Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Reason to keep church, state separate
University of the Cumberlands in Kentucky kicked out a student because he's gay, which is discriminatory on its face. That's its right as a private college.
But why should it continue to get government funding?
Read all about it.
The governor's distinction between "taxpayers" and "coal companies" is a nonstarter. Whether it's an income tax or a state-required or -sanctioned excise tax, it's still a tax, and the government is still directly funding this school.
More about the University of the Cumberlands, which is a Southern Baptist college.
Modern Southern Baptist fundamentalist motto: "Where we circle the wagons and shoot the wounded."
--ER
But why should it continue to get government funding?
Read all about it.
The governor's distinction between "taxpayers" and "coal companies" is a nonstarter. Whether it's an income tax or a state-required or -sanctioned excise tax, it's still a tax, and the government is still directly funding this school.
More about the University of the Cumberlands, which is a Southern Baptist college.
Modern Southern Baptist fundamentalist motto: "Where we circle the wagons and shoot the wounded."
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
You see this stuff always has a backside to it. If the College really wants the Pharm D program then they will have to adhere to to the criteria for accreditation from the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education otherwise their degree will have no meaning and the graduates can not work as Pharmacist.
Section 16.5 of the criteria requires nondiscrimation by the school in student admissions, financial aid, etc. including among the usual race, sex, religion, that of gender and life-style.
Look it up : www.acpe-accredit.org
Now the ACEP is not a governmental agency, but it can keep the School from ever having a Pharmacy school.
The Govenor has put the school between the rock and that hard place by allowing the money to go through. Wonder if he did that by design?
Section 16.5 of the criteria requires nondiscrimation by the school in student admissions, financial aid, etc. including among the usual race, sex, religion, that of gender and life-style.
Look it up : www.acpe-accredit.org
Now the ACEP is not a governmental agency, but it can keep the School from ever having a Pharmacy school.
The Govenor has put the school between the rock and that hard place by allowing the money to go through. Wonder if he did that by design?
# posted by 
: 4:28 PM
: 4:28 PM
Who fricking knows.
On a lighter note, I had cause today to know the years that Johnston Murray served as Oklahoma governor -- and I was off by ONE YEAR. Historical trivia takes too much room up in my brain.
The years of his term: 1951-1955.
On a lighter note, I had cause today to know the years that Johnston Murray served as Oklahoma governor -- and I was off by ONE YEAR. Historical trivia takes too much room up in my brain.
The years of his term: 1951-1955.
Well of course, E.R. Who didn't know that? Didn't you have to memorize all the Territorial governors as well as all the statehood governors in 9th grade Oklahoma History? And be able to write the names of all the counties on a blank map of the state?
--Sincerely yours,
Miss Oklahoma Snot
--Sincerely yours,
Miss Oklahoma Snot
Dr. Lobojo,
You are wrong on this one. As it stands now, Guidline 15.5 states: A policy on student affairs, including admissions and progression, that assures non-discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, lifestyle, national origin, or disability should exist.
It is a guidline - not a standard, nor something that must be followed. The upcoming standard, which takes effect in July 2007, states in Guideline 16.5 that the non-discrimination policy must meet federal and state laws. The homo-issues are cited as examples. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that Kentucky has no statute that says you can't discriminate against gays.
As to ER's question: But why should it continue to get government funding?
The answer - ROI (return on investment). The state of Kentucky stands to gain alot more by funding this program than by giving the money away in the form of welfare checks or some other such liberal cause.
You are wrong on this one. As it stands now, Guidline 15.5 states: A policy on student affairs, including admissions and progression, that assures non-discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, lifestyle, national origin, or disability should exist.
It is a guidline - not a standard, nor something that must be followed. The upcoming standard, which takes effect in July 2007, states in Guideline 16.5 that the non-discrimination policy must meet federal and state laws. The homo-issues are cited as examples. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that Kentucky has no statute that says you can't discriminate against gays.
As to ER's question: But why should it continue to get government funding?
The answer - ROI (return on investment). The state of Kentucky stands to gain alot more by funding this program than by giving the money away in the form of welfare checks or some other such liberal cause.
Jots and tittles, Rem.
It's wrong to discriminate and still accept state funds. This is where a judge should look at "should" and interpret it in the sense of:
"Should it snow, there will be snow on the ground."
In other words, "must."
Every church and church-related school that accepts public money will rue the day. In gaining the world they will lose their soul.
Eventually, there will be strings attached to such money that will break the hearts of all the good Baptists who are looking the other way now.
I give ya a C at making this a conservative-liberal issue.
Any conservative who thinks it's a good idea to comingle public money in a private church organization isn't actually "conservative. It's fundy and it's foolish -- and DANGEROUS for the church!
It's wrong to discriminate and still accept state funds. This is where a judge should look at "should" and interpret it in the sense of:
"Should it snow, there will be snow on the ground."
In other words, "must."
Every church and church-related school that accepts public money will rue the day. In gaining the world they will lose their soul.
Eventually, there will be strings attached to such money that will break the hearts of all the good Baptists who are looking the other way now.
I give ya a C at making this a conservative-liberal issue.
Any conservative who thinks it's a good idea to comingle public money in a private church organization isn't actually "conservative. It's fundy and it's foolish -- and DANGEROUS for the church!
Oh, and Trix: I remember nothing from Okie history except "Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole." Territorial governors? We learned Indian chiefs over my way.
And I think I was in an editing II class in college before I had to fill in the names of the counties on an Oklahoma map -- then only because of a smart prof who knew we'd most of us stay in, or return to, Oklahoma. :-)
And I think I was in an editing II class in college before I had to fill in the names of the counties on an Oklahoma map -- then only because of a smart prof who knew we'd most of us stay in, or return to, Oklahoma. :-)
This is where a judge should . .
