Ernest Jones resigns

[whaler11]

Not that I don't enjoy pictures of pretty girls, but it's fairly ironic to attempt to change the topic from the potential alienation of people by potentially alienating a different group of people.

 

[businesslawyer]

All due respect Jimmy, but if Coach Jones did not resign on his own accord, it could get really ugly for UConn, more so than it already has. Religion is a protected class and if the University "forced" him out, he has grounds for a wrongful termination suit, regardless of how he was separated. Hostile work environment can apply to religion just as much as it can to s*xual harassment. That is why I have no reason not to take Coach Diaco and President Herbst at their respective words and the two incidents are unrelated. I really hope it doesn't play out like that. At the end of the day, Coach Jones has to be comfortable with his actions.

It may also be irresponsible to even speculate as such, lest it draws unrelated advocates to Northeast Connecticut that don't really belong there.

No. Sorry. The legal analysis there is way off. Religion being a protected class means that the school can not discriminate against an employee for their religion beliefs. That is totally different than prevening the employee from using his position granted by the State to convey religious messages to others.

BUT NOW WE'RE TOTALLY MISSTATING LEGAL THEORIES TO FIT FACTS THAT WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO THINK EXIST.

 

[Husky25]

hjjj009-0

No. Sorry. The legal analysis there is way off. Religion being a protected class means that the school can not discriminate against an employee for their religion beliefs. That is totally different than protecting the employee from using his position granted by the State to convey religious messages to others.

BUT NOW WE'RE TOTALLY MISSTATING LEGAL THEORIES TO FIT FACTS THAT WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO THINK EXIST.

Thx BL. I took two BL classes in college and passed the CPA exam so I will certainly defer to your expertise. It seemed reasonable at the time.

Be that as it may, I really have no choice but to continue to take Coach Diaco and President Herbst at their respective words that the two events are unrelated. I also continue to think Mr. Zone is irresponsible to use his platform to make insinuations without support.

 

[upstater]

When did this new Alcorn St. information come out? Was it recent?

About the cold weather stuff, he was coaching at Buffalo and South Bend prior so I doubt this had anything to do with snow.

 

[huskymedic]

When did this new Alcorn St. information come out? Was it recent?

He was let go end of 2008... old news. Familiar HBCU power struggle.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The Constitution does not shield anyone from discomfort. It does however, tell public bodies that certain rights are guaranteed to you as a shield from government actions in certain ways. Freedom from the creation of a state religion is among them, and what constitutes the "state" fostering a particular religion has been fairly broadly constructed.

Courts exist to decide what conduct with public money violates those protections. For non public conduct, courts also exist to tell private citizens when they have done something to someone that requires compensation or the cessation of the conduct. Nothing prevents outright shunning or non-protected exclusion from private socials activities

How does the representatives of the state university requesting that broadcasting networks reschedule a football game to 7pm on Yom Kippur, therefore clearly acting in a way that favors a particular religion fit into all of this?

As far as I can tell, based on the spouting of opinions here, the only difference is that nobody wrote a letter to the editor, and that's hypocritical. In know there are a lot of Jewish folks in CT, but they all seem to be quiet on this issue. THis coach, clearly crossed a line, and it was addressed. It was a matter of words, and potential behavior - potential - that was halted. The university officials, actually did schedule a football game at an odd time, that did not work well for me, because of Yom Kippur last year though.

Yom Kippur, I believe falls on the first weekend of October this year - and if we get a home game, which would probably be homecoming - it better not be scheduled at 7pm as far as I'm concerned, because that, to me, is the state institution operating in a way that favors a particular religion.

 

[businesslawyer]

How does the representatives of the state university requesting that broadcasting networks reschedule a football game to 7pm on Yom Kippur, therefore clearly acting in a way that favors a particular religion fit into all of this?

As far as I can tell, based on the spouting of opinions here, the only difference is that nobody wrote a letter to the editor, and that's hypocritical. In know there are a lot of Jewish folks in CT, but they all seem to be quiet on this issue. THis coach, clearly crossed a line, and it was addressed. It was a matter of words, and potential behavior - potential - that was halted. The university officials, actually did schedule a football game at an odd time, that did not work well for me, because of Yom Kippur last year though.



Yom Kippur, I believe falls on the first weekend of October this year - and if we get a home game, which would probably be homecoming - it better not be scheduled at 7pm as far as I'm concerned, because that, to me, is the state institution operating in a way that favors a particular religion.

