Get Schooled

By jim d

August 7, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

NOPE.

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Figured you would say that, Jim.

My response is that FAR too often people are too hyper-sensitive these days.

Is attending a SECULAR meeting in a building that HAPPENS to house a church on a couple days of the week going to convert you?

a) If it does, your beliefs weren’t that strong anyway.

b) I can’t tell you the THOUSANDS of people that sit in that same building during a RELIGIOUS meeting and are NOT converted… I’m sure Eddie Long would LOVE to know the secrets of converting you at a SECULAR meeting in that building!

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Also: Churches meet in government buildings (often schools) quite frequently. I would not doubt that this is happening in at least one or two of the schools these complainers work at.

Yet they are not complaining about having to go to work where someone worships….

By so

August 7, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

I believe the ‘fuss’ had more to do with the flaunted prosperous lifestyle and very vocal philosophy of Bishop Eddie Long and his church rather than it just being a church. DeKalb County teachers are a diverse bunch and to quite a few his ideology is chock full of deception posing as the word of God and they don’t want to come anywhere near appearing to support it with their physical presence on his church property. To others his personal use of donated funds to enhance his lifestyle to the degree that he does is antithetical for a man of God and they don’t want to support that lifestyle with school funds. Other people don’t want to use prescious time driving out to Lithonia, sitting in a pep rally for three hours and then driving back the day before Open House in all the schools. Thats a five hour waste of time to an awfully busy bunch of people. I think you should amend your post if you want to relate it to this particular church.

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

so:

If their gripe is with Long, they should have said as much. As the article reads, it appears their gripe is more that they are being “forced” to meet in a christian church. And to THAT, my above posts hold.

By so

August 7, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Jeff, I’m sorry, I wasn’t asking you to amend your post, that was directed at Bridget Gutierrez and wasn’t meant to be hostile. Your posts didn’t exist when I wrote mine.

As for basing your responses on the article vs. me basing mine on direct conversation with my colleagues, it was quite obvious to me in the original article written in the AJC and in this post by Bridget, that there hasn’t been much direct discussion between the reporters and the teachers. In all fairness, Bridget did ask me a while back to write a post regarding my feelings and I declined because at the time I hadn’t thought it through well enough, nor had I spoken with any of my fellow teachers regarding their feelings. I like a little backup if I’m going to go against my employer.

By Ernest

August 7, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

This ‘concern’ is much ado about nothing. I’m actually watching the program live on my computer via a live feed as I’m typing this. Might some have legitimate reasons for not wanting to go into a place of worship? Sure, you simply provide alternate accommodations as the school system has.

As indicated in Kristina’s earlier article, much of this ‘concern’ is because some teachers still have a bad taste in their mouths from the last attempt to do this with Dr. Brown at Memorial Stadium (outside in the heat).

To the point of the question, many graduation/commencement/baccalaureate ceremonies are held in places of worship because many can accommodate large gatherings. Gwinnett has a Civic Center which can be used for large events. DeKalb has several ‘mega churches’ thus they are leveraged quite frequently. At the end of the day, the cost of utilizing a facility plays a key role in the decision. I’d also prefer to see county functions such as this held in that county.

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

so:

ah, sorry!

Yeah, while I tend to be vocal and overt in my criticisms of Bobby Jenkins (and was even while I worked for him), at the time I didn’t have a family to think about (still “officially” don’t, but since that changes in just over two months, my attitudes already have) and knew that I could leave teaching for computing pretty easily. (And, in fact, that transition went off just about as fast as I had thought it would.)

For those of you who DO have families and/ or are “stuck” as teachers (an Early Childhood Education degree isn’t exactly worth much outside of teaching…), I truly feel sorry. You will see me fighting for you as much as I can, and for the next three years or so using my certification as a banner to proclaim my unity with you, but there is truly little I can do on the outside.

