It is important to look at the historical situation of the framers and what they intended.
The much-bandied about phrase “separation of church and state” means different things to different people. To those from the secular humanist persuasion, it means that the state can make no public acknowledgement of religion, have no religious displays, recognize no tax exemptions for churches, and goes so far to regulate even religious expressions of private individuals in the public arena out of line. One also hears that any attempt by others to “moralize” or use any religious values to argue for a policy should be silenced.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Alice
How does, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” justify sending billions of American taxpayer dollars to Israel, a Jewish state?
Could the Congress do the same for the Vatican or any other religious entity?
27 - Clubhouse Cancer
I don't think the US's support of theocracies is proscribed by the establishment clause. It would be impractical to make foreign policy decisions based on whether a nation has a state-established religion.
But it brings up a good corollary question: Should the US, through trade and diplonatic means, discourage other nations from running their governments as theocracies?
28 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Clubhouse Cancer writes,
"Ruvy, there are thousands of pages of regulations and labor laws in this country. To ascribe poor working conditions to some perceived watering-down of religious values is a little presumptuous.
By the way, that guy working Saturday? He had Tuesday off!"
About 45 years ago, a lot of states, like New York, had days when everything was closed. I couldn't go to Sears on Sundays, etc. Everybody had Sundays off in almost all businesses. Those laws were religion based. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. Funny that I should have to tell you this.
When the laws preventing the closings of those businesses went out the window, the seven day work week came back into existence. Not as bad as when the boss told you, "if yu can't work Sunday, don't bother coming in Monday." But the idea that two days of the week were sacrosant, the weekend, was gone. Now you tell me. Which day of the week do you prefer off? Saturday or Tuesday? Given my druthers, I'd prefer Saturday - or even Sunday. But commerce in America doesn't work that way. You get the days off your boss tells you you can have - or you walk, set up you own business and hustle every day of the week.
29 - Clubhouse Cancer
I'm not sure why you think I didn't know how things used to work re: weekends. In fact, we still have "blue laws" in Bergen County, NJ, where I'm from, that prevent some retail stores from opening on Sunday.
My point is that these laws were and are stupid and uncosntutional, based as they are on religion. I don't think the government should have any say at all into what days I have off, nor on making value judgments between days based solely on religion.
I don't think laws based on druthers are workable.
30 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
JPII writes,
"Ruvy --
The five-day work week was won through actions by unions (often referred to by right-wingers as "pinkos, socialists, communists).
WalMart is vehemently an anti-union corporation."
I'm vaguely familiar with that point. My daddy was a union organizer and shop steward and had the nickname "Red" - not necessarily for the color of his hair either. I'm familiar with WalMart's "virtues" also.
I realize fully what you are talking about. My neighbor, a Sabbath observant Jew who couldn't run his grocery shop on Saturdays and was constantly being fined for being open on Sundays, went all the way to the New York Supreme Court fighting its blue laws in 1960 - and he lost.
But I live here in Israel because there IS one day when everything is closed - at least in Jerusalem. So does that neighbor from Brooklyn. Here, there is still a weekend.
31 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Alice, if you can figure out a way to get you country to stop sending your tax dollars here and get its soldiers out of here and stop bullying us around, you'd be a G-d-send!
32 - Alice
Ruvy -- whether or not American tax dollars are sent to Israel is controlled by AIPAC. Few Americans have influence with that organization and our politicians are addicted to the money they provide during election cycles.
33 - Steve S
This whole 'war on religion' is mostly in the minds of greedy men like Robertson and Falwell who do a great job convincing the majority of believers that their religion is under attack.
An example is Judge Roy Moore's attempt to put the 10 commandments in federal courthouses. By refusing that, Christians are convinced that their faith is under attack, but there has been no attack on their ability to worship.
The same with prayer in schools. All citizens of a city pay taxes, which go to the schools. Having the school sanction a prayer is having your taxpayer dollars sanction a religion, which is a violation of church and state, in my opinion. However that does not prohibit an individual youth from praying to his/herself. So religious worship is not under attack there, however it is portrayed as such.
And on and on it goes.
What is most frightening is how the religious people cannot see beyond the current day. When (not if, but when) they mesh religion and government beyond the point of no return, things will be all fine and dandy for them, because it will be a religious ideology that they agree with. However, as you point out, there are at least 50,000 different variations on Christianity alone and it wouldn't even be a matter of a few years before the faithful finds that a version they do NOT agree with is the one adopted. By then it will be too late.
Faith is internal, not external. Faith is not about people hearing you pray. It's not about making sure your religious symbols are in all sorts of buildings. Faith is in your heart. It is a shame that 99.99% of Christians do not comprehend that. Clearly, they do not follow Jesus but simply the agenda-driven madman with the biggest megaphone.
34 - gonzo marx
good to *see* you back around Steve...
Steve S sez...
*Clearly, they do not follow Jesus but simply the agenda-driven madman with the biggest megaphone.*
Quoted for Truth
one could say the same about contemporary U.S. politics...
but i digress...
Excelsior!
35 - Dave Nalle
Good article, and Gonzo makes a good point about freedom from religion too. But there are a couple of specific errors.
Pharmacists aren't allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. The argument is that they shouldn't take the job if they don't follow a pre-defined ethical construct approved by the government.
Wrongo! This has nothing to do with the government. The problem with the pharmacists is that they aren't fulfilling the obligations of their jobs as defined by their employers. They are hired to fill prescriptions, not to fill some prescriptions and not others. If they don't do that job as described they get fired. End of story. There are some pharmacies which choose not to sell birth control at all. Those pharmacists should go work for those companies. End of problem.
Catholic hospitals are consistently fighting attempts to force them to provide abortions despite their clear religious teaching.
If they are a private hospital no one can force them to provide abortions. You ignore the fact that these cases you're referring to - and we have a prominent example here in Austin - are the result of Caltholic hospitals taking state or local government money in the expectation that they will provide services to the poor. If they cannot provide the services which the government institution provides the money for, then they shouldn't get the funding, and those services often include abortion. Simple enough. Our local catholic hospital has solved this problem by contracting out abortion services to a non-catholic commercial business.
Catholic Charities in California are required to recognize "gay marriage" despite their own beliefs.
Same thing as above. This is because those charities are getting money from the state and gay marriage is the law of the land there. As agents of the state they cannot take a position contrary to the laws of the state. If they care that much about gay marriage, then they should give up the state money. It's tainted anyway.
Schoolchildren (a.k.a. individual citizens not to be confused with government officials) are told that they aren't allowed to pray or have Bible studies on school property. In one case, school children were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony.
Again, this is an issue of where the money comes from. State money cannot be spent to promote religion. Very simple. If the building and facilities are paid for with tax dollars then they can't be used for religious purposes. What's strange or discriminatory or unfair about that? They also can't be used to solicit for business. No tuperware parties or Herbal Life meetings there. Same principle.
The IRS has investigated churches for preaching against abortion.
If the church is engaging in political fundraising then the IRS has a reason to investigate. They should lose their tax exempt status.
In reality all churches should just be made subject to taxation and this problem goes away once and for all.
Dave
36 - John Bambenek
I didn't reference this clearly so perhaps that is why there is difficultly in missing my point. In Illinois, the governor changed the regulation saying pharmacists could not invoke the conscience clause and refuse to fill certain prescriptions. That isn't an employer-employee thing, that's a government action.
As far as political fundraising, you are right, but in the cases I had in mind, no such fundraising occurred. But this concept that we need to tax churches is odd because it keeps coming up. On what basis do you say we should charge not-for-profit entities such as a church?
And lastly, the First Amendment can't be read to restrict the actions of PRIVATE CITIZENS. When people are on public property, they all the sudden don't become the government. If you take this concept that if the government builds the building you can't prayer there to its logical extension, no prayer should be allowed anywhere in the US. The government pays tax dollars to defend the integrity of the entire nation, is all of it subject to government-forced atheism?
I fail to see the harm in a school kid praying in a school, and I certainly fail to see how anyone could read the First Amendment and find a right of government to restrict free expression.
And as far as Catholic Charities, the law was employment discrimination, not riders on grants. My point is that it is enforcing a certain moral orthodoxy. Believe this way, and you're ok, don't and you aren't.
37 - Mark Saleski
would it be ok for a kid to pray to "my dark lord satan"?
i'm not joking.
38 - gonzo marx
yer slow Mark, see comment #7
good thinking tho...
Excelsior!
39 - Mark Saleski
dammit gonzo, you are omnipotent! ;-)
and they say mainers are slow.
40 - Dave Nalle
I didn't reference this clearly so perhaps that is why there is difficultly in missing my point. In Illinois, the governor changed the regulation saying pharmacists could not invoke the conscience clause and refuse to fill certain prescriptions. That isn't an employer-employee thing, that's a government action.
In Illinois if there were a pharmacy which as company policy did not sell certain drugs the government would not be able to interfere and force them to and if they tried they would lose in court. In the Illinois example, it's just a matter of the government backing up employers rights with the force of law.
As far as political fundraising, you are right, but in the cases I had in mind, no such fundraising occurred. But this concept that we need to tax churches is odd because it keeps coming up. On what basis do you say we should charge not-for-profit entities such as a church?
Most churches essentially operate on a for-profit basis. They pay a salary to employees, they raise money primarily for their own operations and expansion of their facilities. If they give money to charity or to pay for purely charitable operations, those should be tax deductible just as they are for any private citizen or business.
And lastly, the First Amendment can't be read to restrict the actions of PRIVATE CITIZENS. When people are on public property, they all the sudden don't become the government.
It's not a restriction of the actions of the citizens. They can pray to themselves, they can think about god and they can read the Bible. What they can't do is use the facilities specifically for a religious activity, just as they cannot for a commercial activity. The other thing they can't do is impose their religion on others, thereby violating their right to privacy, so they can't proselytize just as they cannot try to sell other students something. That means no public prayer, reading the bible outloud or wearing sandwich boards saying 'juses saves'.
If you take this concept that if the government builds the building you can't prayer there to its logical extension, no prayer should be allowed anywhere in the US. The government pays tax dollars to defend the integrity of the entire nation, is all of it subject to government-forced atheism?
That makes no sense at all. The government provided no funding for my house or for my local church. In fact, I pay property taxes to the government for the privelege of having a house and having them leave me the hell alone. It's not the same relationship at all.
I fail to see the harm in a school kid praying in a school, and I certainly fail to see how anyone could read the First Amendment and find a right of government to restrict free expression.
There's nothing wrong with him praying to himself in school. But free expression does not include the right to solicit other students for god or for a product or service. You can't do that on private property and you can't do it on government property either.
And as far as Catholic Charities, the law was employment discrimination, not riders on grants. My point is that it is enforcing a certain moral orthodoxy. Believe this way, and you're ok, don't and you aren't.
The employment discrimination argument makes no sense. If they aren't providing abortions, why would they need or have any reason to employ abortionists? I don't see how that would stand up in court. I guess maybe the argument could be made that one doctor can work there while another can't based on their intention to provide abortions, but unless that hospital is getting public funds of some sort then it has the right to hire whoever it chooses.
Dave
41 - John Bambenek
Mark-
Well if by ok you mean legal, yes. Though much more than that, you start getting into what the satanic bible teaches, I'm not so sure... it doesn't exactly advocate legal things.
Dave-
That's not how I read what's going on in Illinois, the rule applies regardless of company policy. I think companies don't need the governor to back up their decisions to fire people, they haven't needed it in the past.
42 - John Bambenek
Dave-
I missed more, sorry.