Always looking to the courts. Discrimination based on a personal choice should always be allowed.
Always looking to the courts. Discrimination based on a personal choice should always be allowed.
Do ya'll Okies really do the state history thing in high school? In Florida it is (was?) done in 4th grade. High school would make more sense, as retention would/should be better. I remember doing the same things Trixie mentioned. I think I can still do the county thing, though I can only do the gov'ners back through the mid-80s (pretty pathetic, I know).
I don't know what that means.
I swear. Do you really still believe that homosexuality is a choice?
Sure, some people "do" homnosexual acts because they're looking for love in the wrong places (by mainstram standards).
But it seems so clear to so many people that the core of homosexuality is NOT a choice -- I just don't get it anymore.
It's like telling black people: "We totally accept that you're of African descent. Just don't look black."
I swear. Do you really still believe that homosexuality is a choice?
Sure, some people "do" homnosexual acts because they're looking for love in the wrong places (by mainstram standards).
But it seems so clear to so many people that the core of homosexuality is NOT a choice -- I just don't get it anymore.
It's like telling black people: "We totally accept that you're of African descent. Just don't look black."
Rem, yes, in ninth grade here.
And yep, I do look for the courts.
"Co-equal Branch of Government Since 1803"
And yep, I do look for the courts.
"Co-equal Branch of Government Since 1803"
"The state of Kentucky stands to gain alot more by funding this program than by giving the money away in the form of welfare checks or some other such liberal cause."
this red herring is so false on so many levels, but let's start with the basic premise while avoiding any assumptions: don't know how it is in your state, but, here in cali, program funding is not arbitrarily redirected at the cap's whim. budgets are established, and funding allocated, through legislation.
KEvron
this red herring is so false on so many levels, but let's start with the basic premise while avoiding any assumptions: don't know how it is in your state, but, here in cali, program funding is not arbitrarily redirected at the cap's whim. budgets are established, and funding allocated, through legislation.
KEvron
"Always looking to the courts."
yeah, "always".
"Discrimination based on a personal choice should always be allowed."
the notion that, though personal choice is the very essence of freedom, it should "always" (there's that word again) be subject to discrimination, seems to present a conunderum. unless i accept discrimination to be the very definition of freedom. ugh.
KEvron
yeah, "always".
"Discrimination based on a personal choice should always be allowed."
the notion that, though personal choice is the very essence of freedom, it should "always" (there's that word again) be subject to discrimination, seems to present a conunderum. unless i accept discrimination to be the very definition of freedom. ugh.
KEvron
E.R., we also learned the Indian history as part of Oklahoma history -- how could we not? I mean, hello, Standing Bear, and umpteen tribes in my back yard as well as the Five Civilized Tribes and all the forced migrations and what-nots. That's one reason I HAD to have that map of the Indian Territories I kept on my desk for handy discussions.
Yeah, ninth grade, but when I was in ninth grade they called it junior high. I had one of the BEST Oklahoma history teachers "back in the day." Once he taught it, I knew it fer good. Don't y'all miss the days when there was real teaching going on in the schools?
Yeah, ninth grade, but when I was in ninth grade they called it junior high. I had one of the BEST Oklahoma history teachers "back in the day." Once he taught it, I knew it fer good. Don't y'all miss the days when there was real teaching going on in the schools?
Rem 870 said: "It is a guidline - not a standard, nor something that must be followed."
Accreditation is world unto itself.
The "guidlines" are for the school AND for the accreditation teams that will visit the school.
An Accreditation "guidline" might as well be the "Word Of God" as far as an Accreditor is concerned.
Oh yes, they will be Followed!
The school will not be able to parse their meaning, only negotiate how to fix it when found wanting.
You can pay the piper now or later, but you will pay this piper.
Accreditation is world unto itself.
The "guidlines" are for the school AND for the accreditation teams that will visit the school.
An Accreditation "guidline" might as well be the "Word Of God" as far as an Accreditor is concerned.
Oh yes, they will be Followed!
The school will not be able to parse their meaning, only negotiate how to fix it when found wanting.
You can pay the piper now or later, but you will pay this piper.
# posted by : 12:33 AM
: 12:33 AM
By the way Rem 870, I agree that there is no state or federal law that requires this SBC college to accomodate, gender or life style in their Pharm D school. But if the ACPE has ever come down on any of its schools on this point you can be assured that those schools will see that the ACPE enforces it here as well. You see the ACPE is not just some abstract authority it is also a group of peer institutions making damn sure everybody is doing everything the same way and up to standards (or guidlines if you please). They won't let each other get away with much if anything.
On the other hand maybe the ACPE is letting this guidline slide. Time will tell, and we (meaning this blog group) probably won't know it when it does.
On the other hand maybe the ACPE is letting this guidline slide. Time will tell, and we (meaning this blog group) probably won't know it when it does.
# posted by : 12:47 AM
: 12:47 AM
My Dad taught at this college for 32 years. My mom and brother graduated from there. I went for one summer. Too Baptist for me! Yes, Williamsburg is my hometown, although I don't live there anymore. The president of the State Senate is up for re-election with competition in the primary. He's from this district. That is why he's pushing the funding through, the legality of it be damned. The governor owes him, so he's following suit. Its all appearance. the funding will never hold up in the courts.
Now that I've had a chance to read the other comments, I must point out that in addition to the accreditation problem for the proposed Pharmacy school, the HEART of the matter is.... It is against KENTUCKY LAW to award state funds to a private college. The govner and the state senate president are doing this to make themselves look all Baptist for the electorate.
Gay or straight, who would want to go to a college like that anyway? Especially if you are gay.
So does that mean Secular State schools can kick out Christians?
Post a Comment
So does that mean Secular State schools can kick out Christians?
<< Home
