Believe in GOD

This is ONE NATION UNDER GOD so why can`t UC advertise for an instructor who believes in God? Lord please forgive them.

Al Campbell, Christian at Presbyterian, at 9:05 am EST on March 2, 2006

UC

I think UC is a private institution and can hire who they want. If one doesn`t care for the school they shouldn`t send their children to the school.

Al Campbell, at 11:00 am EST on March 2, 2006

Al, I am curious as to where you the notion as to the US being “on nation” under god, and how that trumps any first amendment issues.

Clio, The issue of whether something is ultimately legal or illegal is quite a difficult one and usually requires litigation and ultimately enforcement. When individuals, business or government entities attempt to comply with the law they only do so in “the shadow” of what prior enforcement. In some areas there is a lot of guidance. In some areas there is not. Ironically, in areas where the is a large bureaucracy, individuals can easily obtain guidance, on, at the very least, the government’s perspective on whether something is legal or not – especially when enforcement is exclusively or mostly by the executive (such as tax). But, in areas which are left mostly to the courts to figure out, and private enforcement is the norm (such as constitutional issues) all people have to rely on is a bunch of court opinions, scholarly works, and a few blogs.

Larry, at 11:55 am EST on March 2, 2006

Oh Dear

The original National Motto was “E Pluribus Unum.” This was on the Seal, whereas references to trust in God only appeared later on coinage. The motto was changed in the ’50s to advance the distinction between ‘atheistic communists’ and noncommunists.

To sustain this change, the courts have assiduously attempted to argue that the motto is not ‘religious’ — that it has nothing to do with God, a god, gods, etc. If the language is taken to mean anything about ‘religion’ in general or Christianity in particular, this implies a violation of the First Amendment.

As to the rights of ‘private entities:’ I wonder if anyone [still] wants private landlords to be able to refuse housing to people based on their religion or lack thereof, or on their race or ethnicity, etc. Does anyone [still] want private employers to be able to refuse to hire [or to fire] people based on their religion or lack thereof, their race or ethnicity, etc.? I can only hope not.

Christine S, at 1:35 pm EST on March 2, 2006

Well, this school feels that religiosity is a part of the job description for the Chair of Ethics, which is a perfectly defensible position if you are going to allow them the smallest bit of room to define their philosophy of higher education. They want to discriminate on the basis of religion.

I am not in the position to be hiring and firing anyone because I am not a business owner. If I was I would probably want to discriminate on the basis of religion too, for a plethora of reasons. I think it is a good “indicator” of a person’s work ethic and life outlook. Frankly, I also enjoy the company of people with the same spiritual outlook as myself.

Do we need an act of the federal government stopping business owners from making their own standards? If a company is big enough, consumers can easily put pressure on it to voluntarily meet certain standards. If a company is small, who cares? If Bob’s Lawncare wants to hire only members of the Church of Bob, Reformed, then that’s fine with me.

Congratulations, Baby Boomers: You’ve defeated racism, sexism, and every other serious form of discrimination. As evidence of this I present to you the growing number of free-thinking youngsters who are wondering what the big deal is about a little private discrimination.

Samwise, at 3:00 pm EST on March 2, 2006

Tom Cruise can fire me any time

Today, wholesale discrimination against particular groups, even in a single profession, would be very unlikely even if it were legal. That aside, I think you are unreasonable in saying that it even “seems” that I want society to go back to widespread anti-semitism.

I’d like to see the University be able to fire whomever it pleases so long as it doesn’t break a contract it entered into voluntarily. I don’t care whether they even give a reason.

The difficulty you point out in confirming a person’s religious conviction only goes to show how inappropriate it is to try to legislate religious discrimination in the workplace.

Sam, at 4:20 pm EST on March 2, 2006

Widespread discrimination of racial or gender groups is a symptom, and a symptom only, of a deeper societal ailment.

But some forms of discrimination are perfectly benign. Landlords who don’t want to rent to people with dogs are within their rights. That is discrimination. Credit card companies won’t give a credit card with a 20K limit to someone without any income. That is discrimination. A world without any form of discrimination is a world of people without the ability to reason. Putting things into categories in the mind is the basis of abstract thought.

Really consider this for a moment. If you urgently want to live in that apartment, you will get rid of your dog. If you urgently want to have a credit card, you will work. If you urgently want to be the Ethics Chair at Charleston, you will get religion.

Its a private University that doesn’t owe anything to anybody. There is nothing unjust about the requirement. The Civil Rights Act, therefore, goes too far.

Samwise, at 10:55 am EST on March 3, 2006

The reactionary comments on this thread are a pretty good indication of why we continue to need the protections ensured under the Civil Rights Acts and the Constitution. UC was in violation of the law when it posted that job description. I’m glad they have now decided to comply with the law of the nation which they claim to be so concerned about.

Jeff, University of North Carolina, at 4:15 pm EST on March 3, 2006

question for lisa

Lisa, The reasons is, is that Congress, for better or worse passed a law. Now, I realize that a lot of people don’t want to work alongside blacks and Jews. (They have much worse words for them), but Congress, for better or worse, decided that it was better to use its powers under the 14th amendment to give everyone a fair shake, then to let people discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Now, granted, there are religions I don’t like, and most academics, in their hearts of heart will confess that they feel uneasy with people from some races. Indeed, most people I know have not dated people of every race. But Congress, for better or worse, decided that in order to keep up the charade of giving everyone a fair shake, merely being black or Jewish won’t keep you from getting a job.

I don’t see your point about why the law should be violated (or why some Democratic principle should be disregarded) solely to make one more job in academe. Would, for example, it be acceptable for a school to own a few slaves, just to preserve a job in academe? (Many people thought that slavery was natural and part of the free market, until an activist president and Congress changes this.)?

Larry, at 10:20 am EST on March 4, 2006