Religion

Conservative St. Thomas law students back dean in Planned Parenthood flap

Filed under: Religion

Yesterday, we reported that Thomas Mengler, dean of St. Thomas' law school, barred students from volunteering at Planned Parenthood for school credit. His actions prompted 80 St. Thomas law students to sign an open letter to him decrying the decision.

In response, a rival faction of students is circulating a pro-dean letter through the school's Christian Legal Society. Among other things, these students encourage their classmates to support the dean "in order to demonstrate that, even though we might respectfully disagree with his decisions from time to time, we support him nonetheless, since he knows, better than anyone else, what is in UST Law’s best interests."

Read the full letter after the jump.

Dear Fellow Classmates at UST Law,

By now you are all probably aware of the controversy that has surrounded the recent decision of the Public Service Board (PSB) in approving service hours at Planned Parenthood and Dean Mengler’s decision to overturn this action of the PSB. It is not the purpose of this letter to rebut each of the arguments that the “Open Letter to Dean Mengler Regarding the Recent Public Service Board Decision” (“Open Letter”) sets forward. Dean Mengler has made his decision and that decision is final—it is not our place to fly to his defense.

Contrary to the premise of the “Open Letter,” the issue at stake is not our “due process rights,” the limits of the Dean’s authority, the autonomy of student organizations, or any past precedent that has been set by the University of St. Thomas. Indeed, this controversy is about more than counting service hours at Planned Parenthood—the real issue at stake here is this: What does the University of St. Thomas School of Law mean when it calls itself “a Catholic law school” —more pointedly, what does Catholic Identity mean for UST Law?

It is obvious that this is a very important question, and worthy of discussion. It is equally obvious that this is the wrong time to have that discussion, since we are all in the throes of our final exams and papers. We simply don’t have the time to hold a fair and extended dialog right now.

The purpose of this letter is to make it known to the entire law school community – students, faculty, and staff – that there are many students at the law school who have voiced concerned about the integrity of UST Law’s “Catholic identity.” We believe there are many more students who agree with the Dean’s decision, and we hope they will join their voices with ours.

Two weeks ago, Pope Benedict XVI visited the United States for the first time since his papacy began in 2005. During his time in Washington, D.C., he spoke to the presidents of Catholic colleges and universities in the United States. Our very own Father Dease was present at this event and highly recommends that we read the Pope’s address. Pope Benedict discussed the issue of Catholic Identity:

A university or school’s Catholic identity is not simply a question of the number of Catholic students. It is a question of conviction – do we really believe that only in the mystery of the Word made flesh does the mystery of man truly become clear (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22)? Are we ready to commit our entire self – intellect and will, mind and heart – to God? Do we accept the truth Christ reveals? Is the faith tangible in our universities and schools? Is it given fervent expression liturgically, sacramentally, through prayer, acts of charity, a concern for justice, and respect for God’s creation? Only in this way do we really bear witness to the meaning of who we are and what we uphold.

The Pope raised a number of issues that are worth thinking about in this discussion of our identity as a Catholic law school. Unfortunately, the Open Letter (whether its authors realized it or not) is asking the student body to take a premature and uninformed stance about UST Law’s identity without taking into adequate consideration the viewpoints and interests held by students on all sides of this issue.

THEREFORE, we ask those who oppose Dean Mengler’s decision – both those who wrote the Open Letter and those who signed it – to wait with us to discuss these issues until after finals are over. There is simply not enough time to give this issue the attention that it deserves at the busiest time in the semester. We propose that it is best to wait until the beginning of next semester, when we will all have time (at least, more time) to have an open, honest, and informed dialogue—a forum where all of our interests can be voiced and defended.

If you wish to support the idea that we all wait until next semester to resolve this vital issue of UST Law’s Catholic Identity, then please send an email to [address removed] with the word “yes” at your earliest convenience. Please show your support for the Dean in order to demonstrate that, even though we might respectfully disagree with his decisions from time to time, we support him nonetheless, since he knows, better than anyone else, what is in UST Law’s best interests.

Best wishes and God bless with all of your final exams. Consider these last words, taken from Pope Benedict XVI’s address to Catholic Educators:

“Teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church's Magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom. Divergence from this vision weakens Catholic identity and, far from advancing freedom, inevitably leads to confusion, whether moral, intellectual or spiritual.”

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[3 students]

Posted by Jonathan Kaminsky at April 30, 2008 10:58 AM | Comments (17)

 

God: 1, Guns: 0

Filed under: Religion

Today Rochelle Olson wrote an article for the Strib covering a decision by the state Court of Appeals that will allow churches to ban guns on their premises (something, unless I'm mistaken, they could already do). But the article goes on to say:

A three-judge ruling written by Judge David Minge also said the churches aren't required to post signs banning handguns as many other places do. The court also said the churches can ban guns in their parking lots.

The article doesn't get into legal specifics much, other than saying the Court claimed that letting churches out of the requirements didn't constitute a breach of State/Church separation, something I'm in complete agreement with, since it didn't favor any one religion over another.

But I'm interested by legal specifics (they're especially fun if you have no formal training in law, like me) and am a mild 2nd-Amendment supporter, so I thought I'd dig into the 32-page decision.

