It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

With Trump Pick Aboard, Supreme Court Tackles Religious Rights

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Maybe the Christians supreme court guy can save us all from being aborted with war. Talk some sense into their false prophet.




posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   


Trinity Lutheran Child Learning Center (TLCLC) is a ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church serving families with young children ages 2 through Pre-K. TLCLC incorporates daily religion and developmentally appropriate activities in a preschool program. TLCLC provides opportunities for children to grow spiritually, physically, socially, emotionally and cognitively.

tlclckids.com...


it has a religious curriculum, no, it should not be obtaining tax money..
while there are quite a few religious groups involved gov't funded projects.. but they can't push their own religious doctrines onto those that they are serving. at least that is how it is on the federal level, on state levels, using state funds, they might be able to...
there are many religious groups that get federal grants to care for immigrants also.




According to the ACLU, at least 11 of the more than 30 private agencies that received grants in 2016 to care for undocumented minors are affiliated with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops or other religious groups that oppose abortion and contraception.

Among those served by these agencies are unaccompanied minors from Central America who were detained at the border. Their numbers surged in the 2014 fiscal year to over 57,000 people.

The ACLU said it knows of about two dozen cases in the last five years in which pregnant girls, many of whom said they had been raped, requested abortions. About one-third of the unaccompanied minors are girls. Many were the victims of sexual abuse at home or during their travel to the U.S.

In several cases, when the girls wanted abortions, they were transferred to different agencies to obtain them.

ACLU lawyer Brigitte Amiri said placement decisions should be based on “what is in the best interest of the child.”

She said that the current system of giving religious exemptions to groups such as the U.S. bishops amounts to authorizing those organizations “to violate the law and impose their religious beliefs on these young women.” She characterized abortion and contraception as “care they desperately need.”

angelusnews.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With Trump Pick Aboard, Supreme Court Tackles Religious Rights
I'm putting this thread in the mud pit because it is speculative in nature. We don't actually know how the new SCOTUS will rule in this case yet, but with Gorsuch being open to expanding religious rights in this country it is worth noting and talking about.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set this week to hear a closely watched case testing the limits of religious rights, and new Justice Neil Gorsuch’s judicial record indicates he could tip the court toward siding with a church challenging Missouri’s ban on state funding of religious entities.

Yes, Missouri wants tax payers to help pay for church expenses. VERY cut and dry separation of church and state issue here. Though the case itself seem benign since the church in question was trying to buy playground equipment (should have asked their congregation for more donations in my opinion).


Trinity Lutheran Church, which is located in Columbia, Missouri and runs a preschool and daycare center, said Missouri unlawfully excluded it from a grant program providing state funds to nonprofit groups to buy rubber playground surfaces. Missouri’s constitution prohibits “any church, sect or denomination of religion” from receiving state taxpayer money.

Gorsuch, who embraced an expansive view of religious rights as a Colorado-based federal appeals court judge, on Monday hears his first arguments since becoming a justice last week. He will be on the bench on Wednesday when the justices hear the Trinity Lutheran case, one of the most important of their current term.

Now you may not have a problem with this because it is going to help make kids safer, but the problem here is that getting rid of this rule opens up the flood gates for other tax-funded religious nonsense. I'm an atheist, I don't want to pay to help you worship Jesus. I don't want to help you worship Mohammad. I don't want to help you worship Buddha. Etc. Use your own money and your congregation's money to do that.

The U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state and guarantees the free exercise of religion.


At the very least, a victory for Trinity Lutheran would help religious organizations nationwide win public dollars for certain purposes, such as health and safety.

But it also could bolster the case for using public money for vouchers to help pay for children to attend religious schools rather than public schools in “school choice” programs backed by many conservatives. For example, Colorado’s top court in 2015 found that a Douglas County voucher program violated a state constitutional provision similar to Missouri’s.

Missouri says their grant program is fine, and I see their point. Missouri's grant program isn't special. In fact it's the norm.

Missouri said there is nothing unconstitutional about its grant program.

“Trinity Lutheran remains free, without any public subsidy, to worship, teach, pray and practice any other aspect of its faith however it wishes. The state merely declines to offer financial support,” the state said in legal papers.


Groups filing legal papers opposing Trinity Lutheran, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said government funding of churches is precisely what the Constitution forbids.

“Forcing states to provide cash to build church property could open the floodgates to programs that coerce taxpayers to underwrite religion,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s program on freedom of religion and belief.

Mach said three-quarters of the U.S. states have provisions like Missouri’s.

Also, this group suing over this law is also bringing forward the wedding cake issue again...

Alliance Defending Freedom, which also opposes gay marriage, transgender protections and abortion, has another major case involving religion that the Supreme Court could take up in its term beginning in October. It represents a Colorado bakery’s Christian owner who argues the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom means he should not have to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.


Looks like this will be yet ANOTHER bump in the already treacherously bumpy road the 1st Amendment will be traveling down over the next 4 years.


While I'm not religious and have no interest in using taxpayer money for any such purpose...your statement was...

