By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.comhttp://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
#SamFrescoe
#religion #liberty #govern #firstamendment #university
Have you ever read a headline and thought the article was
important enough to read, just to be disappointed? And then, for some reason you can’t quite put
your finger on, read the article again? And then…a day or so later…you started
to wonder “What if the author has a point here?” – For me, this is one of those
articles.
In the Discourse – Campus Reform
On 2 Dec 2016, Anthony Gockowski, Investigative Reporter,
Campus Reform,[1] published
an article with the following lead-off bullet statement: “With Christmas
approaching, universities are cracking down on potentially offensive religious
decorations, all but banning displays of the ‘Nativity Scene’ and images of the
‘crucifixion’.” Within the article, the author supported this statement by quoting
phrases from multiple university policies. The author goes so far as to
conclude that “at least one appears to have banned even private displays.” As a
result, the tone and tenor of the article suggests the identified universities
are in the wrong.
As always, context matters. Campus
Reform claims to be a campus watchdog project dedicated to exposing bias and
abuse on the nation's college campuses. To that end, they partner with “student
activists and student journalists to report on the conduct and misconduct of
university administrators, faculty, and students.”[2]
Campus Reform is a “product” of Liberty Institute. The Liberty Institute is a conservative
activist group specializing in “campaigns, fundraising, grassroots organizing,
youth politics, and communications.”[3]
Based on the above, I conclude that
Campus Reform believes in conservative political activism on college campuses.
That Campus Reform provides a “news” outlet for that activism. It happens that
Campus Reform is a cyber publisher.
Overall, I remain disappointed with the article. I clicked
on the headline in the hopes of reading an investigative essay, a journal entry
that simply presents all sides. However, in my view, the author fell short of
my hope and engaged in a rhetorical attack. Oh, well.
On the other hand, what if, in the author’s view, the
policies of the several universities represents an unacceptable government
overreach? Clearly this question is leading, and implies motive; however, I believe
it does prompt some important questions.
Conservative “Couching” of Religious
Liberty
The language of the First Amendment
is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[4]
Meaning, Congress shall not make any law establishing any religion; and, Congress
shall not prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
The intent of this Amendment is to
“prevent misconstruction or abuse of [Congressional] powers”.[5]
This is further reinforced by one of The Founders, James Madison. “The
protection of [diversity in the faculties of men] is the first object of government.”
This includes the “zeal for different opinions concerning religion.” – Madison,
Federalist #10
Motives, Roles, Responsibilities
Clearly the Establishment clause of
the First Amendment is focused on restricting the Congress, meaning the federal
Legislature, from either forcing any religion onto The People, or forcing any
religion from The People. Additionally, it seems clear that these restrictions
was put in place to further reinforce the ideal that protecting the diversity
of human-kind is the first purpose of government. So, given the broad nature of
the subject, how might Americans go about examining it applicability on State
and local academic institutions?
Accountability Questions
·
How was the power to restrict the States or The
People in supporting the establishment of religion, or prohibition of free
exercise of religion, bestowed to the Congress?
·
If The People don’t like how these restrictions
are realized, then how could those restrictions be rescinded, rejected,
amended, disbanded, or abolished?
·
Explain why the restrictions of the Congress
supersede the sovereignty of the States or The People to do as they see fit?
Justification Questions
·
How can an exclusive group of federal
legislators be more intelligent or morally superior than The People or the
States directly engaged with the circumstances?
Morality Questions
·
Is it morally right to restrict the States or
The People just because the Congress is restricted?
·
If the Congress is willing to restrict the
States and/or The People by contract, then is the Congress willing to hold the
States and/or The People harmless should they reject the contract?
Prudence Questions
·
You are the Congress. You are constitutionally
constrained as the Congress. Now you want the States and/or The People to agree
to the same constitutional constraints because you are The Congress?
·
You are the Congress. You are constitutionally
constrained regarding religious matters. Now you want me to agree that I should
abide by religious constraints because you are the Congress?
·
How is it wise to defer to the Congress on religious
matters, when the people that pay the price for making bad decisions are local
below the State?
Logic Questions
·
Just because the Congress is restricted, does it
follow that the States or The People should restricted as the Congress? If yes,
then is the federal government monopoly over the use of force and determination
of guilt and justice necessary?
Intent Questions
·
Given the situation, which scenario seems most
applicable, and why?
o
The Constitution and Bill of Rights define and
ground our government structures to implement founding principles which serves
all the citizens and protects American freedoms.
o
The political and elite classes use government
functions to manipulate institutions to enlarge and entrench themselves by
regulating groups of citizens and voting blocs resulting in diminished individual
rights and freedoms.
·
What if this is a mechanism used to increase
diversity while shrinking proximity in order to realize a kind of
social-political warfare; thus, legitimizing use of government force?
Going Forward
It’s time to examine why governments are involved in these
matters at all.
What do you think?
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you
to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam
Frescoe Project on Facebook.
The Issue
While the Campus Reform article does not specifically state
an issue, the following could be framed: University administrations are
unjustly restricting “potentially offensive religious decorations” during the period
between Thanksgiving and Christmas on American campuses in order to respect the
diversity of others by issuance of controlling policies and guidelines. The
article seems to represent a credibility challenge.
Claims & Counter-Claims
Campus Reform claims that “with Christmas approaching,
universities are cracking down on potentially offensive religious decorations.”
The author supports his claim with phrases from specific university policies. While,
the author does not offer a warrant, it could be inferred by the tone and tenor
of the article that the identified universities are in the wrong.
Rowan University holds the position that “office decorations
are allowed as long as no obvious, religious icons are displayed.” To that end,
Rowan issued a policy titled “Holiday Decorations in the Workplace”.[6]
They warrant their position as a means to “be respectful of all beliefs and the
various observances.” Their policy seems to follow an emotional approach.
Brockport College holds the position that “individuals and
departments” are to “ensure inclusiveness and respect for a wide range of
religious and cultural customs.” To that end, Brockport issued a policy titled “Culturally
Sensitive Holiday Decorations All Year Long”.[7]
They warrant their position as a means to “be sensitive and respectful to
individuals”. Their policy seems to follow an emotional approach.
Missouri State seeks to align itself with “decisions of the
United States Supreme Court and other federal courts interpreting the
Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution in the context of decorating
public buildings.” To that end, Missouri State issued a policy titled “Holiday
Decorations Guidelines”.[8]
While they do not directly warrant their position, it may be inferred that Missouri
State desires to align itself with legal precedent. Their policy seems to follow
an logical approach.
Oregon State recognizes that “a festive environment,
especially during the December/January holidays, is important to many of our
students, employees, and stakeholders.” To that end, Oregon State issued a
policy titled “Guidelines for Holiday Decorations”.[9]
They warrant their position as a means to “inclusive and respectful of a range
of cultural traditions”. Their policy seems to follow an emotional approach.
The New Jersey public school position was not examined.
© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment