"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." EO instead, then.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From the US Dept of Education, Office for Civil Rights website:

"The civil rights laws enforced by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) protect all students, regardless of religious identity, from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age. None of the laws that OCR enforces expressly address religious discrimination. However, the law OCR enforces that prohibits schools, colleges, and universities from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), protects students of any religion from discrimination, including harassment, based on a student’s actual or perceived:"

According to Title VI of the Civil rights act, universities that allow religious discrimination are in violation of the act and not eligible for Federal Funding.

This EO merely puts the law into immediate effect.

Sorry, but this behavior was not covered inder Title VI. That's why the EO happened. You can read the materials I provided to understand this. Because, clearly, you do not.

 

[fncceo]

You can perform this behavior regarding Islam or Christianity, but not regarding Judaism.

Are those behaviors being performed with university approval?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can perform this behavior regarding Islam or Christianity, but not regarding Judaism.

Are those behaviors being performed with university approval?

I am not your assistant. Just make your point.

The EO extends protections to a single religious group, based on a specific religion, that did not exist prior to the EO. That is a fact. That is the EO. I am not interested in an exercise in confusion and obfuscation, in which I have to spoonfeed material that should already have been absorbed prior to commenting.

 

[fncceo]

You can perform this behavior regarding Islam or Christianity, but not regarding Judaism.

Are those behaviors being performed with university approval?

I am not your assistant. Just make your point.

The EO extends protections to a single religious group, based on a specific religion, that did not exist prior to the EO. That is a fact. That is the EO. I am not interested in an exercise in confusion and obfuscation, in which I have to spoonfeed material that should already have been absorbed prior to commenting.

So, no then.

 

[CWayne]

POLITICS
Trump Signs Order Against Anti-Semitism At Colleges, Worrying Free Speech Advocates
December 11, 20194:42 PM ET

LAUREL WAMSLEY

Trump Signs Order Against Anti-Semitism At Colleges, Worrying Free Speech Advocates
*******************************************************************************************

"Establishment of religion"

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. " - wikipedia
******************************************************************************************

Does not making a group a "protected group", based on their specific religion, violate this idea? Shall we also protect Sikhs? Wiccans? Muslims?

Why not quote the entire First?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seems pretty straight forward that discrimination against someone because of their religion is prohibiting the free exercise.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If American Jews are all a sudden of Jewish nationality, technically, they're no longer 'subject to the jurisdiction of' (14th Amendment) the U.S.

Nationality definition - the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization.

There are so many constitutional conundrums with this EO that it's laughable.

We're gonna need to see paperz pleez. Because I'm calling ICE.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can perform this behavior regarding Islam or Christianity, but not regarding Judaism.

Are those behaviors being performed with university approval?

I am not your assistant. Just make your point.

The EO extends protections to a single religious group, based on a specific religion, that did not exist prior to the EO. That is a fact. That is the EO. I am not interested in an exercise in confusion and obfuscation, in which I have to spoonfeed material that should already have been absorbed prior to commenting.

So, no then.

^^

Playing with his dollies

Again, I am not interested in patronizing trollish denial of baseline facts of the topic.

 

[fncceo]

You can perform this behavior regarding Islam or Christianity, but not regarding Judaism.

Are those behaviors being performed with university approval?

I am not your assistant. Just make your point.

The EO extends protections to a single religious group, based on a specific religion, that did not exist prior to the EO. That is a fact. That is the EO. I am not interested in an exercise in confusion and obfuscation, in which I have to spoonfeed material that should already have been absorbed prior to commenting.

So, no then.

^^

Playing with his dollies

Again, I am not interested in patronizing trollish denial of baseline facts of the topic.

Come on. Just call me what you want to call me. It's OK, you're anonymous here.

I doubt Mossad could trace your IP.

 

[CWayne]

You can perform this behavior regarding Islam or Christianity, but not regarding Judaism.

Are those behaviors being performed with university approval?

I am not your assistant. Just make your point.

The EO extends protections to a single religious group, based on a specific religion, that did not exist prior to the EO. That is a fact. That is the EO. I am not interested in an exercise in confusion and obfuscation, in which I have to spoonfeed material that should already have been absorbed prior to commenting.

So, no then.

^^

Playing with his dollies

Again, I am not interested in patronizing trollish denial of baseline facts of the topic.

Come on. Just call me what you want to call me. It's OK, you're anonymous here.

I doubt Mossad could trace your IP.

Well, I wouldn't put coin on that. lol

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can perform this behavior regarding Islam or Christianity, but not regarding Judaism.

Are those behaviors being performed with university approval?

I am not your assistant. Just make your point.

The EO extends protections to a single religious group, based on a specific religion, that did not exist prior to the EO. That is a fact. That is the EO. I am not interested in an exercise in confusion and obfuscation, in which I have to spoonfeed material that should already have been absorbed prior to commenting.

So, no then.

^^

Playing with his dollies

Again, I am not interested in patronizing trollish denial of baseline facts of the topic.

Come on. Just call me what you want to call me. It's OK, you're anonymous here.

I doubt Mossad could trace your IP.

You're going into a tailspin.

And you seem a bit confused. You seem to think that discussing the facts of this topic is, itself, anti Semitic. How bizarre.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If this topic is too much for you to handle, just read and learn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

POLITICS
Trump Signs Order Against Anti-Semitism At Colleges, Worrying Free Speech Advocates
December 11, 20194:42 PM ET

LAUREL WAMSLEY

Trump Signs Order Against Anti-Semitism At Colleges, Worrying Free Speech Advocates
*******************************************************************************************

"Establishment of religion"

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. " - wikipedia
******************************************************************************************

Does not making a group a "protected group", based on their specific religion, violate this idea? Shall we also protect Sikhs? Wiccans? Muslims?

‘J-Street adds that "we feel it is misguided and harmful for the White House to unilaterally declare a broad range of nonviolent campus criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic, especially at a time when the prime driver of anti-Semitism in this country is the xenophobic, white nationalist far-right."’ ibid

Exactly.

Appropriate, justified, and factual criticism of Israel is not ‘anti-Semitic.’

The issue isn’t so much a violation of the Establishment Clause as it is a potential Free Speech violation, where government would seek to preempt, censor, or otherwise silence those who protest against Israel’s policies.

 

[whitehall]

"OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF". Why to pop culture under educated lefties leave out the second part of freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Shall we also protect Sikhs? Wiccans? Muslims?”

This EO is issued in bad faith and solely partisan – it’s an attempt to pander to Trump’s base, particularly Evangelical Christians and other adherents of Christian Zionism, and garner the support of Jewish Americans who vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Does this violate the Establishment Clause?”

As with acts of Congress, EOs are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.

Fortunately an EO can be eliminated the same way it came into existence, with the stroke of a pen – this is yet another compelling reason to vote Trump out of office next November.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why to pop culture under educated lefties leave out the second part of freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution?

Because it is not relevant to this thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF". Why to pop culture under educated lefties leave out the second part of freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution?

This is a lie.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And yet progressives felt it necessary to set a precedent and push to have Hate Crime Laws implemented in the United States that made certain groups of people protected classes

Sorry, those groups and their traits are not mentioned in the constitution. Would you like to address the topic?

No group or trait should have to be mentioned in the Constitution since it was meant for 'all'. Therefore implementing hate crime legislation only set a precedent to make a "protected class". Unless you're saying anyone can be charged with a "hate crime" in which case the issue addressed in the OP is simply redundant and unneeded legislation, much like the "hate crime" legislation. Just charge them with violations under the 14th Amendment.

*****SMILE*****