If your definition for for-profit is having paid staff, sadly, that would mean there is pretty much no such thing as a not-for-profit. Most charities do raise money for their own operations. Look at Planned Parenthood. The legal definition of not-for-profit doesn't preclude raising money for their own operations. You could have a group of 5 people start a not-for-profit social group that basically just entailed them going out to eat.
You are saying it's a restriction on private citizens, they can do what they want only in approved circumstances, or more accurately they CANNOT do what they want if in a particular location without any real overriding government interest. Proselytizing is not imposing religion on others, I'm not sure where people get that idea. Me putting a gun to your head and telling you to go to Confession is imposing my religion. Me telling you about it and why you should convert is not. There is no right to being in an undistrubed bubble free from anything you don't want to hear. You are saying the First Amendment requires the restriction on free expression of private citizens reading from a particular class of books on a school lunchroom, I'm sorry, that analysis is simply wrong. The courts have consistently ruled so.
The government provides funds to make sure your house exists. You get fire and police protection. In some places, plumbing. You get military protection. There isn't an inch of this country that is not supported in some way by tax dollars. Albeit to varying degrees, but nevertheless supported.
The California Supreme Court ruled on the basis of their employment discrimination law alone, that Catholic Charities had to recognize "gay marriage" (I don't know the specific term) for their benefits, despite their religious convictions. That was what I was referring to.
43 - Steve S
I fail to see the harm in a school kid praying in a school
There is no harm. Have the child close his/her eyes and pray. The harm comes in the requiring of another child to listen to that crap.
44 - Steve S
Proselytizing is not imposing religion on others, I'm not sure where people get that idea.
It most definitely, positively and 100% is.
45 - John Bambenek
Then why stop with religion? Why not stop with any other idea people don't want to hear? What makes religion so special that we have to mute it so that no one could possibly every be disrupted by someone else's ideas?
46 - gonzo marx
the same Reason you have Free Speech , but cannot go around yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre or "bomb" in the Mall
think of it as a public safety Issue, if nothing else
obviously the Founders thought it important enough to single it out in the very First Amendment to the Bill of Rights
now, others on this Thread have brought up excellent points...NOTHING stops the Individual from shouting their Faith from the top of their lungs on soapbox in a public park, or their front lawn...
but you take Government money, you have to live by the Rules..including the "establishment clause"
when in doubt, refer to my comment in #7
you still have not stated your position on flipping the script as i have put it in #7
if LaVey is too much for you (and i can easily understand the point concerning the legality of some of it)...then go with Crowley's..he was VERY careful to stay on this side of the Law in the literal sense
Excelsior!
47 - John Bambenek
Freedom from religion as a public safety issue, that's interesting...
And this is not what Steve is talking about, he's suggesting that people shouldn't pray out loud in public buildings so people wouldn't have to "listen to that crap".
You seem to be largely agreeing with me. Government actors (and those who take money from them) need to have viewpoint neutrality. However, this doesn't explain why children should be banned from prayer in schools or having their own Bible studies. They don't get money from the man.
And I thought I did answer it, it's legal. Being comfortable and being legal is two different things. I'm not comfortable with the concept of people canvassing college campuses for women and offering to pay tuition in exchange for doing porn videos, but that's still legal. (I did talk about the taxation issue in which you are largely mistaken).
48 - gonzo marx
and i have yet to do more research into the tax issue, i will always admit when i mess up, so rest assured, once i have taken a bit of time to look into it i will either mea culpa or post you some linkage...
fair enough?
and you miss the point on the school kids...they are IN a government paid facility...hence why it has no place in the public school
again, i ask you to take a moment and ponder the scipt being flipped...your child comes home and tellsyou about this other kid who was playing headbanging music, and reading from the Satanic bible and evangelizing...for the sake of Argument, he kept it on the right side of temporal Law...but was going for the Philosophy....how does that square with you?
i make the point to demonstrate a bit of why it shoudl be obvious that religion does not belong in the shcool as something one exchanges with others...privately saying "grace" over your lunch...not only who cares, but how the fuck could anyone even know? that is NOT the Issue...but having any of it publicly espoused on government paid for school property...that IS an Issue for the reasons laid out above
and i do agree, John..we are not that far off..i am all for Freedom for each to worship, or not, as they choose...i just think that the "establishment clause" shoudl be VERY strictly enforced...both to ensure our Government remains secular in Nature as well as to preserve the Individual's Right to hold "sacred" what they choose
nuff said?