By Adam

August 7, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Bridget,

With every article I read of yours, I become less and less interested in the AJC. Your articles are nothing but filler so there is no wasted space…

The way I see it, if a school wants to have an event at a church, who cares? They aren’t forcing you to convert…if you don’t want to go, don’t. Everyone that doesn’t want to have an event in a church are nothing more than oversensitive crybabies. Get over it. That’s the problem with this country; too many liberal bed-wetters…

By One

August 7, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

so I agree with your post 100%!!!!! Pimps in the Pulpit like Eddie Long and Creflo “The Crook” Dollar are such a shame……….it takes all kinds, I suppose.

By so

August 7, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Adam, If this pep rally held in a church facility downtown that doubled as a homeless shelter and used every penny donated to that end,(instead of using over half to support the lavish lifestyle of it’s Bishop and his famous 350,000 dollar Bentley) then I’m pretty sure that there would be a lot less complaining. If it were held in such a place AND at a more convenient time would do even more towards quieting us liberal bedwetting atheists. Crawford Lewis made the right call in allowing it to be broadcast live to the schools. I salute him for it.

By so

August 7, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

JEFF! Thank you for your sentiments. I forgot to add that to my last post.

By so

August 7, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

had been, its’ and assorted commas added where necessary.

By holdingAJCaccountable

August 7, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

The bigger issue to me is why are we wasting the valuable time of teachers? If you have so little respect for teachers that you’d herd them like cattle to watch you pontificate, why would you expect any respect in return?

It’s about the superintendent’s EGO, pure and simple. If it were about the CHILDREN, the teachers would be back in their rooms getting ready for them.

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

holding:

EVERY system does these system-wide meetings during pre-planning.

A waste of time? Absolutely (and I skip them if I can in any way get away with it). But part of the game nonetheless.

Matter of fact, right about now I believe T is sitting through the one in her new system…

By Molly

August 7, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Last November, Crawford Lewis gave his “State of the School System” address at New Birth. I found the location inconvenient, and wondered why it wasn’t held in a high school (Miller Grove could easily have handled the crowd). At this meeting, all public comments were screened. Any questions were to be written on cards and handed over to a system official, who selected a few that were answered by Crawford Lewis and his staff. At the very end of the meeting, Crawford Lewis allowed a representative from New Birth the chance to have the microphone. This man went on for several minutes lecturing about how all the problems (gangs, truancy, low achievement) were due to the fact that Jesus wasn’t allowed in the schools. Crawford Lewis made no attempt to cut him off or address the fact that these remarks were extremely offensive to all the Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, liberal Christians and atheists who attend or work for DeKalb County schools. No other member of the public was permitted to speak publicly. After witnessing that event, I feel it is completely inappropriate for the school system to hold any events at New Birth.

By HB

August 7, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

To me, it depends on the event. School events for students should not be held in churches — period. For teachers, I think it depends on where you are. In the Atlanta area, I can’t see how it should ever be necessary as there should be venues available to hold all but excessively large groups. If a meeting is large enough no space can be found (8,000?!), watching on TV should be as effective as attending in person, although I suspect the event is a waste of time at that point.

In rural Georgia, however, there can be times when a church is the best option and shouldn’t be ruled out just because it’s a church. Example: my small town held a preplanning workshop for over 100 teachers that required tables, etc. The cafeteria (only air-conditioned space at the school large enough) was closed for repairs that had to be completed before school started the next week. The only places in town that could accomodate the group were churches, so they borrowed a church fellowship hall (not the sanctuary) for a half-day. The church donated the space, there were no ministers speaking to the group and no religious aspects to the meeting, so I think the system’s choice to use the space was reasonable.

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Molly:

I refer thee to my 9:22 post.

By catlady

August 7, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

With the wonders of technology (some of it still sitting in boxes!) there is no reason to waste gas and money in going to these affairs, not to mention using valuable teacher time. If it is judged so important that teachers should want to go to hear the wisdom from on high, let it be optional and after-hours. See how many would show up then. It is just a way to get more free work from teachers and more publicity for the superintendent, in addition to a tax write off, or money, and publicity for the church. I also wouldn’t go to that church, or quite a few of the mega-churches for ANYTHING due to the pastor’s distortions and blasphmia of the Lord. We are all such a frickin bunch of sheep!

