Professor Teaches Religious People Are Retarded

[dmp]

Give me one example.

You need to be sure you ask what you want...

Ask for a 'Good, relavent example' otherwise you'll get some bs situation taken out of context.

 

[musicman]

You need to be sure you ask what you want...

Ask for a 'Good, relavent example' otherwise you'll get some bs situation taken out of context.

LOL! "Sorry, boyo, but Congress was merely doing the bidding of the fundies and their cognitively impaired puppet-president".

 

[Bullypulpit]

What has religion to do with a due process issue?

The religious right applied pressure to the Florida legislature and Congress. When the 11th circuit failed to deliver the decision they wanted...they began pressuring the Republican leadership in Congress, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, to begin seeking ways to make changes in the federal judiciary.

These steps included cutting funding to federal courts that didn't pass the religious litmus test the religious right was insisting on. And, as we all know, Article VI, para 3 of the US Constitution states:

<blockquote>The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; <b><i>but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States</i></b>.</blockquote>

 

[musicman]

The religious right applied pressure to the Florida legislature and Congress.

You don't mean to tell me that citizens of a self-governing nation attempted to participate in the political process, do you??!! Those BASTARDS!!

When the 11th circuit failed to deliver the decision they wanted...they began pressuring the Republican leadership in Congress, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, to begin seeking ways to make changes in the federal judiciary.

Which is precisely the job the American people elected them to do; I wish they'd wring out their knickers and DO it. A significant portion of the federal judiciary make their living standing directly athwart the will of the American people - acting as unelected, unaccountable feudal lords, and perverting the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. I think some changes in the federal judiciary are long overdue, don't you? Aw, hell - look who I'm asking....

These steps included cutting funding to federal courts that didn't pass the religious litmus test the religious right was insisting on.

Just how are federal courts funded, anyhow - and by whom?

 

[Bullypulpit]

You don't mean to tell me that citizens of a self-governing nation attempted to participate in the political process, do you??!! Those BASTARDS!!

If they had been acting for the good of all, it might have been a different story. Instead, they chose to try and interfere in the private tragedy of the Schiavo family by having their own interpretation of religious doctrine given the status of law.

Which is precisely the job the American people elected them to do; I wish they'd wring out their knickers and DO it. A significant portion of the federal judiciary make their living standing directly athwart the will of the American people - acting as unelected, unaccountable feudal lords, and perverting the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. I think some changes in the federal judiciary are long overdue, don't you? Aw, hell - look who I'm asking....

Unfortunately you seem to want a judiciary that simply rubberstamps any right-wing agenda that comes down the pike. An independent judiciary protects the freedoms of us all. This means protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority when the majority is wrong. Without the courts, Jim Crow laws would still be on the books. Without the courts, you would not be free to make a fool of yourself in a public forum. An independent judiciary does not exist to support the views of the left or the right. Where those views run contrary to the Constitution, they are to be struck down. Where they uphold the Constitution, they are to be retained.

Just how are federal courts funded, anyhow - and by whom?

Funding for federal courts is part of the federal budget. <a href=http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/feb05ttb/budget/>Here</a> is a breakdown of the 2005 budget.

In March, Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council and James Dobson from Focus on the Family, met with supporters in Washington. There they proposed stripping the courts of judges who don't meet their religious muster of funding, thereby shutting down that court. What they won't admit, however, is that many of the judges they stand opposed to are bedrock Republicans.

Now, just because these fringe elements of the religious right have a persecution complex is no reason to change the federal judiciary. Simply because these extremist elements feel that they are being dissed by the federal judiciary is no reason to change the judiciary. By that logic, any group thwt felt unduly put upon could demand the judiciary be stripped of its power.

For a detailed look at this, go <a href=http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7363&abbr=cs_>HERE</a>

 

[musicman]

If they had been acting for the good of all, it might have been a different story. Instead, they chose to try and interfere in the private tragedy of the Schiavo family by having their own interpretation of religious doctrine given the status of law.

That's entirely your opinion, Bully. Terri's parents didn't see it that way, nor did Congress.

Unfortunately you seem to want a judiciary that simply rubberstamps any right-wing agenda that comes down the pike.

No - I want a judiciary that stays within its constitutionally assigned parameters.

An independent judiciary protects the freedoms of us all. This means protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority when the majority is wrong.

And who gets to make that determination - the minority? What's the point of voting?

Without the courts, you would not be free to make a fool of yourself in a public forum.

