How about this for First Amendment equal rights for all persons: Yes, he has a right to his religious beliefs and to speak of them on his own time and on his own email system or whatever, but he doesn’t have the right to speak his religion while at work at the AF Academy while being paid with taxpayer dollars to work.
Our HR dept had a workshop on this matter, and his speaking his beliefs to others at work while on the government time clock is constituted as HARASSMENT! If I don’t want to listen to the religious garbage while I am at work, then it is my right not to have to hear it. If he wants to preach, then he can stand on a corner, go door to door, get a blog, or volunteer to preach at Church instead of trying to force his beliefs on others. Does that seem fair according to our US Constitution? I think so.
The challenge faced in "busting" one bureaucracy out of its mold is "busting" other bureaucracies supporting it out of their molds as well.
One of the best ways to implement change is to rethink, modify and/or dissolve some of the incestuous relationships existing among bureaucracies and the institutions/people supporting them.
Holding a public forum is only worthwhile if the opinions and ideas expressed by the public are seriously considered. To hold a public forum gratuitously is a waste of precious time and resources. Somehow I have the feeling that a public forum regarding any arts organization in this town would be a waste of time.
Edison elementary is going to be sued due to faulsification. I will go above everybody and i have an excellent lawyer to help me to make sure the issue is solved or the participant parties are fired. I have the means to go very far. I have voice recordings i have proof want to contact me 719-464-1573
Mikey erect another billboard to solicit funds for the MRFF. I wonder how many MRFF contributors know that $300K of the $500K MRFF annual budget of MRFF goes into his pocket. I think Mikey is showing his followers who has the higher IQ!
Fine. Let us see how welcoming the gentleman would be to the performance of a Heathen Blot and Sumbel. I am sure he would have an apoplexy. Several surveys have shown that extreme religious fundamentals have lower iq's than there more liberal counterparts.
@Those saying this violates Lemon vs Kurtzman (1971):
Where does it say in Allen's email that he would force religion and religious conversations on his co-workers? If this was sent from a personal email while Allen was NOT working how does it violate Lemon vs Kurtzman (1971)? If this violates Lemon vs Kurtzman (1971) even though he was not working, how doesn't it violate his first amendment rights?
Really, this is much ado about nothing because somebody said something that somebody else doesn't agree with.
P.S. Can anybody show me where in the Lemon vs Kurtzman (1971) ruling that government employees are not allowed to discuss religion on their personal time?
Religious freedom is endangers whenever a government agency through its employees pushes one religion, or on denomination of a religion during government business. Freedom of religion requires that the government take a neutral stance on all religions. Our forefathers purposely did not mention Christianity in either the Declaration of Independence, nor in the Constitution.
They did not have a religious test for office holding, knowing full eel this might allow atheists, Pagans an even Muslims to hold office. As they stated they could not know what might be their religion of a future United States and there fore could not bind the country to any single region.
Freedom of religion includes the right to believe in no religion at all. Unfortunately we have a minority of Christian Domminonists that would like to end religious freedom in our country. They would like to be able to use the weapons of our military to wage a Christian war on non-Christians around the world. It is their rise in our military that has created most of the religious harassment that has developed in the military over the last 30 years. They have been the source of religious harassment in the Air Force Academy for several years, and still continue their war on everyone else.
The intelligence of the founding fathers is probably 50-80 points higher than most of the liberals bleating about this being a violation of church and state, YET the constitution was written by these intelligent men, who saw the need to protect religious freedom.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So although many people don't have the intellectual capacity to understand a higher power or religious beliefs. Others more intelligent do believe.
maybe this guy would like a burst of emails and voice mails telling about about another religion and atheist beliefs. see it isn't the fact that he's doing it but the fact NOONE WANTS TO HEAR IT......
You are very much incorrect, it is illegal for a government employee to push his religion on anyone while doing a government job. Why is it that only some Christians seem to think they have a right to shove their religion on everyone else. this as form of spiritual harassment and not only is done to non Christian people in the Air force but is even used against the Christian majority who do not do this to their fellows. Remember that most of the MRFF are themselves Christians and they are the one's complaining about threats like this. Most of the complaints from the Air Force Academy to MRFF have come from Christian cadets and Christian workers at the Air Force Academy. I am sorry but Christian bullies do not have any special right to break the law.