Excelsior!
49 - gonzo marx
oh..i missed one..as for the Bible studies..NOT on government paid for school property
they can go to the park, each other's homes or ..:::gasp:::.. their churches, for that
why the need to hold it in school if not to attempt to evangelize and place peer pressure to join the group?
i remain staunch in my opposition to ANY such in public schools
Excelsior!
50 - Screen Rant
gonzo wrote:
"try this...a ten year old boy likes to read aloud from Anton LaVey's Satanic bible in school, discuss it and evangelizes the practice to his classmates"
See now here's my problem... if the above transpired at a public school, the school board and the ACLU wouldn't say a friggin' thing.
But if you pull out a Bible, watch out!
Vic
51 - gonzo marx
/sigh....
oh Vic, again you go and speculate instead of answering the fucking Question...
i asked how YOU would react, not how you predict someone else would
but ya don't wanna face the point of the argument, do ya?
much better to take a pot shot at something else fueled by pure speculation over a hypothetical
c'mon d00d, ya can do better than that!!
the correct Answer is...BOTH are just as wrong, for the EXACT SAME reasons
no cookie 4 u!
Excelsior!
52 - Screen Rant
"and you miss the point on the school kids...they are IN a government paid facility...hence why it has no place in the public school"
What a load. How does a seven year old saying a prayer on his own in school constitute the government establishing a religion? If the SCHOOL is sponsoring some sort of religious event, I see your point, but to disallow students from mentioning the word "Christ" in school is B.S.
BTW, I find it sickeningly funny that at least one public school HAS brought religion into the classroom, making kids learn about Islam for three weeks and practice customs and prayer.
(See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25997 )
That's bloody well ok though, ain't it?
Vic
53 - Steve S
And this is not what Steve is talking about, he's suggesting that people shouldn't pray out loud in public buildings so people wouldn't have to "listen to that crap".
So you ask what is the difference here between this and 'any other crap' that someone doesn't listen to. My answer would be a millenia of oppression. If you can find another ideology that is responsible for the deaths of millions and the oppression of tens of millions, then I would agree with you in not wanting it promoted in the public school system.
54 - gonzo marx
well Vic, it is only OK in the same way any HS World History class spends some time covering the Church, Middle Ages, the Crusades, the Reformation and so on
other than that...no
and where does ANYONE stop someone at ANYTIME from bowing their heads and praying silently?
it's only when such spills out loud in schools that there can be a problem, no matter WHAT "religion" it is...
fair enough?
Excelsior!
55 - Steve S
BTW, I find it sickeningly funny that at least one public school HAS brought religion into the classroom, making kids learn about Islam for three weeks and practice customs and prayer.
I think that is wrong as well, and would join with you in being against it. However, I do believe that worldnetdaily is not a legitimate news source. Find the same story from a non-biased site without an agenda to further and I'll be on your side in that case.
56 - Dave Nalle
If your definition for for-profit is having paid staff, sadly, that would mean there is pretty much no such thing as a not-for-profit. Most charities do raise money for their own operations. Look at Planned Parenthood. The legal definition of not-for-profit doesn't preclude raising money for their own operations. You could have a group of 5 people start a not-for-profit social group that basically just entailed them going out to eat.
Yep, I'm inclined not to think that anything should be run not for profit unless they can show that they spend all their money specifically on charitable needs with maybe a maximum of 20% for overhead expenses. Even more than churches I'm worried about groups like the United Way which raise huge amounts of money and pass on only a tiny percentage to the needy.