Our conversations have always been civil, so I'm going to assume you mean, "ONE would not be free to make a fool of ONEself...." .

An independent judiciary does not exist to support the views of the left or the right. Where those views run contrary to the Constitution, they are to be struck down. Where they uphold the Constitution, they are to be retained.

That would be a groove. Perhaps the voters need to elect a supermajority of Republicans to Congress. Then, we might actually have a shot at an INDEPENDENT judiciary.

Funding for federal courts is part of the federal budget. <a href=http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/feb05ttb/budget/>Here</a> is a breakdown of the 2005 budget.

Thank you. You missed the part of my question that asked by whom the federal courts are funded. No matter; it was rhetorical. The answer is, of course, the taxpayers. I just think that needs to be noted wherever possible.

In March, Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council and James Dobson from Focus on the Family, met with supporters in Washington. There they proposed stripping the courts of judges who don't meet their religious muster of funding, thereby shutting down that court. What they won't admit, however, is that many of the judges they stand opposed to are bedrock Republicans.

Now, just because these fringe elements of the religious right have a persecution complex is no reason to change the federal judiciary. Simply because these extremist elements feel that they are being dissed by the federal judiciary is no reason to change the judiciary. By that logic, any group thwt felt unduly put upon could demand the judiciary be stripped of its power.

For a detailed look at this, go <a href=http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7363&abbr=cs_>HERE</a>

I was going to answer this part of your post point by point, but then I checked your link and saved myself the trouble. Paranoid ravings. The only part of the "judiciary's" power America wants to strip is that part which has been usurped from the people. And, we will.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The only part of the "judiciary's" power America wants to strip is that part which has been usurped from the people. And, we will.

Be careful what you wish for...You may get it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Jefferson and Hamilton both feared the Judiciary would take over the Government, the distrust of the Judiciary was paramount, it seems they were prognosticators.

This is why the forefathers limited the Judiciary's powers, however the Checks and Balances that are supposed to be applied by the Senate and Executive branch are being called "unconstitutional" by some and being directly thwarted by others for personal and political reasons and not for the "good of the nation".

The Senate sets the Jurisdiction of the courts per the constitution, they do have the constitutional authority to expand jurisdiction, therefore arguing that the law that gave them the authority to hear the Schiavo case was unconstitutional is disingenuous. That it was ill advised can be argued, but it is only an opinion (one that I agree with, but an opinion nonetheless).

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Jefferson and Hamilton both feared the Judiciary would take over the Government, the distrust of the Judiciary was paramount, it seems they were prognosticators.

This is why the forefathers limited the Judiciary's powers, however the Checks and Balances that are supposed to be applied by the Senate and Executive branch are being called "unconstitutional" by some and being directly thwarted by others for personal and political reasons and not for the "good of the nation".

The Senate sets the Jurisdiction of the courts per the constitution, they do have the constitutional authority to expand jurisdiction, therefore arguing that the law that gave them the authority to hear the Schiavo case was unconstitutional is disingenuous. That it was ill advised can be argued, but it is only an opinion (one that I agree with, but an opinion nonetheless).

No1, musicman, excellent replies to Bully.

Where in the Constitution does it give a "guardian" the right or jurisdiction to starve/dehyrate an innocent person for two weeks running? What if the "guardians" of Gitmo decided to starve/dehydrate a prisoner for just three days? Don't they have the right to do so? As "guardians" aren't they jurisdictionally allowed the "right" to deny food&water just as the husband of Terri was accorded that "right"?

 

[musicman]

Be careful what you wish for...You may get it.

A GOVERNMNENT THAT OPERATES ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION???!!!

Wow - thanks for the warning, Bully. What the hell was I THINKING??!!

 

[Bullypulpit]

No - I want a judiciary that stays within its constitutionally assigned parameters.

Which is fine...So long as the Executive and Legislative branches remain within their own constitutionally assigned parameters

That would be a groove. Perhaps the voters need to elect a supermajority of Republicans to Congress. Then, we might actually have a shot at an INDEPENDENT judiciary.

Given the current Republican leadership in Congress, as embodied by Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, that would likely cause more harm than good to the Republic. Single party rule always tends towards oppression and tyranny.

 

[JohnGalt]

Give me one example.

My dad.

 

[IControlThePast]

I don't understand why you people are really objecting to this guy. Yeah, there are some bad people in the Christian Religion, but do you think that you'd want anyone in there who would actuallybe deterred by what this guy says in the first place?

 

[musicman]

Which is fine...So long as the Executive and Legislative branches remain within their own constitutionally assigned parameters

I don't see where Congress has overstepped its boundaries in the slightest - particularly in the Schiavo case. My God - have we become so numbed by judicial activism that we bristle at public servants legislating from...THE LEGISLATURE???!!!

Given the current Republican leadership in Congress, as embodied by Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, that would likely cause more harm than good to the Republic.

You may be right; there's not a full set of balls between them.

Single party rule always tends towards oppression and tyranny.

Right again - look what it's done to our judiciary. And on it goes; it seems we still have single-party rule, even when that oppressive, tyrannical, constitution-perverting party is in the minority.

 

[Bonnie]

I don't understand why you people are really objecting to this guy. Yeah, there are some bad people in the Christian Religion, but do you think that you'd want anyone in there who would actuallybe deterred by what this guy says in the first place?

And what exactly is the value or constructive outcome of this so called teachers beliefs or material??? He is clearly attempting to take young kids who barely know who they are and what they think and influence them into thinking religious people are missing chromosomes. How about then the college offers a course on how non religious people are evil devil worshipers, how's that for critical thinking and balance, or how about all minorities are just plain lazy??? He's not teaching anything that prepares students to think in an intelligent manner or use what they have learned to make a living and be productive. He's essentially saying that about 60 percent of the earth's population is stupid because they believe in something higher than themselves spiritually.

 

[IControlThePast]

And what exactly is the value or constructive outcome of this so called teachers beliefs or material??? He is clearly attempting to take young kids who barely know who they are and what they think and influence them into thinking religious people are missing chromosomes. How about then the college offers a course on how non religious people are evil devil worshipers, how's that for critical thinking and balance, or how about all minorities are just plain lazy??? He's not teaching anything that prepares students to think in an intelligent manner or use what they have learned to make a living and be productive. He's essentially saying that about 60 percent of the earth's population is stupid because they believe in something higher than themselves spiritually.

If such kids would be so easily dissuaded from Christianity would they be good Christians in the first place? They certainly have the means to research this matter for themselves and come up with their own decision on the matter.

Colleges are entitled to do whatever they wish. Except for the elite and very large colleges, department chairmenship is not that big of a deal. Professors in the department determine who has the time to deal with the administrative responsibilities, and then they will take turns being chair. If he is teaching based on Nietzsche, then exactly what he is teaching is for the students do follow their own will, especially the will to power. They're going to gain power if they make a living and are productive.

 

[Avatar4321]

The religious right applied pressure to the Florida legislature and Congress. When the 11th circuit failed to deliver the decision they wanted...they began pressuring the Republican leadership in Congress, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, to begin seeking ways to make changes in the federal judiciary.

These steps included cutting funding to federal courts that didn't pass the religious litmus test the religious right was insisting on. And, as we all know, Article VI, para 3 of the US Constitution states:

<blockquote>The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; <b><i>but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States</i></b>.</blockquote>

Oh the horror. How dare anyone think they can petition their government leaders to prevent the judicial branch from sentencing a woman who committed no crime to death. How day they use the Democratic process!

 

[Bullypulpit]

I don't see where Congress has overstepped its boundaries in the slightest - particularly in the Schiavo case. My God - have we become so numbed by judicial activism that we bristle at public servants legislating from...THE LEGISLATURE???!!!

Gosh...For a party that says it wants keep government interference in our personal lives to a minimum...the Republicans spend an awful lot of time intruding into personal decisions. Which the Schiavo case was. And you also seem to ahve forgotten that many of the 11th Circuit judges who ruled on the Schiavo case were conservative Republicans.

You may be right; there's not a full set of balls between them.

Nor a full set of brains...

Right again - look what it's done to our judiciary. And on it goes; it seems we still have single-party rule, even when that oppressive, tyrannical, constitution-perverting party is in the minority.

As it stands now, more than 3/4 of federal appellate judges are Republicans. And on 10 of the 13 Circuit courts there are Republican majorities.

You would do well to actually read the Constitution before you throw about terms like "tyrannical" and "constitution perverting".

 

[Bonnie]

IControlThePast...

Colleges are entitled to do whatever they wish.

And the rest of us are entitled to critique and respond, especially parents who for the most part are paying the tuitions.

 

[no1tovote4]

The credibility of a college that so heavily directs its Professors toward one side of the political aisle tends to be in question. Diverse opinions should be held, not just diverse Democrat Party opinions.