Right now I am “missing” a required luncheon put on (outside) by a local business. Now, these folks are VERY KIND to us, I admit, but they don’t serve food I can eat, so this year I have given myself the okay to not attend. As a practical matter, I need to spend my time productively, which does not involve eating food I should not eat and sweltering. I hope they will understand.

By Mike K.

August 7, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

I’m an atheist, and I don’t have a problem with meetings held in churches since they tend to be some of the largest buildings around. (Of course if I didn’t have to pay taxes I could build a pretty large one too, but that is a different topic for a different blog) Like others, I think the problem is with Long and his “ministry” and not necessarily with the building itself.

By Mike K.

August 7, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Adam I won’t disagree with you about the crybabies part on the liberal side. Would you also agree that there are crybaby conservatives who would’ve complained if the meeting was held in a Muslim mosque?

By SET

August 7, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

An interesting problem. As like Mike, I’m an atheist also. My answer is that this is a local issue not suitable for a general rule.

The largest meeting halls - especially those empty and readily available are the churches and churchauditoriums. The public auditoriums are often older and poorly maintained - and using them involved a seance, or a sacrifice of a goat or lamb (whichever is cheaper) in some bureaucrat’s office where they require forms in triplicate with insurance bonds and a city council vote, etc.

It’s just easier to call the pastor and use the church hall or whatever.

Being a atheist or of any other pursuasion doesn’t mean that one haven’t been to services at various places with friends or can’t enjoy seeing the various buildings.

Now would I set foot in a Black Muslim facility? No. Scientology either. I did go to Synnanon HQ once before they started stuffing mailboxes with rattlesnakes. Liked the place they had - indoor swimming pool several stories above street level in a 3 story open area with glass walls… nice. I knew a girl who lived there. She later quit. The building is gone now. Glad I saw it before the wrecking ball tore it down. I missed the Jonestown trip.

Back to point. Let the locals make arrangements that suit them. Obviously it would be a secular event. You can have secular events in churches…

Getting through this life requires some flexibility and willingness to work with people on some things.

By Blind Homer

August 7, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Did the good Bishop donate the space or did the county pay him rent?

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Blind:

Either way makes no difference. In the case of this meeting, said auditorium is JUST that - a large auditorium.

It only becomes a sanctuary when a church is gathered in it.

By Ernest

August 7, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

Molly, you raise very legitimate points. I attended the same event and raised the same questions afterwards. In hindsight, that event could have been held in a smaller venue however the school system underestimated the turnout. How does the old saying go, “It’s better to have and not need than need and not have”.

If you or someone was offended by remarks made by a New Birth representative, I would encourage them to be reported to the appropriate person(s). I’ve attended many public events where some speakers took liberties espousing ‘Christian values’ because they obviously felt they would be well received. In today’s environment, sensitivity rules. I noted on today’s presentation, only school system personnel spoke.

Given their increasing use in technology now, I believe all future events will provide the ability to be broadcast live and via the internet. I anticipate they’ll provide a means to take questions via the internet before long also.

By Old School

August 7, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Our school system stopped having systemwide meetings a number of years ago. With all the technology we have, communications are best and most efficiently handled via email, school faculty meetings, closed circuit tv, or any other method. I think our little South Georgia system is pretty progressive and very mindful of both public perception and teacher needs. They are (for the most part) pretty darn good stewards of public funds as well.

By jim d

August 7, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

I’m afraid you really know little about me or my beliefs. My origional comment was simply meant to not muddy the waters between church and state.

While many people view a church building as simply that—A building, there are those that view them as being something entirely different that does relate to a particular faith.

Perhaps I’m a bit too tolerant of religions other than Christian. Perhaps all we good Christians should just annilate all the heathern non belivers and eliminate the issue all together—whatta think?

By so

August 7, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Blind Homer, The county paid New Birth $5,000 from Title II funds for the use of the building. The superintendent said this was a reduced rate meant only to cover the cost of utilities for the meeting.

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

jim:

No, I know you all too well… we’ve been debating each other here for what? 2.5 years? more?

I knew you were coming from a “separation of church and state” issue (and I use quotes because as we BOTH know, the phrase is NOWHERE in the Constitution)

By Janine

August 7, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

I agree with all of you who have said that these pep rally/meetings at the beginning of the school year are Fluff and Puff and a place for the super to, as someone above said, ‘pontificate’. And, of course, the best option for a system so large is to have it available through closed circuit TV at each locale.

However, with regard to the place chosen …I have to disagree with Jeff when he says “It only becomes a sanctuary when a church is gathered in it.”

A sanctuary to most people of any faith is in and of itself a sacred or holy place, no matter who is gathered there. So, it seems inappropriate to refer to people of different faiths who are not comfortable with Dekalb’s choice as crybabies, especially when the last meeting Lewis held there was ended with a whack at other religions when a New Birth rep at the microphone said all the problems in schools today are because Jesus isn’t allowed in schools….If one is not a Christian, that was a pretty harsh slam!!!!!

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

Janine:

Strictly according to the Bible (I’ll grant that other religions may differ) a Christian “sanctuary” is only a “sanctuary” when the church is gathered there. The church is NOT the building. The church is the people that gather in that building a few times a week. If someone else wants to use the building, I have no problems with them doing so, though I would grant the actual owner primacy in scheduling. (Same as any other property.) Note here that if this arrangement is used, I expect it to be conducted as the business arrangement that it is, with no moral rules placed on said transaction other than those normally expected, such as that the group will leave the building as they found it, etc. I believe in this concept with weddings as well - hence my concern with my own church and upcoming wedding.

Based on my own limited knowledge of Judaism, I think they have a similar concept in that the only “holy” site is the Temple. All other locations of gatherings are simply that - locations where believers gather.

By scott

August 7, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

What is the purpose of precluding your statements with the declaration that you are an atheist? I do not see what the big deal is since physical appearance at the meeting was not mandated. Reading some of these and responses in the past I now know that we have several “self-righteous atheist”. At some point we all answer to the choices we make.

By Janine

August 7, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

I think I am correct that a sanctuary in the Christian faith is the sacred or consecrated area in a building… usually in which the altar is located. Some places, such as St Peter’s , are sacred because it’s built in a location deemed sacred. In Judaism it is where the Ark of the Covenant is located and is holy and sacred whether anyone is there or not. I believe the assembly area used at New Birth fits the description of a sanctuary, which is by definition, sacred and holy.

By Janine

August 7, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Even though the meeting was not mandatory, it seems at the very least, an unwise choice, considering [a] the diversity of cultures and religions of the employees expected to attend,and [b] the religious statements made by the person from New Birth at the Novemeber State of the System meeting held there.

By Jeff

August 7, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Janine:

TRUST me on this: You WON’T win in a debate on the Original Church with me. I spent FAR too much time looking into it, I know virtually every detail the Bible says or infers about it, as well as much of what history outside the Bible tells us about the time frame. It was this knowledge that led to me leaving the church I grew up in… too concerned about tradition, not concerned enough with the true mission of the church.

While the concept of a Christian “sanctuary” may have EVOLVED over time as far as TRADITION goes, there is nothing inherently sacred about the building as far as the Original Church was concerned.

By Mike K

August 7, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

scott,

I can’t speak for others, but I wanted to mention that I’m an atheist and that I had no problem with them meeting in a church to show that not all atheists believe that a school meeting could not be held in a church buliding.

I’m not sure what you mean by “self-righteous atheist” though regarding this discussion.

By HB

August 7, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this

I believe Jeff is correct that the sanctuary itself is not considered sacred (at least in some Christian denominations — I don’t know about all of them). Regardless of that fact, though, how that space is used can make both Christians and non-Christians a little uncomfortable. For example, Glenn Memorial Auditorium at Emory is also Glenn Memorial United Methodist Church and partially governed by the church. The “sanctuary” is used for all sorts of events: Sunday morning UMC services, University secular concerts, Jewish High Holiday services, and vulgar performances by comedians like Pauly Shore. The room is not multipurpose in design and definitely looks like a traditional church inside with pews, pulpits, organ, choir lofts, etc (although there is a curtain that is drawn in front of the cross above the altar for non-church events). I knew non-Christian students who felt a little funny about attending required events/lectures there as well as Christian students who felt extremely uncomfortable at the language used in this “sanctuary” during many performances. For the most part, people just “got over it” because it was the largest “auditorium” the campus had, but Emory is private.

Should public students and employees be expected to put there personal feelings aside, though? I don’t think so. No matter what a certain church’s theology is on whether or not the physical space is sacred, I believe such a space will feel like a church sanctuary to most anyone who walks in, so it’s just not appropriate to hold a meeting for public school teachers in such a setting.

By catlady

August 7, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Here is the bottom line to me: What was the purpose of the meeting? Team-building? No. Agrandizement of the Central Office? Probably. To get a message out to all school employees? Perhaps, but a better, cheaper way for all, including the environment, would be to televise it, or send it so faculties can watch it at their “leisure”. Having it at the Atlanta Civic Center would not be good, either, for the same reason. It is a waste of time and resources to require folks to gather centrally in such a large system, unless you just want a good picture for the 6 o/clock news.

BTW, Jeff, if it isn’t a sanctuary unless the congregation is there, how can people wanted by the police claim the sanctuary to avoid being apprehended.? They can claim an empty building. Doesn’t “sanctos” mean holy? I am not trying to split hairs, just following the semantic debate.

By SET

August 7, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

HB:

I think you place too much concern on the “feelings” of employees. One does not successfully run any agency or business for the feelings of the staff. While we’d like to be reasonable, the tail doesn’t wag the dog.

As I said before, this issue is not one for a hard and fast national rule. Let the locals decide. And the employees have no right to dictate such terms to the employer. Especially if the venue is being used in a secular fashion - no holy headcloths, no sermons, no rituals, just a meeting hall. You can fire them for insubordination if they boycott the meeting and the courts would not save them.

By JustMe

August 7, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this

jim d-

You and I agree! I also say, “Nope.”

No one can convince me that there isn’t a place in all of metro Atlanta that could house DeKalb teachers? The civic center? The world congress center? No place? Isn’t there only about 8,000 of them? Heck, the Gwinnett civic center holds at least that much!

There is no real reason to resort to any religous institution.

By JustMe

August 7, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

SET -

Said like a true “right to work” state person. Your attitude is what’s making this money hungry, corrupted, corporate world ego driven, conservative, republican driven society of ours crashing down.

Employees have no rights according to you.

Do what I say, no matter what, or you are fired, you say.

Dude, an employee is NOT a slave. Even an employee and their rights are protected under the Constitution of the US.

An employer only should care if I am good at my job. An employer should not force an employee into a religous situation or to even appear to support a political position against their will.

By HB

August 7, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

But, SET, you said yourself that you wouldn’t set foot in a Scientology facility. What if a public school chose their venue to use in a secular fashion (although perhaps with a big picture of L. Ron Hubbard on the wall or some other symbol that clearly identified it as religious space)? Would you attend a mandatory meeting there as a teacher? If you boycotted and were fired, do you believe the school would be justified in that action?

By Nikole

August 7, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

The space was rented, Bishop Long was not in attendance and no one from New Birth spoke. My only wish was that they had picked us up on buses from our schools and taken us there. Oh, and I thoroughly enjoyed the meeting!

By Ernest

August 7, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

JustMe, there are places in metro ATL that could hold 8K people. This was the only place in DeKalb County that could, at least indoors. What do you think teachers would have said about going outside to a football stadium today for this, with it being 90+ degrees outside?

In the future, I can see this being done via live broadcasts and the internet in the future for those that might have challenges getting to a site.

BTW, of the 22 DeKalb HS graduation ceremonies last year, 12 were held in churches. See the listing at: DeKalb 2006-2007 graduations

By Janine

August 7, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

RE: SET…I think you place too much concern on the “feelings” of employees. One does not successfully run any agency or business for the feelings of the staff. While we’d like to be reasonable, the tail doesn’t wag the dog.

Unless there are qualified and conscientious candidates [key word…”qualified”] standing in line for the jobs an employer is offering, he/she must consider employee satisfaction in any evaluation of the company. Disgruntled employees are not an asset in any business.

By Janine

August 7, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

Nicole….See post by Molly 12:02 regarding the school system meeting held at New Birth last Nov. Glad you didn’t have the same experience this time.

By SET

August 7, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this

Janine: Sorry, My position stands. I see firsthand what happens when businesses fail to keep their eye on the ball and become non-profits. They go bankrupt.

The public schools are no different. The employees are already working in a dangerously unsafe environment that fails to teach very well. Cleaning that up will make a lot of people unhappy, starting with the students and staff on the receiving end of discipline. They will be far more unhappy on that, than having a staff conference at a church hall.

I have run a non-profit agency as a board chairman and we made a number of decisions that made a portion of the staff unhappy - concerning a sea change in dress and deportment standards. We fully informing them of what we required of them, then fired those nonconformists who didn’t quit on their own. The raises in pay were just not enough. Perhaps they thought they were the object of the charity rather than the clients. It was our decision to go more formal and upscale and some of the workers didn’t want to. Good for them and goodbye. They found work elsewhere (McDonald’s was hiring) where they didn’t have to change and we got more upscale workers along with the new Class A offices.

You got one thing right… a disgruntled employee is not an asset in any business. So eliminate them. End of problem.

By SET

August 7, 2007 7:24 PM | Link to this

Just Me: Now we’re cooking…

An employee has a right to quit without notice unless he/she signed that one away by contract. Beyond that the employee has an absolute right to be paid on payday with good funds. And the employer must come up with the $$ on time or face criminal prosecution (for theft of wages) and other sanctions in most states such as CA.

Beyond that the relationship only works on mutual need. That’s all. It’s not Little Sister’s Of The Poor. The minute either side outgrows the other it’s done.

This has nothing to do with forcing religious beliefs on each other. Although some sects generally only hire each other. People tend to want to associate with similar people. People go where they are wanted and where they fit in. Basic animal behavior.

Nothing Republican or evil about it. The evil is when loony toon liberals pervert basic economics into Stalinism or Red China’s Cultural Revoloution or North Korea’s cannibalistic (literally) society.

If you try to create a command economy you create national socialism with all that goes with it.

Grow up and take Econ 101.

By SET

August 7, 2007 7:30 PM | Link to this

HB: I have more than passing experience with dangerous cults. CA is famous for them. You haven’t seen a dangerous cult until you’ve lived around here 50 years.

Frankly they would never let a group of public employees into their facilities because secrecy is vital to maintaining cult cohesion. My earlier comments about certain cult-like organizations was rhetorical. The last thing they’d ever do is allow the public into their facilities.

Some of our cults are not obviously dangerous - but time has taught us that they eventually become so. Even the benign ones never had open house.

By SET

August 7, 2007 7:49 PM | Link to this

Just Me: Maybe I was a little harsh in that posting. I am well known as a champion of the worker in legal circles.

But when it’s over, it’s over. Worker rights are well defined in statutes and in case law in CA and probably in most states. My problem is the current crop of badly raised public school graduates who are full of their fantasy rights and care not a whit about any responsibilities. They are being wiped out in the marketplace. It’s easy to keep from hiring them and it’s easy to get rid of them when the employer is working with the type of legal coaching that is readily available.

It would help if graduating HS seniors had a working knowledge of the Labor Code and the Civil Code (as well as the CA Penal Code). It’s frustrating having people setting themselves on fire and only then asking for legal advice about it. You have the right to sing the blues, everything else you’d better have a code section or an appellate case on.

It used to be the employers that made every mistake in the book and were fat juicy targets for lawsuits. Well, so many employers went under or left the state that the surviving employers are now tougher then the workers. Try Wal*Mart for example.

I agree with you that the Republican leadership are traitors to the constitution and the people of the USA (who are being replaced, by the way) but so are the Democrats and you probably wouldn’t like the constitution if it were actually enforced anyway.

By Jeff

August 8, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this

catlady:

As noted earlier, the TRADITION of a “Christian sanctuary” has evolved over time, but the Original Church had NO such concept.

As far as the legal perception of “sanctuary”, the earliest I recall it being used was early in the Old Testament (Numbers 35, perhaps earlier - I had to look it up in an online Bible, so it could be earlier than this). In this sense, there were 6 cities of refuge where a man could run to after unintentionally murdering someone. There he could not be harmed until he was put to trial and convicted.

BTW: Webster.com has two definitions for “sanctuary”, the first is a religious designation which as I’ve indicated truly does not hold for the Christian faith as anything other than tradition. The second is the more legal designation, whose origins as far as Judeo-Christian beliefs I outlined above. I am unsure if the concept existed prior to that point in history, though if it did it would be within the Egyptian timeframe - though possibly in one of the many Afro-Asian cultures of that period. (If I remember correctly, the most ancient American cultures sprang up around the time of the Roman Empire.)

By HB

August 8, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

SET, just to be clear, I was not meaning to imply that I think all religious groups are benign. I agree with you that some are quite dangerous. My question, though, was what would you do as a teacher if a required meeting were held in their space? I know at least one of two groups you mentioned allows the public into their buildings, although perhaps not into every room of the building, so it absololutely could happen. Would you attend? Would you fight the school system if they fired you for not attending? Would you quit? What I’m getting at is you said you won’t set foot in certain places — how much, if any, job protection do you feel you should have if you were forced to make that decision?

By SET

August 8, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

If my employer (or clients) did business in any way with a group that I considered that dangerous I would fire my employer (clients). There would no longer be a basis for continuing the relationship.

Frankly they need me more than I need them. One of the things about the profession I selected to work in is that you may operate solo - with advantageous tax treatment not available to wage earners.

For the record I am telling college students now to reconsider being a lawyer and take a serious look at psychology. The Forensic Clinical Psychologists I deal with in court are usually doing $300k a year with a home office. They can easily cross state lines which lawyers cannot.

Above all you don’t want to be unskilled labor or it’s functional equivilent, at the mercy of that market.

And I have no problem with teachers making the same decision on the meeting hall. That’s what unions or professional associations are for. If the teachers en banc decide that the Auditorium of the Church of the Holy Muffin is off limits they are quite within their rights to say it’s them or us. And I wouldn’t push it if I were the school district.

Job protection? Sorry. There is no general “protection” when you are not wanted. I believe the Constitution’s Freedom of Association clause trumps any of the anti-discrimination statutes in most instances. Of course that’s not the current dogma of the appellate courts. They maintain the FOA clause is meaningless boilerplate. Like that phrase about powers being reserved to the states.

By jim d

August 8, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Just for the record; I don’t believe schools should serve as church’s either.I prefer a more laicite form of Governement.

By ICS

August 9, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Hello, I’ve been out due to internet and political problems—-but I wish I had time to continue the Church/State theme from a different viewpoint.

That of a Charter school that is housed in two churches and would not exist without these to organizations allowing us to share their space.

BTW the school’s population is about 35% Muslim (many refugees are). See the article in today’s metro section about us begging to use secular space that is being vacated by the district.