You are saying it's a restriction on private citizens, they can do what they want only in approved circumstances, or more accurately they CANNOT do what they want if in a particular location without any real overriding government interest. Proselytizing is not imposing religion on others, I'm not sure where people get that idea.
We get that idea because we don't want to be harassed by
religious loonies in places which are public and where we
can't get away from them. Kids in school are trapped there
they shouldn't have to be exposed to unwanted harassment
in that environment. Your right to push religion ends where
my right to be left the hell alone begins.
Me putting a gun to your head and telling you to go to Confession is imposing my religion. Me telling you about it and why you should convert is not. There is no right to being in an undistrubed bubble free from anything you don't want to hear. You are saying the First Amendment requires the restriction on free expression of private citizens reading from a particular class of books on a school lunchroom, I'm sorry, that analysis is simply wrong. The courts have consistently ruled so.
Read from your book all you like, just do it in silence.
The government provides funds to make sure your house exists. You get fire and police protection. In some places, plumbing. You get military protection. There isn't an inch of this country that is not supported in some way by tax dollars. Albeit to varying degrees, but nevertheless supported.
We pay specific earmarked taxes for all of those things except for military protection. And none of those services in any way applies directly to my right to own my house.
Final words for you:
"Forced religion stinks in God's nostrils." - Roger Williams
dave
57 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Alice writes,
"whether or not American tax dollars are sent to Israel is controlled by AIPAC. Few Americans have influence with that organization and our politicians are addicted to the money they provide during election cycles."
Alice, what you wtite above USED to be true. It isn't any longer. AIPAC has been effectively emasculated by its involvement in alleged espionage. There are some Americans who now have a great deal of influence over AIPAC. They work for your DoJ and FBI.
Given that this is a discussion of the separation of church and state in your country, not foreign policy, I'll leave my comments at that point.
58 - John Bambenek
Dave-
That's quite a bit of stereotyping there. We're going from someone who is praying aloud to being harassed by religious loonies. Now I can't speak for the misc. quad preachers that come to campus and shout about how people are going to hell, but I think most mainstream Christians don't work that way. In fact, if you don't want to hear it, they stop talking to you. But the point is this, you can form groups based on any idea you want. If you want to form a pro-choice group, fine. Political group, fine. Gaming group, fine. But, OH NO DON'T FORM A RELIGIOUS GROUP THE ENTIRE FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME WALL COLLAPSE!!!@!!! I understand your position, but nothing in the First Amendment can be read to restrict what private people can do on their own time (with exceptions of harasmment, inciting riots, etc). You are suggesting that the 1/3rd of land owned by the government in this country is offlimits to any religious speech, I simply can't understand how you read the First Amendment to require inhibiting free expression of private citizens.
Steve-
Just because you don't like the bias of the source, doesn't make the story false. Spun maybe.
Gonzo-
Why they need to hold it in school? Because they can hold almost any other kind of group in school. It's free expression. If you allow them to form groups, you can't tell them what groups they can form without a real good reason (i.e. street gangs).
59 - Steve S
Just because you don't like the bias of the source, doesn't make the story false. Spun maybe.
No, but it makes the story suspect. If you want to use the story to convince ME of something in a debate, you need to find it from an unbiased source. Worldnetdaily was not created to impart news. It was created to further an agenda.
60 - Dave Nalle
That's quite a bit of stereotyping there. We're going from someone who is praying aloud to being harassed by religious loonies. Now I can't speak for the misc. quad preachers that come to campus and shout about how people are going to hell, but I think most mainstream Christians don't work that way. In fact, if you don't want to hear it, they stop talking to you.
The fact is that there's a major campaign afoot courtesy of James Dobson to use intrusive prayer and massive public demonstration of religion in schools to influence the student body and attract attention. Search for my article on the National Day of Prayer for all the links and details.
But the point is this, you can form groups based on any idea you want. If you want to form a pro-choice group, fine. Political group, fine. Gaming group, fine. But, OH NO DON'T FORM A RELIGIOUS GROUP THE ENTIRE FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME WALL COLLAPSE!!!@!!! I understand your position, but nothing in the First Amendment can be read to restrict what private people can do on their own time (with exceptions of harasmment, inciting riots, etc). You are suggesting that the 1/3rd of land owned by the government in this country is offlimits to any religious speech, I simply can't understand how you read the First Amendment to require inhibiting free expression of private citizens.
I don't. They can do anything they want on their own property and on their own time. They can even fall down and speak in tongues on public property if they like. The place they can't do it is in a school because a school is not a free speech zone, and conspicuous proselytizing is disruptive and a violation of the privacy right of other students. If they are doing it in an airport I can just go somewhere else and ignore it. If they are doing it in a classroom where my kids are required to be by state law then my kids can't just walk away. The state is essentially forcing them to stay there and submit to the harassment. That's not acceptable.
Dave
61 - John Bambenek
Dave-
Schools most certainly are free speech zones. Sure you can't say anything you want in class, but you can in the halls, in the lunchrooms, outside, etc. You can form your own groups and leave them as you wish. I'm not saying they can stand up in class and do it, then they are disrupting class, but there is a lot more times and places in schools they can do what they want. If someone is doing it in a lunchroom, you can go somewhere else. If they have a group, you don't have to join. It strikes me as little different from your airport example.
I want to very clear on this. I'm not saying they should use class time when they should be studying and learning for something else. I'm talking about the ample time they are given outside the classroom in the school building.
62 - Maurice
There is a huge profit for some churches. The Mormons have a lay ministry. Even the nice boys that knock on your door pay their own way. They tithe at a rate of 10% gross. Here in Idaho we have a huge population of Mormons. Our state tax is 7.8% of adjusted gross. That means the Mormon church could potentially be receiving tithes greater than the state tax revenue.
63 - Screen Rant
"the correct Answer is...BOTH are just as wrong, for the EXACT SAME reasons"
If you really believe that, you are truly lost and no amount of debate or argument will convince you otherwise.
Best,
Vic
64 - Dave Nalle
Wrong, John. So long as my kids are required to be there, I don't want them exposed to anything that isn't part of the curriculum. If they are going to take my money AND force my kids to be there, I only want the approved information presented to them and nothing else, esepcially from sources which are not part of the educational hierarchy.
I actually took my kids OUT of the public schools because of the excessive exposure to religious indoctrination they were exposed to. I ended up putting them in a parochial school because there at least I knew what kind of religious instruction they were receiving.
Dave
65 - John Bambenek
Dave-
Well that's a fine position, and a good argument for school vouchers, but unless you are prepared to say no student groups, and pretty much no socializing, it's simply signaling our religious speech out of free expression for censorship.
66 - gonzo marx
John B sez...
*Why they need to hold it in school? Because they can hold almost any other kind of group in school. It's free expression. If you allow them to form groups, you can't tell them what groups they can form without a real good reason (i.e. street gangs).*
you missed something again John...the fact that such is prohibited on government owned property...some activities are approved, and some are not
so, soccer is ok...evangelizing ANY religion is not...on and on
what i don't understand is this insistence these things be held on school property....a cynical person might suspect it was specifically for the rules to be changed and slowly the establishment of a religious dogma could be propagandized via the school system...
nah...no one would do that...so what is the Reason these studies and clubs cannot be done off of government property? why the insistence it be done ON government property? please explain...and it is NOT about "free expression" as has been stated...some speech is quite legally regulated for public safety, or in the public interest on government property...there is NOTHING stopping these kids from sitting on a lawn across the stree, or right next door to the school and having their activity...
to Vic...
i defy you to ever find me saying what i "believe"
what i have stated are my Thoughts about a purely LEGAL issue, which makes NO distinction regarding the validity of EITHER example
you do see the differnce, i hope
so, as a purely hypothetical example, do you understand the Principle involved here, that there is NO distinction regarding the religious sect/denomination/deity what have you, but that ALL are prohibited in the circumstance described
i used the extreme dichotomy in my example to deliberately make some folks flesh crawl, and to dramatize some of the Reasoning behind it
as for how "lost" i am, while i do appreciate your Concern...allow me to assure you, i know exactly "where" i am....
now, if someone could tell me what year it is, the century perhpas, some kind of clue....awww...c'mon?
