UPDATED - Newsflash: Catholic University Has Crosses
A PRIVATE Catholic university has Christian symbols around? Wow. The nerve.
Jenny Erikson blogs at The Stir that a group of Muslim students at the PRIVATE Catholic University of America has filed discrimination charges against the university for not providing prayer rooms free of crucifixes:
Here's a fun fact: No one forced people practicing Islam to attend a Catholic university. The school's website declares that CUA is the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States. It is a private school that requires undergraduate students to take courses in theology and philosophy to meet graduation requirements....The Catholic University of America has every right to display symbols of their religion, and should not be required to provide Islamic prayer rooms. Islamic prayer rooms are not Catholic, and therefore incongruous with the mission statement of the school, which explicitly states its commitment to "being a comprehensive Catholic and American institution of higher learning, faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed on by the Church."
More at Jihadwatch and The Tower, the school's newspaper.
Oh, and P.S., I'm an atheist, but I sure don't go into a Catholic institution and expect them to take down all the Christian symbols.
What kind of person thinks that sort of thing?
Via @Anchoress
UPDATE: Actually, it turns out it wasn't Muslim students but an activist law professor, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, who filed this case:
Bottom line: It's wrong to characterize this case as it currently stands as a complaint from intolerant Muslim students at Catholic University when in fact it's a complaint filed by a know-it-all from academia who thinks dividing people is the best way to unite them.
The same people that buy a house by the airport and then complain about the noise.
Many people feel they are entitled to have things just the way they want them to be. They shouldn't have to work for them, and it shouldn't matter what other people want or think.
DrCos at October 28, 2011 4:19 AM
The same people whose frivolous complaints are given weight and acted upon by all the politicians. This includes all the people who have special laws for them and special treatment where it is presumed that they are always victims. They are called special interest groups and their vision of equality is to be given special facilities and to be completely unaccountable for whatever they do while they can always point fingers at the others for what they perceive as discrimination against them.
Redrajesh at October 28, 2011 5:25 AM
Muslims. Muslims believe that they are superior to all other people. It's built into the belief system. Muslims are philosophically bent towards lying and bullying.
What's really sad is that prior to Islam, the Arab world was the leader in technology and mathematics. Islam is simply incompatible with civilization.
The Original Kit at October 28, 2011 5:29 AM
What sort of person? The sort taking over our country one little discrimination lawsuit at a time. Pretty clever ones, sadly. And our politicians and judges just go right along.
momof4 at October 28, 2011 6:01 AM
I would imagine it is the same sort of people who take a job in a school system and then sue for a three-month vacation during finals so they can go on the hajj. Or, you know, the same people who have a demonstration because they want to be paid for three daily breaks for prayer.
Or it could be like those people who get jobs at a pharmacy and then refuse to dispense medication! Or, you know, those people who become doctors, and then refuse to perform certain medical procedures or make recommendations for said procedures. It could be those people too!
Or those people who get a job that requires them to work on a certain day of the week, then sue because their religion requires them not to work on that day.
Just a hunch.
Choika at October 28, 2011 6:13 AM
Ooh ooh! Forgot one - what about those people who become cab drivers, then refuse to transport dogs or alcohol?? It could be those too!
Choika at October 28, 2011 6:14 AM
It's worse up here...my children used to go to catholic elementary school, and they had the balls to let the muslim kids have their prayer rugs, but we can't say merry xmas.
It's just infuriating. And not only the schools, but the unions, the government agencies, the police-they all have to make allowances for other cultures, and not just Muslims. Sheiks in the RCMP must be allowed to wear their turbans IN UNIFORM,Jewish people must be allowed to wear their yamukahs, etc etc etc. But Heaven help you if you're a white Catholic and say Merry Christmas!
Angel at October 28, 2011 9:29 AM
The real problem, at the core level, appears to be the DC "Human Rights Act".
(Well, okay - the real structural problem.
Banzhaf is more arguably "the real problem", but it's not like there's any sort of liberal non-authoritarian way to make him, personally stop it, that isn't the same as "changing the HRA".)
Sigivald at October 28, 2011 3:11 PM
What the U.S. needs to do is simply follow the U.S. Constitution. If everyone is treated equally under the law -- then none of this matters.
The First Amendment:
does not apply to private institutions. Full stop.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is technically not legally empowered in the U.S. Constitution. The court rulings say otherwise.
Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court has become a legislative body, not the arbiters of the laws as promulgated by Congress.
But at the same time, the Presidency has become the creator of regulations that are also extra-Constitutional to what was written in the the laws as passed by the legislative branch. The Executive branch uses executive orders and signing statements to either put in place what they want to do. The executive orders are what Obama is using to try and get his "jobs bill" bit through. The signing statements are what Bush used to get the wiretapping to be legal.
All this should be referred back to Congress. That the Congress can't be bothered to attach the sections of the enumerated powers to every legislation should be an amendment to the Constitution.
Many cases -- Roe v. Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Plessy v. Ferguson, McDonald v Chicago, D.C. v. Heller, and many other decisions -- should have been decided on the merits, but require a reference back to Congress to legislate and decide the actual laws.
As it stands now things like seat belt laws, DUI, sex ed, etc. are done by regulation and blackmail from the federal government to the state governments by highway funds, or education funds.
That last amendments that were on social issues were the Eighteenth Amendment and Twenty-first Amendment (prohibition). The federal government was not designed to deal with you, as an individual, on the personal level.
The incorporation of the federal Constitution is actually a violation of the the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Those amendments say that essentially each state is its own little laboratory for what they want to impose on its citizenry. It would be legal to impose RomneyCare on the Taxachusetts if they decide to do it. But the citizens of the state have the legal right to pay, petition for repeal, or leave. The U.S. Supreme Court should not be judging it.
Currently before Congress is a concealed carry reciprocity act (both houses) it technically is not within Congresses purview. I do support it, but without a modification the Second or an additional amendment, it is not the purview of Congress.
Just as with Loving -- it is enforcing what one state decided is legal on the other the rest.
If you support:
Those are just some of the list of laws that are or have been forced onto the states by a combination of the branches of the federal government.
You need to decide what you want to support. If you want it all controlled by the federal government -- keep advocating for that. The demise of your liberty is in your hands.
I want to be responsible for myself and my actions.
Jim P. at October 28, 2011 11:38 PM
"Currently before Congress is a concealed carry reciprocity act (both houses) it technically is not within Congresses purview. "
Yeah, I saw that too. And I agree with you that it violates federalism principles, even though mandatory reciprocity is something I favor. The right way to do it, if it's going to be done, is a Constitutional amendment.
Cousin Dave at October 29, 2011 8:56 AM
Leave a comment