"Now you may not have a problem with this because it is going to help make kids safer, but the problem here is that getting rid of this rule opens up the flood gates for other tax-funded religious nonsense. I'm an atheist, I don't want to pay to help you worship Jesus. I don't want to help you worship Mohammad. I don't want to help you worship Buddha. Etc. Use your own money and your congregation's money to do that."

So lets rephrase that. You don't want taxpayer money going to keep kids that believe in any religion safe. Only the non-religious kids should be kept safe.

I wouldn't try to run for office on that stance.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



So lets rephrase that. You don't want taxpayer money going to keep kids that believe in any religion safe. Only the non-religious kids should be kept safe

It's that pesky First Amendment! The Founding Fathers must not have cared.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So lets rephrase that. You don't want taxpayer money going to keep kids that believe in any religion safe. Only the non-religious kids should be kept safe.


Anyone know how much grant money they requested?

Could the minister take a pay cut and use the money for the playground surfacing? I mean...surely the minister cares about the safety of the religious kiddos.

Congregation donations? Surely the congregation cares about them, too, eh? Why should taxpayers be the first to tap for the funds and be shamed or guilted into footing the bill?

What taxpayer wants to give funds to a church that doesn't want to keep kids who believe in their own religion safe? Sounds like a crap church to me, tbh.

ETA: And what legal fees has this church racked up in this legal battle? Could they have bought surfacing for hundreds of playgrounds for what they paid lawyers? I just do not feel guilty for saying they should foot the bill for their own facilities.

ETA2: I just look up the legal group the church has retained, 'Alliance Defending Freedom.' From their website:


Religious freedom has suffered due to the high cost of litigation. Alliance Defending Freedom has provided thousands of allies with critical funding for precedent-setting cases to ensure that the defense of religious freedom is well funded.
Link

LET THEM FUND THE PLAYGROUND SURFACING! Geez. It's unreal.


edit on 18-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So lets rephrase that. You don't want taxpayer money going to keep kids that believe in any religion safe. Only the non-religious kids should be kept safe.

I wouldn't try to run for office on that stance.

First I'm not running for office, and second, even if I was running for office why would I run using your strawman? I'd just say what I really meant.
edit on 18-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree, I think the worst "door to open" is the amount of lawsuits that will be filed when the Lutheran church gets the grant but the mosque and synagogue don't. Then the state is favoring one religion over the other, and things really gets complicated.

But I ultimately think that if it is state dollars it should be left up to the people paying those taxes to decide where the money goes.

Right now it is against the state's constitution, maybe a vote should be taken for the future.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: fatkid

Money already goes where the taxpayers decide it goes. The taxpayers elect the government.

Grants have certain restrictions placed on them by their very nature. That's fine. But it's less than fine when those regulations include any reference to religion... or, as far as that goes, race, sexual persuasion, or gender. Those arguing against the church in this thread would be up in arms and screaming bloody murder if the state were to tell someone, "You're eligible, but since you're a woman we can't let you participate." It's no worse than substituting "Christian" for "woman." Even worse, if this were a Mosque the conversation would be much different.

I hear so much about 'protected classes,' but it seems many don't want to acknowledge the original protected class: religious folk.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Religious folk weren't protected, their right to practice their religion was.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out how rubber mats are going to infringe on people's freedom to not practice religion.

What, are people going to be converted by the nerf sword?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
A religious facility has no business asking for federal funds, they forfeit that right as a house of worship and therefore any fed money to any services a house of worship provides it's congregation. How can any idiot argue that? The law is crystal clear on it. End of discussion.

Start a fekking GoFundMe.
edit on 4/22/2017 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm still trying to figure out how rubber mats are going to infringe on people's freedom to not practice religion.

What, are people going to be converted by the nerf sword?


LOL being silly aren't we?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm still trying to figure out how rubber mats are going to infringe on people's freedom to not practice religion.

What, are people going to be converted by the nerf sword?


LOL being silly aren't we?


Last part, yes. First part, no.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

First part is silly too. The part you are not understanding is that they want us to pay for it. It may look innocent at first. Rubber mat LOL.
It is a place of indoctrination and they want us to pay for it. Do you want to pay for a playground at a Mosque?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
A religious facility has no business asking for federal funds, they forfeit that right as a house of worship and therefore any fed money to any services a house of worship provides it's congregation. How can any idiot argue that? The law is crystal clear on it. End of discussion.

Start a fekking GoFundMe.


What if some of the children and their families are not part of the congregation? What is this is a public service offered to the neighborhood?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

First part is silly too. The part you are not understanding is that they want us to pay for it. It may look innocent at first. Rubber mat LOL.
It is a place of indoctrination and they want us to pay for it. Do you want to pay for a playground at a Mosque?


The application and funding is for rubber mats to make playgrounds safer.

Why would I care about rubber mats for kids at a mosque? Don't they deserve to be safe too?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Who doesn't want to make it safer for the kids?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Who doesn't want to make it safer for the kids?


That's my question, yes.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Right. Nobody wants to make it unsafe for the kids. That isn't the argument.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Right. Nobody wants to make it unsafe for the kids. That isn't the argument.



Apparently it is. The kids apparently don't deserve the same rubber mats offered by the state to other non-profits because their tax-paying parents send them to a weekly day care attached to a church.
edit on 22-4-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join