BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST FEMINIST- THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE THE ISSUES/ THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ISLAM, "ILL SUE, ON A LEGAL NOTE, BY CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS," ADDED TO YOUTUBE PLAYLIST "CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS POLITICAL NEWSLETTER BIBLE PROPHECY TIMES EDITION UPDATES

http://youtu.be/jRATktKyT50

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY WITHDRAWS HONORARY DEGREE FROM WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST AYAAN HIRSI ALI CITING HER OPEN REBUKE OF ISLAM FOR VIOLATIONS OF WOMEN'S RIGHT AS VIOLATING THEIR CORE VALUES.

A UNIVERSITY RECEIVING STATE FUNDS CAN NOT CLAIM "CORE VALUES," A RELIGIOUS LEGAL CLAIM, AS IT WOULD ESTABLISH THE UNIVERSITY AS ADHERING TO THAT RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, WHICH WOULD VIOLATE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, 

STATE ENDORSEMENT OF THAT RELIGION, IN THIS CASE THAT OF ISLAM. THIS UNIVERSITY CAN NOT IMPEDE ONE'S "LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE THE ISSUE," AS UPHELD BY THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT WHEN OVERTURNING THE HATE SPEECH LAWS. THE LEGAL RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS DEBATE ON ANY TOPIC.



BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY WITHDRAWS HONORARY DEGREE FROM WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST AYAAN HIRSI ALI CITING HER OPEN REBUKE OF ISLAM FOR VIOLATIONS OF WOMEN'S RIGHT AS VIOLATING THEIR CORE VALUES.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, 

DUE TO THE RELIGIOUS BIAS AGAINST HER VIEWPOINTS ON ISLAMIC COUNTRIES PRACTICE OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION, FORCED CHILD "MARRIAGES," 

AND  OTHER ACTS OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST WOMEN IN ISLAMIC COMMUNITIES.   



THE UNIVERSITY CLAIMS THAT AYAAN HIRSI ALI'S EXPOSING OF ISLAMIC PRACTICES VIOLATING WOMEN'S RIGHTS VIOLATED THEIR "CORE VALUES." 

NO STATE ENTITY CAN CLAIM "CORE VALUES," AS IT IS A RELIGIOUS RULING, THE LEGAL RIGHT TO "ADHERE TO CORE VALUES," 

HOWEVER, NO STATE ENTITY, NOR ANY ENTITY TAKING STATE FUNDS, COULD CLAIM RELIGIOUS CORE VALUES, WITHOUT IT BEING STATE ENDORSEMENT OF THE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS CORE VALUES PERTAINING TO THAT TENET THEY ARE CLAIMING, WHICH VIOLATES SEP OF CHURCH AND STATE. 



BY THE UNIVERSITY CLAIMING THAT SPEAKING AGAINST ISLAMIC BELIEFS VIOLATES THEIR "CORE VALUES," THEN THEY ARE IDENTIFYING THEIR UNIVERSITY AS ADHERING TO ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS TENETS.  THIS IS STATE ENDORSEMENT OF ISLAM, STATE ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION, VIOLATING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, FOR ANY UNIVERSITY THAT ACCEPTS STATE FUNDS. 



SINCE THE "HATE SPEECH," LAWS WERE OVERTURNED IN THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, UPHOLDING ONE'S "LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE," GIVING AYAAN HIRSI ALI THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ISLAM, OR DEBATE ANY TOPIC FROM ANY VIEWPOINT, WITHOUT CENSORSHIP.  

THE HATE SPEECH LAWS WERE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENSORSHIP THAT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUES. 



GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, OR THOSE TAKING GOVERNMENT FUNDS, ARE EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO THIS FEDERAL SUPREME COURT RULING, WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT CHRISTIANS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE FROM THEIR VIEWPOINTS, BE IT THAT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, OR RELIGIOUS DEBATE OF OTHER RELIGIONS SUCH AS ISLAM. 



OUR U.S. LAWS ARE NOT THAT OF THE E.U., NOR THE U.N., WHICH CENSOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH THROUGH HATE SPEECH LAWS, AND ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAWS, MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO FREELY DEBATE ISLAM. THE U.N. ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAWS MAKES SPEAKING AGAINST MUHAMMAD, ISLAM, OR THE KORAN, ILLEGAL. 

THIS VIOLATES OUR LAWS IN THE US OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD IN OUR FEDERAL SUPREME COURT GIVING US THE "LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE," INCLUDING THAT OF ISLAM. 



THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE, FROM ANY PERSPECTIVE, STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD FROM ANY END OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, OR RELIGIOUS SPECTRUM, OR ANY SCHOOL OF THOUGHT.

DEMOCRAT LIBERALS WANT TO CENSOR THE VIEWPOINTS OPPOSING THEIRS, WHICH IS MARXISM, OR "WORKING FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD," WHERE A GOVERNMENT BUREAU DECIDES WHAT WE CAN, OR CAN NOT, SAY, 

DUE TO WHAT THEY DEEM TO BE THE COLLECTIVE GOOD. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON OF WHOM SUPPORTED THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, WHERE WE DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR US, AND NOT THE STATE, 

AND THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SUPERCEDE THAT OF THE COLLECTIVE GOOD, SO THAT WE DO NOT SUFFER TYRANNY, NOR CENSORSHIP. 



IN THE UNITED STATES OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS PREVENT CENSORSHIP OF VIEWPOINTS WHICH SOME DEEM OFFENSIVE. IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE, ARGUE, DISAGREE, OR BE OFFENSIVE TO OTHERS. 

THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH CAN BE AN OFFENSIVE THING, BUT TOLERANCE OF OTHER PEOPLE VOICING THEIR VIEWPOINTS IS EXPECTED. TOLERANCE FOR THOSE DEBATING ISSUES FROM THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS IS ALSO EXPECTED, CHRISTIANS, AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ISLAM. 



YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN UNTIL YOU SUPPORT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THOSE THAT YOU DESPISE!