Another pastor, another convicted felon, ministering to Tampa Bay students on campus, now banned. (church, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,915,464 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
What is it with felons who see that all they got to do is say they are saved, and find jobs with Christian organizations?
This one, David Gaskill, had unfettered and unconstitutional access to student athletes in the Hillsborough School District in the Tampa Bay area, one of the largest school districts in the US, with over 8,000 teachers.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter on April 19, and the Superintendent banned Gaskill on April 21, not because it was unconstitutional, but because he would not be able to pass the criminal background check which was required.
Quick action, but only partially for the right reason.
What is it with felons who see that all they got to do is say they are saved, and find jobs with Christian organizations?
This one, David Gaskill, had unfettered and unconstitutional access to student athletes in the Hillsborough School District in the Tampa Bay area, one of the largest school districts in the US, with over 8,000 teachers.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter on April 19, and the Superintendent banned Gaskill on April 21, not because it was unconstitutional, but because he would not be able to pass the criminal background check which was required.
Quick action, but only partially for the right reason.
Wow, they overlooked a criminal background check? That is the epitome of cronyism. Are religious people trying to emulate a mafia? Religion really is the opium of the unpaid college athletes, and the sigh of their oppression that they may find solace in something, even if imaginary.
BTW, your thread title could have been more inflammatory and slyly misleading, like Jeffbase40's usually are. Perhaps "Another Hushed Scandal Demonstrates the Utter Ethical Depravity of Christians."
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,915,464 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Wow, they overlooked a criminal background check? That is the epitome of cronyism. Are religious people trying to emulate a mafia? Religion really is the opium of the unpaid college athletes, and the sigh of their oppression that they may find solace in something, even if imaginary.
BTW, your thread title could have been more inflammatory and slyly misleading, like Jeffbase40's usually are. Perhaps "Another Hushed Scandal Demonstrates the Utter Ethical Depravity of Christians."
I think what amazes me is the number of reports coming out lately of ministers who are convicted felons. It makes one wonder how many more instances are not known about.
I think what amazes me is the number of reports coming out lately of ministers who are convicted felons. It makes one wonder how many more instances are not known about.
I think the whole "redemption" thing, their need for pseudo-rebellious power, their idea that they "relate" more to the common folk, and the search for an "seemingly" ease job to get, has more to do with it then religion. I don't really see an issue with it if they are ex-felons.
Although I'm not sure why such "ministering" would be considered a job "needing" to be payed. I thought they would do it voluntarily for donations if they had so much faith. I guess one hopes for the best too much.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,915,464 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I think the whole "redemption" thing, their need for pseudo-rebellious power, their idea that they "relate" more to the common folk, and the search for an "seemingly" ease job to get, has more to do with it then religion. I don't really see an issue with it if they are ex-felons.
Although I'm not sure why such "ministering" would be considered a job "needing" to be payed. I thought they would do it voluntarily for donations if they had so much faith. I guess one hopes for the best too much.
They are not a poor organization, they took in $109 million dollars last year, paid out $51 million in salaries and another $17 million in staff training and events.
I think what amazes me is the number of reports coming out lately of ministers who are convicted felons. It makes one wonder how many more instances are not known about.
Well, now we know. A criminal record that would prevent them gong any other job can be got around by sending off for a ministers' certificate (1). Of course, that would mean that they are Not Real Christians. Though that wouldn't stop the faithful trying to excuse them, first.
(1) the Rev. J. Huber, author of the classic atheist parable "Kissing Hank's ass" (2) got his reverential title by sending off for it.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,915,464 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Well, now we know. A criminal record that would prevent them gong any other job can be got around by sending off for a ministers' certificate (1). Of course, that would mean that they are Not Real Christians. Though that wouldn't stop the faithful trying to excuse them, first.
(1) the Rev. J. Huber, author of the classic atheist parable "Kissing Hank's ass" (2) got his reverential title by sending off for it.
(2) always someone who didn't see it...required watching.
What is it with felons who see that all they got to do is say they are saved, and find jobs with Christian organizations?
This one, David Gaskill, had unfettered and unconstitutional access to student athletes in the Hillsborough School District in the Tampa Bay area, one of the largest school districts in the US, with over 8,000 teachers.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter on April 19, and the Superintendent banned Gaskill on April 21, not because it was unconstitutional, but because he would not be able to pass the criminal background check which was required.
Quick action, but only partially for the right reason.
So what is the issue that the busybodies at the FFRF needed to get involved?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,915,464 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So what is the issue that the busybodies at the FFRF needed to get involved?
Did you read their letter that is included in the link? They outline it much better than I can encapsulate here. It is a constitutional issue.
From that letter:
The Supreme Court has long held that “the ‘preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 589). The District violates parental trust when it permits outside adults to proselytize its students.
Also it says (and much more which I won't copy, but you can read):
The conduct of the coaches involved is unconstitutional because they are endorsing and promoting their religion when acting in their official capacity as school district employees. Certainly, they represent the school and their teams when they act in their official roles as head coaches of their respective teams. Therefore, they cannot lead their teams in prayer and they cannot allow Mr. Gaskill to lead their team prayer either. When a public school employee acting in an official capacity organizes and advocates for team prayer, he effectively endorses religion on the district’s behalf.
The full letter, which you obviously did not read:
Now, Vizio, you DO support the Constitution, do you not? You wouldn't want any public body to do something against that Constitution, do you? I would have thought you would proudly be supportive of any organization that regularly advises, and if necessary challenge in court, those public bodies that are in violation of either the law or the Constitution.
So why would you be denigrating towards the FFRF?
From their website:
The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Why would you not support the bolded part, although I can see why you might not support the unbolded.
Or would you rather discuss the minister's criminal past?
Did you read their letter that is included in the link? They outline it much better than I can encapsulate here. It is a constitutional issue.
From that letter:
The Supreme Court has long held that “the ‘preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 589). The District violates parental trust when it permits outside adults to proselytize its students.
Also it says (and much more which I won't copy, but you can read):
The conduct of the coaches involved is unconstitutional because they are endorsing and promoting their religion when acting in their official capacity as school district employees. Certainly, they represent the school and their teams when they act in their official roles as head coaches of their respective teams. Therefore, they cannot lead their teams in prayer and they cannot allow Mr. Gaskill to lead their team prayer either. When a public school employee acting in an official capacity organizes and advocates for team prayer, he effectively endorses religion on the district’s behalf.
The full letter, which you obviously did not read:
Now, Vizio, you DO support the Constitution, do you not? You wouldn't want any public body to do something against that Constitution, do you? I would have thought you would proudly be supportive of any organization that regularly advises, and if necessary challenge in court, those public bodies that are in violation of either the law or the Constitution.
So why would you be denigrating towards the FFRF?
From their website:
The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Why would you not support the bolded part, although I can see why you might not support the unbolded.
Or would you rather discuss the minister's criminal past?
I'm sorry...the opinions of the busybodies at the FFRF are not the basis by which we judge the constitutionality of something. I have no reason to believe they understand what the Constitution says on the issue of religion and 1st Amendmnet rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
