his own room. Except that it's not his own room, is it? Everyone is taking a cut and dried university ruling and emotionally charging it simply because the subject involves religion. The university is within their rights under the purview of separation of church and state. Sorry Gonz, it's an abstract concept. You probably don't approve.
What if it were D&D (not a religion, BTW)? The university does not permit D&D playing by RAs in their room. Fair? Maybe not. Them's the rules, bunky.
D&D is not protected & specifically adressed by multiple Constitutions.
If I lived in that dorm & Bob was constantly proselytizing, I'd bitch for him to shut up, whether he was an employee, full or part time. If he invited people to his room for a little laying of hands, who the hell are any of us to stop him?
Am I allowed....hell if I know, I don't.
If I lived in that dorm & Bob was constantly proselytizing, I'd bitch for him to shut up, whether he was an employee, full or part time. If he invited people to his room for a little laying of hands, who the hell are any of us to stop him?
Am I allowed....hell if I know, I don't.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
A.B.Normal said:
And where have you worked? Convenience store? Factory? Blue collar? White collar? Everywhere I've ever worked, I don't go in in my 'off-duty' time, anyway. Most people don't. The point here is that he is in his domicile. As long as what he is doing isn't illegal, he can do as he pleases during his off time. The university has no business telling him that his voluntary meetings shoud be stopped.
chcr
Too cute for words
And that's where we disagree. The real question has nothing to do with religion (or D&D). I'm with Gonz there, "get away from me bible-thumper." Does the university have the right to tell this guy, who's domicile they provide, whether or not he can hold certain meetings. I say yes, you say no. 
The rest is just their interpretation of how to apply the separation of church and state, which I also agree with but is not the real issue. Again, if they had been a bit more circumspect about it we probably never would have known.
The rest is just their interpretation of how to apply the separation of church and state, which I also agree with but is not the real issue. Again, if they had been a bit more circumspect about it we probably never would have known.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
For the sake of clarity here...
If the dude in question was A) soliciting students to attend; B) pressuring students who did not attend; C) neglecting his job duties in favor of this activity, or D) in any way showing preferential treatment to those wo attended...then I would agree with the sanction. There is zero evidence that any of that took place.
I brought up D&D as an example. I played for years; I know it is not a religion. It could just as easily been Monopoly, stamp collecting, or fantasy baseball.
The emotional charging of the decision works both ways. My premise that no one would have their panties in a bunch had it been fantasy baseball applies here.
The State, dba the university, does compensate this feller in the form of his domicile for work done. He is undoubtedly expected to follow the SAME rules as any other dorm resident. When he is not on duty, that is precisely what he is...another dorm resident, with the same expectation of privacy, liberty, and respect of property as the rest of the residents. If he wants to hold Bible study with some friends, he should not be stopped just because it's a Bible, OR because sometimes he's an RA.
If the dude in question was A) soliciting students to attend; B) pressuring students who did not attend; C) neglecting his job duties in favor of this activity, or D) in any way showing preferential treatment to those wo attended...then I would agree with the sanction. There is zero evidence that any of that took place.
I brought up D&D as an example. I played for years; I know it is not a religion. It could just as easily been Monopoly, stamp collecting, or fantasy baseball.
The emotional charging of the decision works both ways. My premise that no one would have their panties in a bunch had it been fantasy baseball applies here.
The State, dba the university, does compensate this feller in the form of his domicile for work done. He is undoubtedly expected to follow the SAME rules as any other dorm resident. When he is not on duty, that is precisely what he is...another dorm resident, with the same expectation of privacy, liberty, and respect of property as the rest of the residents. If he wants to hold Bible study with some friends, he should not be stopped just because it's a Bible, OR because sometimes he's an RA.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
If you notice, this also slipped under the radar. Selective, aren't they?
chcr
Too cute for words
Holy mis-interpretation Batman!
For the sake of clarity...
Original Story Note: Requires free registration.
Edit: forgot this part:
Who's pressuring whom? Who's using the media to further their agenda?
For the sake of clarity...
1. Not in his domicile after all. In the basement of his dorm. One can only assume some kind of lounge or informal meeting area.
SnP said:
Umm... "zero" evidence? Granted it could be interpreted either way, but it sounds to me like he was soliciting them to attend. Also sounds like he was using his position of authority incorrectly.
Makes perfect sense to me. He broke the rules, they told him to quit. It's his responsibility to know the rules. Again, well within their rights.
Original Story Note: Requires free registration.
Edit: forgot this part:
Who's pressuring whom? Who's using the media to further their agenda?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:Holy mis-interpretation Batman!
For the sake of clarity...
1. Not in his domicile after all. In the basement of his dorm. One can only assume some kind of lounge or informal meeting area.
Umm... "zero" evidence? Granted it could be interpreted either way, but it sounds to me like he was soliciting them to attend. Also sounds like he was using his position of authority incorrectly.
Makes perfect sense to me. He broke the rules, they told him to quit. It's his responsibility to know the rules. Again, well within their rights.
Original Story Note: Requires free registration.
Since I refuse to get spammed by that site, I'll ask this one question...
How was his position abused?
chcr
Too cute for words
Well, it doesn't specifically say so, but one would assume, given that he had the rules explained to him at the beginning of the semester, that he didn't put up a sign on the student union bulletin board. He likely asked people who on the surface were likely christians (no doubt white, protestant christians at that). Whether or not attendance was voluntary it seems to me a clear abuse of authority.