Obviously, you are entitled to whatever opinion you want. But it's long settled law that states are allowed to look at religious holidays and make scheduling decisions around them without running aground of the establishment clause.

It's fine to have your opinion, but please dont fall into the Fox News syndrome of believing that just because you have one means there is an unsettled or seriously debatable constitutional issue.

 

[upstater]

How does the representatives of the state university requesting that broadcasting networks reschedule a football game to 7pm on Yom Kippur, therefore clearly acting in a way that favors a particular religion fit into all of this?

As far as I can tell, based on the spouting of opinions here, the only difference is that nobody wrote a letter to the editor, and that's hypocritical. In know there are a lot of Jewish folks in CT, but they all seem to be quiet on this issue. THis coach, clearly crossed a line, and it was addressed. It was a matter of words, and potential behavior - potential - that was halted. The university officials, actually did schedule a football game at an odd time, that did not work well for me, because of Yom Kippur last year though.

Yom Kippur, I believe falls on the first weekend of October this year - and if we get a home game, which would probably be homecoming - it better not be scheduled at 7pm as far as I'm concerned, because that, to me, is the state institution operating in a way that favors a particular religion.

So we're not supposed to make allowances for people of faith anymore? Especially for people who are forbidden by religion from attending an event? That's harsh.

If Herbst had really pulled a Jones, she would have said, "At this school, Judaism is front and center. If you're not at temple that day, you are not putting education first."

 

[Husky25]

How does the representatives of the state university requesting that broadcasting networks reschedule a football game to 7pm on Yom Kippur, therefore clearly acting in a way that favors a particular religion fit into all of this?

As far as I can tell, based on the spouting of opinions here, the only difference is that nobody wrote a letter to the editor, and that's hypocritical. In know there are a lot of Jewish folks in CT, but they all seem to be quiet on this issue. THis coach, clearly crossed a line, and it was addressed. It was a matter of words, and potential behavior - potential - that was halted. The university officials, actually did schedule a football game at an odd time, that did not work well for me, because of Yom Kippur last year though.

Yom Kippur, I believe falls on the first weekend of October this year - and if we get a home game, which would probably be homecoming - it better not be scheduled at 7pm as far as I'm concerned, because that, to me, is the state institution operating in a way that favors a particular religion.

Or it's a state institution finding a way within their control to maximize attendance revenue and TV veiwership. If it happens to accommodate a certain sect of people, so be it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Obviously, you are entitled to whatever opinion you want. But it's long settled law that states are allowed to look at religious holidays and make scheduling decisions around them without running aground of the establishment clause.

It's fine to have your opinion, but please dont fall into the Fox News syndrome of believing that just because you have one means there is an unsettled or seriously debatable constitutional issue.

I'm not a lawyer, and don't patronize me with the Fox News crap. Please, direct me to where I can read about the law you cite. I would appreciate it, because it's not something I'm familiar with. This entire discussion is incredibly annoying to me. I've met and dealt with people of pretty much any and all religious faiths around the world, and the hypocrisy that exists among people that feel the need to share their religious opinions with others is a fundamental common bond, whether it be in violence or words. I like the Emo Philips schtick somebody put up before - it's perfect.

What do you think would have happened in Mississippi, had an Ole Miss game been moved to 7pm because of Yom Kippur? You think it would have been brushed over without a hitch? No way. The difference is culture. Not law. Laws can be changed and revised and debated. The reason the Yom Kippur scheduling thing, which was discussed in the papers, was a non-issue in CT, is because there are a lot of Jews in Connecticut, and the culture in CT, people are generally tolerant of religious differences in CT, except for evangelical Christianity - which you yourself bring up with the Fox News reference.

Evangelical Christianity is a difficult one, much like certain brands of islam, and Mormonism for that matter, among others, because the basic tenets of the religious beliefs involve a mission to convert others. But it still can be tolerated, and doesn't need to be vilified.

I would appreciate a reference to some text on the long established law you cite. .

 

[Carl Spackler]

Or it's a state institution finding a way within their control to maximize attendance revenue and TV veiwership. If it happens to accommodate a certain sect of people, so be it.

I agree, but if somebody wrote a letter to the editor, talking about how the state was acting in a way favoring a particular religion...........I've just learned that laws exist that allow for this kind of thing though, I'm curious to read them.

 

[UCHuskies08]

I'm not a lawyer, and don't patronize me with the Fox News crap. Please, direct me to where I can read about the law you cite. I would appreciate it, because it's not something I'm familiar with. This entire discussion is incredibly annoying to me. I've met and dealt with people of pretty much any and all religious faiths around the world, and the hypocrisy that exists among people that feel the need to share their religious opinions with others is a fundamental common bond, whether it be in violence or words. I like the Emo Philips schtick somebody put up before - it's perfect.

What do you think would have happened in Mississippi, had an Ole Miss game been moved to 7pm because of Yom Kippur? You think it would have been brushed over without a hitch? No way. The difference is culture. Not law. Laws can be changed and revised and debated. The reason the Yom Kippur scheduling thing, which was discussed in the papers, was a non-issue in CT, is because there are a lot of Jews in Connecticut, and the culture in CT, people are generally tolerant of religious differences in CT, except for evangelical Christianity - which you yourself bring up with the Fox News reference.

Evangelical Christianity is a difficult one, much like certain brands of islam, and Mormonism for that matter, among others, because the basic tenets of the religious beliefs involve a mission to convert others. But it still can be tolerated, and doesn't need to be vilified.

I would appreciate a reference to some text on the long established law you cite. .

1% of the CT population is Jewish

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Obviously, you are entitled to whatever opinion you want. But it's long settled law that states are allowed to look at religious holidays and make scheduling decisions around them without running aground of the establishment clause.

It's fine to have your opinion, but please dont fall into the Fox News syndrome of believing that just because you have one means there is an unsettled or seriously debatable constitutional issue.

I'm no lawyer and I don't believe in any God. But I think Carl's point, while it may or may not relate to the establishment clause, is one of common sense and hypocrisy on the part of the school. I do think there would've been some backlash if the school made accomodations for a Christian holiday. Me personally, I don't care either way.

But if the school is not going to tolerate a coach talking about in the huddle, they shouldn't be making decisions to specifically accomodate a particular religion when it comes to scheduling games.

 

[Carl Spackler]

1% of the CT population is Jewish

I don' t know that to be fact, but assuming it is - then a game was moved to accommodate 1% of the population. In that case, if that number is true, it's incredibly hard to make the conclusion that moving the game was in the best interest of generating ticket sales in the state of Connecticut.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm not a lawyer, and don't patronize me with the Fox News crap. Please, direct me to where I can read about the law you cite. I would appreciate it, because it's not something I'm familiar with. This entire discussion is incredibly annoying to me. I've met and dealt with people of pretty much any and all religious faiths around the world, and the hypocrisy that exists among people that feel the need to share their religious opinions with others is a fundamental common bond, whether it be in violence or words. I like the Emo Philips schtick somebody put up before - it's perfect.

What do you think would have happened in Mississippi, had an Ole Miss game been moved to 7pm because of Yom Kippur? You think it would have been brushed over without a hitch? No way. The difference is culture. Not law. Laws can be changed and revised and debated. The reason the Yom Kippur scheduling thing, which was discussed in the papers, was a non-issue in CT, is because there are a lot of Jews in Connecticut, and the culture in CT, people are generally tolerant of religious differences in CT, except for evangelical Christianity - which you yourself bring up with the Fox News reference.

Evangelical Christianity is a difficult one, much like certain brands of islam, and Mormonism for that matter, among others, because the basic tenets of the religious beliefs involve a mission to convert others. But it still can be tolerated, and doesn't need to be vilified.

I would appreciate a reference to some text on the long established law you cite. .

I'll have a serious debate with you if you raise a serious question. If you want to have a serious question, ask why it's legal for schools to be closed on Christmas.

 

[upstater]

Evangelical Christianity is a difficult one, much like certain brands of islam, and Mormonism for that matter, among others, because the basic tenets of the religious beliefs involve a mission to convert others. But it still can be tolerated, and doesn't need to be vilified.

I would appreciate a reference to some text on the long established law you cite. .

How does Connecticut, or UConn, discriminate against Evangelicals?

 

[upstater]

I'm no lawyer and I don't believe in any God. But I think Carl's point, while it may or may not relate to the establishment clause, is one of common sense and hypocrisy on the part of the school. I do think there would've been some backlash if the school made accomodations for a Christian holiday. Me personally, I don't care either way.

But if the school is not going to tolerate a coach talking about in the huddle, they shouldn't be making decisions to specifically accomodate a particular religion when it comes to scheduling games.

There is a world of difference between accommodating people of faith and stating is central to what goes on in the huddle.

One is an example of accommodation, the other an example of compulsion.

A huge difference. They can't be equated.

 

[upstater]

This issue of Yom Kippur came up recently in a debate about religious holidays. The trend now is to get rid of them (all except for Christmas and Easter) at universities. The objections were to the fact that certain students are compelled by their religion not to attend classes. This is different from Ramadan which requires fasting (students attend those classes). When you're forbidden from attending, that creates a whole other situation, so accommodation is a consideration.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm no lawyer and I don't believe in any God. But I think Carl's point, while it may or may not relate to the establishment clause, is one of common sense and hypocrisy on the part of the school. I do think there would've been some backlash if the school made accomodations for a Christian holiday. Me personally, I don't care either way.

But if the school is not going to tolerate a coach talking about in the huddle, they shouldn't be making decisions to specifically accomodate a particular religion when it comes to scheduling games.

There is a difference there Jimmy. What Coach Jones said to the reporter was inappropriate without a doubt for an employee of a state institution. It made it to press, and made headlines. What's more important, is the way the university representatives reacted. There was no need for Herbst to make the public statement that she made, and I agree, that if the representatives of the state university are going to get involved publicly in this kind of thing, they need to be consistent, and I do think that if you're going to be making statements like what was made publicly, it is hypocritical, when in the past, a decision like the scheduling of that Maryland game, was made around Yom Kippur.

The problem I'm running into , with thinking about this whole thing, has nothing to do with Coach Jones really, and more to do with how the university handled it publicly. The more I think about it, it's just hypocritical. I would bet my house that the writer of letter to the editor that Herbst responded to, had no idea that a football game had been moved to accommodate a particular religion and which one.

 

[Waquoit]

There was no need for Herbst to make the public statement that she made,

Yeah, there was. If you can't understand why, you should step away from the debate.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm no lawyer and I don't believe in any God. But I think Carl's point, while it may or may not relate to the establishment clause, is one of common sense and hypocrisy on the part of the school. I do think there would've been some backlash if the school made accomodations for a Christian holiday. Me personally, I don't care either way.

But if the school is not going to tolerate a coach talking about in the huddle, they shouldn't be making decisions to specifically accomodate a particular religion when it comes to scheduling games.

BTW: I do agree that if for some reason, a game were moved due to a conflict with a Christian holiday, there would have been significant backlash in Connecticut from the people that like to give such kind of backlash.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm no lawyer and I don't believe in any God. But I think Carl's point, while it may or may not relate to the establishment clause, is one of common sense and hypocrisy on the part of the school. I do think there would've been some backlash if the school made accomodations for a Christian holiday. Me personally, I don't care either way.

If the school is not going to tolerate a coach talking about in the huddle, they shouldn't be making decisions to specifically accomodate a particular religion when it comes to scheduling games.

Sorry, but it's laughable to believe that governments don't make accomodations for Christmas. They are allowed to and it's appropriate.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Yeah, there was. If you can't understand why, you should step away from the debate.

No, there was not. The Jesus in the huddle thing, is something that should have been addressed by superiors behind closed doors, and the public statement made by the man himself, with same reporter that started the thing.

 

[upstater]

No, there was not. The Jesus in the huddle thing, is something that should have been addressed by superiors behind closed doors, and the public statement made by the man himself, with same reporter that started the thing.

If the President isn't protecting the university from lawsuits, then she isn't doing her job.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'll have a serious debate with you if you raise a serious question. If you want to have a serious question, ask why it's legal for schools to be closed on Christmas.

That's an easy one. Why is it legal that schools closed on Christmas? It's not. But it's common practice nationwide, because there are a lot more children in the United States that are raised with a Christianity based belief system, than any other, and Christmas morning is when Christian children get to open presents from Kris Kringle, otherwise known as Santa Claus. He lives at the north pole with a whole bunch of elves, and travels around the world delivering toys to Christian children on Christmas eve. It's all done with magic dust.

But should anyone try to enforce the law, the political backlash would be highly detrimental to those that like to collect paychecks as elected officials.