First, a review: The Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act requires private establishments to provide one of two notifications to peeps coming into their property, if they don't want MCPPA-permitted pistol-carriers to carry inside.

1. A sign, made to a very specific set of legislated requirements and featuring a very specific, legislated message, the gist of which is, "Don't carry your pistol in here." The signs must be at every entrance to the establishment.

or

2. An agent of the establishment needs to personally inform each MCPPA-permitted pistol-carrier entering the building/parking lot, etc. that the establishment bans guns.

Even after these requirements are satisfied, a permit-holder can still carry onto the property without committing a crime. Only after they have been identified as a pistol-carrier and asked to leave the property by an "agent of the establishment," and then refuse to leave the property, can they be charged (at first offense, a $25 fine).

The decision exempts churches from 1 and 2. But they still have to order an offender off their property before a misdemeanor can be applied. But why and how did they get out of 1 and 2? From the decision:

"Minnesota courts employ a heightened "compelling state interest balancing test" when determining whether a challenged law infringes on or interferes with religious practices."

This test is supposed to determine whether a law (in this case, the MCPPA) is interfering with religious practices, because Minnesota's Constitution values freedom of religion at an even higher level than does the US Constitution.

The test involves four "prongs," or questions that must be answered. Three of these are fairly boring and uncontested, so let's skip to the interesting one:

2. Is there an undue burden on the exercise of religion?

The churches argue that there is, because (and I'm paraphrasing here):

1. Having people carry pistols on their property violates their religious principles of peacefulness.
2. Putting up state-sponsored signage or informing each of their visitors of their gun ban violates their religious principles of being welcoming to all.

The contrarian in me wants to point out that if they were really dedicated to being welcoming, they'd welcome folks who pack. And that putting up signage doesn't really make people feel any less welcome. Unless they're carrying a pistol. In which case they're not welcome. See the circle of illogic?

But I guess I can shrug at this one: I really don't have a problem with people not being able to carry their pistols into churches; the MCPPA already specifically bans guns in schools and courthouses. And since the principle at work was one specific to religious practice, it can't snowball into keeping pistol-carriers out of every private business.

Besides, the dedicated conceal-carrier can still pack in a church without breaking the law, as long as you're willing to skedaddle once the pastor spots your ankle holster.

Posted by Ward Rubrecht at February 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Comments (1)

 

Thy Neighbor's House on TV

Filed under: Religion

KSTP has picked up our story about the expansion-minded Holy Family Catholic Church in St. Louis Park. According to the TV station's report, Father Dufner said the church is looking to expand across the street from the block discussed in our article. No word, though, on what he plans to do with the two vacant houses the church owns/controls on the block.

Posted by Jonathan Kaminsky at October 23, 2007 11:51 PM | Comments (1)

 

U of M conducts ruthless persecution of Baha'i

Filed under: Religion

The drunk-vs.-stoned softball contest--that perennial college showdown--has a new variant: the agnostics vs. the atheists. The former, according to an April Minnesota Daily survey, outnumber the latter two-to-one on the U of M Twin Cities campus. The study, which polled 799 undergrads, graduate students, staff, and faculty, found that 14.9 percent identify their "current religious or belief system" as "agnostic"; 7.5 percent 'fessed up that they're not waiting for Santa Claus (the poll calls them "atheist.")

Curiously, only 3.7 percent of U of M students and staff reported having grown up in a godless home. It would seem that the University of Minnesota is responsible for shaking the faith of almost a fifth of its campus community. No data were available on precisely which course convinced students that the universe is a cold and utterly lonely place. May we suggest statistics?

Another April, 2006 study, by U of M associate professor of sociology Penny Edgell, found that only 3 percent of the U.S. population own up to being atheists. The study also found that most Americans revile these individuals as self-interested and a theat to shared morality and civil society. Potential advertising slogan for the American Atheists: "At Least We're Not Child Molesters.")

That level of loathing is nothing compared to the acute persecution suffered by the university's Baha'i caucus. So oppressive is their lot, it would seem, that a mere .25 percent can be found cowering anywhere near Coffman Memorial Union. Doubling their numbers are worshipers of Goldie the Gopher--that is, believers in "animism/shamanism."

Posted by Michael Tortorello at June 14, 2006 12:08 PM | Comments (8)

 

Random acts of kindness slated for MSP in 2007

Filed under: Religion

The Acts 1:8 Ministry, based out of Green Bay, Wisconsin, recently received a $30,000 grant to expand their work to Milwaukee, and plan to open a regional office in Minneapolis/St. Paul next year. According to their website, Acts 1:8's mission is to "create a culture for Christians to care, share, and connect people to Christ worldwide through Christian kindness." Recent acts have included 99-cent gallons of gas at the Stadium Shell on Lombardi Access for two hours one Saturday afternoon, and serving 200 kolaches at the Green Bay Farmers Market. Jeff Van Beaver, chairman of the Board of Evangelism at Pilgrim Lutheran Church states, "One image about church is that we're a lot of talk, but no action. We want to show that it is possible to get something for nothing and expect nothing in return." Speculation that Zigi Wilf has inquired about stadium giveaways is unfounded.

Posted by Corey Anderson at May 22, 2006 10:15 AM | Comments (0)