@krutawn: As a US Government employee Mr. Willoughby is in direct violation of US Supreme Court decision Lemon Vs. Kurzman (1971). This is case law which has been addended to the US Constitution and is currently relating to the First Amendment.
General Johnson is complicit in this by not exercising supervisory control over her subordinates.
In response to richardbk8, I am confused why you take issue to this matter. Allen Willoughby has in no way violated any military or Air Force regulations. Furthermore, the only actions taken by Allen Willoughby were in an email to the MRFF. While the email certainly enraged those at the MRFF, Allen Willoughby broke no laws by doing so. Maybe you should look at what actually happened. Even the MRFF doesn't claim anything illegal happened, they are just upset that someone at the Ari Force Academy is being public about their personal religion. That isn't illegal, though the MRFF has been fighting it for years.
It is amazing to me that a man of sufficient secular intelligence to advance to a high position at the Air Force Academy, subscribes to such a captive and primitive form of religion. I suppose that explains a lot when my mind wonders how anyone could be so adamant about proselytizing his faith that it violates the constitutional and regulatory aspects governing such matters. I am disappointed that the Superintendant, Gen. Johnson took no corrective action especially when the AFA has been the source of many religious infractions. I am sure the Military Religios Freedom Foundation will pursue this matter to a satidfactory conclusion. For your information, Willoughby is in direct violation of US Supreme Court decision, Lemon Vs. Kurzman (1971) in which the court ruled that the government, including Public Education and the Armed Forces may not recommend, promote, favor or proselytize one religion over another or religion over non-religion.
Maybe, now, the point will finally be clear to those in command. If not, I'm sure there's more where this came from.
Thanks so much for highlighting Teachout's commentary and so smartly posing the challenges we face at the FAC. I see this as a moment for exactly this kind of discussion.
Why don't we -- the FAC and The Indy -- take this discussion to the next level?
How about co-hosting some public forums on the possibilities? What can we do to bring more excitement and life to the FAC? In particular, how do we engage that babyboomer crowd?
I do think we need to be more audience-centric, while acknowledging that the most valuable things our directors and curators bring is their own specific taste and expertise. Focus groups that try to get at what people want usually tend to ignore the fact that arts audiences, like newspaper readers, don't just want programming that's been focus-grouped to death. They want surprise and delight, and the stuff that's not on the menu.
Still, it would be tremendously valuable to look for ways to create more significant community and audience connections.
What do you think?
Heey...let's stop...hait'n. All art is good becase, c'mon, we're all soo good & shi*t. I love you guys. I love aret, too, bitches. It'so all super distracting, but in a good way. Like love. Art is good: shaddup if yoo a haitah!
lol keep thinking we cant do anything and nothing will be done. we arnt finished yet, round two starts Monday.
The difference between "exhibiting" a great painting & "connecting audiences" with a great painting doesn't exist outside of speeches like Ben's. Is this a true distinction? An aesthetically pleasing false distinction for the current audience, possibly? The real problem is this: we hold fast to the idea that CULTURE is an inalienable right, like mail delivery. This is something we inherited from Europe. From an aristocratic culture, for whom high art always ever was, is, & will be for. This democratic culture has no need for art distinct from the mass media. Why would we be interested in "art"? & Why SHOULD we be interested in "art'? For the job security of specialists? Museums are trying to stay relevant to democratic tastes, which is absurd & bound to fail.
Is it the mission of a healthy art institution to accommodate the putative, changing taste of the public? Or should these art institutions conserve the artistic achievements of the past in order to educate a contemporary audience? The second option isn't as sexy as the first, obviously, but a museum isn't a contemporary art gallery (Adam Lerner may not agree). Floyd Tunson's "Son of Pop" was a powerful show due in large part to the art history that, not only his work referenced, but the context of the exhibit itself embodied - The Fine Arts Center. In a coffee shop or a commercial gallery, Tunson's work would have lost some of its capacity to dialogue with & critique a rich and complex art history that, were it not for art institutions like the Fine Arts Center, would disappear under a wave of changing popular tastes & technologies.
While I agree with his sentiment and am 100% for legalization. What is really going to happen is that 1 or 2 shops will be allowed to open that are owned by the people who have paid the council the most money and they will have a monopoly. I would totally support this is anyone who had the funds to comply with all regulations and the ability to pass all criminal checks was allowed to open a shop and compete in teh open market, however this is not the case and sickens me to support monopolization. Doesn't matter because in the end Monsanto will control everything anyway.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation