Read what I wrote. I was very clear that I was not talking about
gifts and bequests but "money you give to a university, be it public
or private, in the form of fees or tax subsidies". Of course you
can stipulate how a gift or bequest is to be used. Most universities
do not allow students to withhold fees for religious, political
reasons, or reasons of conscience. The same is true about public
support of universities. I as an individual cannot withhold taxes
because I do not agree with the purpose to which the money will
applied. The government frowns on tax evasion.
Taken to its logical extreme a religious organization that accepts
anything from the government cannot restrict its membership or
employees. Thus it would be entirely reasonable to require a Roman
Catholic congregation to accept a Tibetan Lama as priest or require a
Mosque to accept Friday prayers led by a female Episcopal cleric.
After all they are recognized religious figures... The same kind of
reasoning has led to some jurisdictions demanding church run adoption
agencies that they must ignore their religious beliefs in placing
children.
James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]
On Feb 24, 2007, at 11:53, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:
> Not true about gifts and bequests to colleges and universities.
> Look at any such institution's income ledger and you will see
> categories of restricted and unrestricted gifts. There is a I
> think current law suit against Princeton University, where members
> of a wealthy family want a substantial gift returned to them. They
> argue that the restrictions and requirements on the gift have not
> been honored by Princeton.
>
> I have no idea what "a silly PC argument" means. It seems more a
> characterization than an argument. Arguments have facts lined up
> so as to strongly suggest a conclusion; the conclusion itself is
> explicitly stated.
>
> "Next thing people will demand..." is a version of the slippery
> slope argument, a kind of deception of reason. If you like A, you
> are going to hate B, which is an inevitable outcome of A. Outside
> of the realm of close scientific observation and experiment,
> inevitability is a faith not a fact.
>
> Harold S. Forsythe
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Brothers" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Wren cross at W&M
>
>
>> Although I can't say this for sure, it is very likely that there
>> are organizations dedicated to other religions or ethnic groups at
>> Wm & Mary that are supported by both tax dollars and student
>> activity fees. It certainly is the case at all of the other
>> colleges and universities I've ben associated with. Last I
>> checked there was no way to stipulate that money you give to a
>> university, be it public or private, in the form of fees or tax
>> subsidies can be in any way restricted so that they do not
>> support organizations or activities with which an individual does
>> not agree. The chapel was built as a Christian Chapel, it seems
>> reasonable that it remain so. Why should it be secularized just
>> because it is a public university? The same argument would say
>> that any organization at a public university can not restrict its
>> membership or it must restrict its funding. This is a really
>> silly PC argument. Next people will be demanding that because
>> churches are subsidized by the government (through tax exemption)
>> that it is unlawful for a Roman Catholic church to require that
>> its priest be Roman Catholic. After all a religious leader is a
>> religious leader, why not have communion administered by a
>> Tibetan Lama? I'm equally sure that many attendees at a mosque
>> would be a bit upset to find a female Episcopal Priest leading
>> the Friday prayer.
>>
>> James Brothers, RPA
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:01, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:
>>
>>> I earned my B.A. and M.A. at a Protestant college (now
>>> university) in California and taught at a Jesuit university in
>>> CT. Both these institutions were private. I didn't think much
>>> about the religious orientation of my Alma Mater but did think
>>> hard about the Catholic and Jesuit identity of Fairfield
>>> University. (I even served on a committee to study and
>>> reinforce that identity.) I thought then and think now that if
>>> the Catholic faith community uses its own resources to found
>>> university, the principle of religious freedom upon which the
>>> USA is based makes it manifestly obvious that such a university
>>> should be committed to the religious vision of the community
>>> that founded it.
>>>
>>> I should say that I found the Catholic Jesuit environment very
>>> welcoming to non-Catholics.
>>>
>>> Where I part company with perhaps others on this list and
>>> certainly many W & M alumnii is over particular religious
>>> symbolism at PUBLIC universities and colleges.
>>> I put to you all two questions. 1) Should Jews, Muslims,
>>> Buddhists, Hindus, and the non-religious be taxed to support
>>> institutions that proclaim their adherence to Christianity? 2)
>>> Should, say, a Star of David be added to the chapel at William &
>>> Mary?
>>>
>>> I understand that the College of William & Mary's founding was as
>>> a Church of England institution but that was in colonial times
>>> when propertyholders were taxed to support the established church
>>> of the colony of Virginia. A lot has changed since the 17th
>>> century.
>>>
>>> Harold S. Forsythe
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunshine49"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Wren cross at W&M
>>
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