Excelsior!
67 - Clubhouse Cancer
Vic:
Re. #63. Just to be clear, are you advocating that the government allow public prostelytizing on public property if the religion in question is one of which you approve, but not if it is a religion of which you do not?
Because this is in direct opposition to the US Constitution, which is the law.
68 - gonzo marx
John B sez...
*and a good argument for school vouchers,*
actuall, as i have pointed out before...there is NO good argument, from a conservative fiscal standpoint, FOR school vouchers, due to the math
bear me out here, and check the formulae yourself...and you will see why those who advocate vouchers are trying to steal...
you pay $1000 in proprty tax per annum...and we will say 60% of that i sused for your local public school...total contribution $600...right?
the COST per student is a huge multiple of that, gathered by the property taxes of ALL the reidents, whether they have school children or not, all in the name of the public good to educate the kiddies
still with me?
what voucher advocates want is not that $600 of their property tax paid, which i have NO problem with them getting to use towards their kids schooling, but the ENTIRE budget from the town FOR that student , so they can send the kid to another school
and that, gentle Readers is stealing from their town money that was contributed by the citizens via their taxes FOR the public school, above and beyond the individual parents contributions...
theft, pure and simple, and why any kind of "voucher" system doesn't pass the smell test
we now return you to your regularily scheduled program
Excelsior!
69 - Screen Rant
CC,
No, am not advocating that. I am expressing my view that Satan worship and Christianity are most certainly not "equivalent". I'm not arguing it from a legal standpoint but from a moral one.
Again, perhaps I wouldn't get so aggravated with the situation if people who get so up in arms about Christianity being mentioned in school did get as bent out of shape with the Satan/Witchcraft/etc. scenario.
Gonzo, point taken. :-) BTW, with all the obvious time and thought that goes into your posts, don't you have a day job dude? ;-)
Vic
70 - Screen Rant
If public schools were doing a decent job educating kids, vouchers wouldn't be an issue, now would they? Of course that doesn't even include the socialist, anti-American, have-sex-when-you-want-as-long-as-it's-"safe", are-you-sure-you're-not-gay agenda.
Vic
71 - gonzo marx
well Vic, yes i do..and am at lunch...
your mistake is thinking i take time or thought in these little rants...
"gonzo" part as well as my pitiful spelling and dyslexic mistakes, indicates my stream of consciousness, no editiing style
face it, i'm just weird...
i remain, apostate and heretic
Excelsior!
72 - Clubhouse Cancer
Vic.
OK. Obviously our discussion here is purely a legal one, and you didn't make the distinction.
As for my own moral judgement, I'd say both Satanism and Christianity are about the same. Both are based on provably untrue postulates (hence dishonest), and both have caused plenty of strife for people in the world (hence harmful). Christianity more strife, of course, because it's much more widespread.
73 - Dave Nalle
Damn, Gonzo. I just WISH I paid $1000 in school taxes. But I don't live in Maine, so I pay over $4000 a year. And I'd be perfectly happy just to get that money back and no money from any other source.
Dave
74 - Mark Saleski
maine has fairly high tax rates when compared to its new england neighbors. i think gonzo was using that figure to keep things simple.
either that, or he lives in an ice fishing shack.
75 - gonzo marx
full disclosure: my annual property tax is about $1200 a year, but my littel town has no water, sewer( well and spetic for me) or garbage pick up(haul your stuff to the dump), a volunteer fire department, and a 70 year old town constable in a 70's bronco ( county sheriff or even state trooper for 911 calls)
yer gonzo is just poor white trash, actually...emphasis on the poor part
hope that helps
Excelsior!