Comments on Quick Takes: Howard U. President Will Retire, Cheating Scandal at Duke B-School, Evidence Flaws in Lacrosse Case, Judge Rejects Political Bias Suit, Texas Loses Patent Suit, Loan Forgiveness in Missouri, Christian College Allowed to Post Ads

• No Right to Use Taxpayer Money
• Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on April 30, 2007 at 9:15am EDT

• The State job site is paid for by the taxpayers.

  To identify a religious qualification is to promote a state religion in violation of the First Amendment.

  Will take better formal education for judges to get it.

  William Sumner Scott, J.D.

  wss@jefound.org

  Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

• the job board does not violate the constitution
• Posted by Larry on April 30, 2007 at 9:55am EDT

• Mr. Scott, First of all, judges have plenty of “formal” education.

  They have all been to law school. You just want them to be “educated” to reach the same conclusions as you have. This isn’t “training.” You just want “brainwashing.” Moreover, judges are “educated” via briefing and argument by both parties.

  Secondly, the parties settled this issue, so you are asking that the judge disregard the terms of the settlement. What then? Even though the parties agree on the law, you want a judge to step in and tell the parties how to behave, and monitor compliance with a degree that neither wants?

  Third, and most importantly, as a matter of establishment clause jurisprudence, in this case, there really isn’t much of a problem under the ‘Lemon test.” Religious Schools have a right to consider the religious affiliations of their employees. The government-sponsored board is not endorsing a particular religion. Linking people up with jobs seems to be a “legitimate security purpose.” The fact that people get jobs doesn’t enhance or inhibit a religion. There also doesn’t seem to be any real entanglement with religion?

  And, for what it is worth, I am an agnostic, and I stay out of all houses of worship except for weddings, funerals, and bar mitzvas.

  Finally, why do you keep saying you have a “JD”?

• Fair warning
• Posted by E. Ponimus on April 30, 2007 at 10:05am EDT

• I think the religious requirements in the Geneva College posting are great. It will help sane rational people keep far, far away. I'd hate to go through an entire application and interview process only to find out I was surrounded by extremists. I'm sure their curriculum will also reflect their fanaticism. Hmmmm.....I think we may have found a perfect match to get Prof. Sherley on a tenure track.

• W.S. Scott is wrong
• Posted by ALP on April 30, 2007 at 10:45am EDT

• The fist ammendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." How is including a job post for a religious-afiliated organization making a law respecting the establishment of religion? It's not any where close. However, excluding religious-affiliated organizations (which are operated by tax-payers!) from participating in services offered to other like organizations is coming very close to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

  The constitution does not protect us from exposure to religion. In fact, if the "nor prevent the experession thereof" part is applied with the same fervor as the "establishment of religion part," we would be exposed to all religions much more liberally than we are now.

  If we want to truly understand what our founders were trying to say in protecting us from "laws respecting the establishment of religion," examine the role and authority of the church of England in the 1700s. Expelling religion from all public and civic venues is not at all what the founders intended.

  As it is, we are getting ever closer to officially establishing Atheism or Agnosticism as the state religion.

• Excuse me?
• Posted by kh on April 30, 2007 at 11:30am EDT

• "surrounded by extremists"?

  "reflect their fanaticism"?

  E. Ponimus, your post is more indicative of your extreme fanaticism than those you choose to ridicule.

• The Wiccans are coming
• Posted by Larry on April 30, 2007 at 11:50am EDT

• ALP, I agree that Mr. Scott is wrong, but I disagree with you that we are getting “closer” to establishing anything as a state religion. Sure, this is great rhetoric, but you don’t have much to back it up. There is no requirement that either of these things be taught in schools. Christians are not being oppressed by Jew, Wiccans, or socialists.

  Instead, the requirement is that schools just not touch the issue. I guess, for you, avoiding the issue of whether god exists is establishing a state “church” within the meaning of the First Amendment. But, this isn’t the law.

  More importantly, I am curious as to how you figure that the “Free exercise” clause (as opposed to the Establishment Clause) was implicated in this matter. I don’t think anyone argued that the schools ability to exercise their religion was hindered. Instead, if this were to ever be litigated this would be probably viewed as one of the “play in the joints” cases, where the government can accommodate the religious needs of one group of people by assisting them (without favoring one group over the other.) And, if successful, as the above poster points out, 3d-parties would be able to spot the crazy fundamentalists without having to go for interviews.

  Anyway, I am glad that Wiccans will be able to post job notices for high priestesses, and you won’t be tempted to apply.

• We're a little off-topic here...
• Posted by NM mom on April 30, 2007 at 1:00pm EDT

• I don't see any indication that jobs at this college are paid for by taxpayers, only that they are allowed to participate in a statewide job listing.

• Posted by Larry on April 30, 2007 at 1:20pm EDT

• NM mom, While I disagree with some of the above posters, their argument is on-point. They argue that because the board is state-funded that it cannot, by virtue of the 1st amendment, announce religion-restricted jobs. They argue that this constitutes an endorsement (or, as we like to say “establishment”) one religion.