Mr. Rebates

Thursday, December 16, 2010

U.S. and N.Y. State Sued for Aiding Feminism at Columbia University

A federal class-action lawsuit filed on December 13th accuses the U.S. Department of Education and N.Y. State Regents of violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.  The Regents require that Columbia University and other colleges in New York operate in accordance with the modern-day religion “Feminism,” and both the Regents and U.S. Department of Education partially finance Columbia’s Institute for Research on Women and Gender Studies, which proselytizes the belief-system Feminism.

The U.S. Supreme Court and five federal courts of appeals do not require a god-centered belief-system in order to forbid the aiding of religion by federal or state governments.  Legally, religion exists when moral and ethical precepts are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.

N.Y. City attorney Roy Den Hollander brought the action after the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out his prior lawsuit alleging thatColumbia discriminated against men by only having a Women’s Studies program.  In that case, the Second Circuit ruled that any harm caused men by the lack of a Men’s Studies program was “speculative.”  Strange that the federal courts don’t say the same about the lack of a girls’ sports team when a college only has a guys’ team.  Apparently the law is adjudicated one way under Title IX for girls and another way for guys.

The Second Circuit also dismissed the prior case claim that N.Y. and the U.S. aided the religion Feminism because the plaintiff did not show the obvious—that he has taxpayer status under the law.
In this second suit, Den Hollander states the obvious—four times—and provides an abundance of plausible allegations that Feminism is a religion and is promoted and financed by the State and federal government at Columbia in violation of the Establishment Clause.

This second case does not allege any Title IX or equal protection violations because men, the disposable sex, have no rights whenever they might interfere with the preferential treatment of females.

Read entire Judgment here.

No comments:

Post a Comment