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: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not inside the property? Then what's the problem?


That's what I've been asking.




posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
During off hours and on the weekend. The primary purpose for the grant is to provide safety mats for enrollees of the daycare and school, is it not? The fact they allow other kids to use it is a secondary factor. Do they have any prohibitions for people wanting to enroll their kids in the daycare? Do they teach religious doctrine in the daycare or school? The neighborhood kids benefitting from the mats is incidental and not the reason for the grant request. If there are no restrictions on who may or may not enroll their children and they don't teach Lutheran religious doctrine to the kids, then no problem. But they'd better not expect to discriminate against anyone protected under federal or state law.

Also, why the hell do they need government assisstance? I know for a fact that they charge a pretty penny for tuition and childcare. I would assume that the parents of those students pay that money with the understanding that it goes to provide the curriculum and overhead costs (including things like safety mats).



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I gather that you have no problem paying Muslims for the playgrounds at their mosques.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Teikiatsu
During off hours and on the weekend. The primary purpose for the grant is to provide safety mats for enrollees of the daycare and school, is it not? The fact they allow other kids to use it is a secondary factor. Do they have any prohibitions for people wanting to enroll their kids in the daycare? Do they teach religious doctrine in the daycare or school? The neighborhood kids benefitting from the mats is incidental and not the reason for the grant request. If there are no restrictions on who may or may not enroll their children and they don't teach Lutheran religious doctrine to the kids, then no problem. But they'd better not expect to discriminate against anyone protected under federal or state law.

Also, why the hell do they need government assisstance? I know for a fact that they charge a pretty penny for tuition and childcare. I would assume that the parents of those students pay that money with the understanding that it goes to provide the curriculum and overhead costs (including things like safety mats).


Considering the playground is available for open play on evenings and weekends to any child regardless of their family's religious affiliation (or lack thereof), marital status, sexual orientations, etc then there are no restrictions and it is a public facility, a community service. I really doubt there is a Lutheran pastor on call 24/7 when a kid decides to use the slide.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I gather that you have no problem paying Muslims for the playgrounds at their mosques.


Have you not been reading my replies? For the second or third time no, I do not, because those Muslims pay the tax too.

What do you have against muslim kids?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Quote me where I said I am against muslim kids.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Quote me where I said I am against muslim kids.


Please get a sense of humor
You're the one who keeps bringing up Muslims because (I assume) you think I have some knee-jerk reaction to the M-word.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ah gotcha



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
ok, for the sake of argument, lets say this playground is provided as a community service on Saturdays, Sundays between services and whatever nights and weekdays it is not being used for some church or school function. What's to stop the church from deciding to change it's policy and stop allowing non-congregant and non-student kids from using the playground whenever they choose? If their pretty new mats get damaged by a neighborhood kid, what's to stop the church from locking the gates and preventing the heathen masses from getting in? The government? If not, then the justification for the grant being that the playground is for the community isn't valid. If, on the other hand, the government does mandate the church make the playground available to everyone, isn't that government dictating church policy? Which was exactly my point to begin with?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Teikiatsu
ok, for the sake of argument, lets say this playground is provided as a community service on Saturdays, Sundays between services and whatever nights and weekdays it is not being used for some church or school function. What's to stop the church from deciding to change it's policy and stop allowing non-congregant and non-student kids from using the playground whenever they choose? If their pretty new mats get damaged by a neighborhood kid, what's to stop the church from locking the gates and preventing the heathen masses from getting in? The government? If not, then the justification for the grant being that the playground is for the community isn't valid. If, on the other hand, the government does mandate the church make the playground available to everyone, isn't that government dictating church policy? Which was exactly my point to begin with?



You were stung by a sunday school as a child, weren't you?


That's a silly argument. It's rubber play mats. It's a playground. Government money is not being spent to buy bibles.
edit on 22-4-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Scientologists are not using the money to buy L. Ron Hubbard's books.
*winks*



edit on 4/22/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Scientologists are not using the money to buy L. Ron Hubbard's books.
*winks*




Scientologists have kids too *shrug*



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Scientologists are not using the money to buy L. Ron Hubbard's books.
*winks*




Scientologists have kids too *shrug*


Precisely.
*winks*



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No...and your missing my point entirely. How do you NOT see that it is in best interest of ALL churches to avoid this pitfall. Yeah this is silly rubber mats. Next time it'll something else "for the children" (because it's always "for the children") and then when the church wants to exercise some right that they thought they had, they'll find out it wasn't a right after all, but a privilege and it no longer exists because they are now beholden to the powers that be.

How do you think corruption of anything pure begins (not that churches are pure)? With a whisper...NOT a barbarian scream of "Charge!!". You have to get your foot in the door if you want to make it past a well guarded entrance. Using a battering ram just raises the defences. That's what this whole site was supposed to be about. Being aware and conscious of the hidden layers behind things.

Stop thinking of things from a single perspective...what is the flip side of the argument? If there are things to be gained by allowing the government to "help out" the churches, you'd better believe there are things that WILL BE LOST. If you think that the benefits outweigh the cost, more power to you I guess. Good luck with that. You don't get to complain later when the government starts telling you what the rules are, though.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I understand what your point is, and reject your premise. This is not federal money being given to churches. It is a state program, paid for by state taxes, by state citizens, to recycle tires reclaimed by the state and be put into use for the children of state tax-payers.

In this scenario there is ZERO risk of the government getting involved in the affairs of a religious organization. If there were strings attached to the program then the religious group would likely not participate. That is one of the main reason that parochial schools are not gung-ho about school vouchers, they don't want strings attached to government money that would tell the school how to behave.

As it is, the playground equipment is regulated by safety codes. The church construction was built to code. The parking lots were built to code, etc. Those codes are not infringing on the church or its free exercise of religion.

Common sense, we haz it.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: mOjOm
In this scenario there is ZERO risk of the government getting involved in the affairs of a religious organization. If there were strings attached to the program then the religious group would likely not participate. That is one of the main reason that parochial schools are not gung-ho about school vouchers, they don't want strings attached to government money that would tell the school how to behave.

There is always a risk of government interference in anything they are involved in. Since when is government money not attached to strings? You have been reading the threads on this site, I assume? People freak out anytime the government does anything, good or bad, because of what they fear their underlying motives are. Why would that not apply with respect to churches? And they may not be "gung ho" about vouchers but there sure are alot of church schools willing to accept them, aren't there? Money is money and carrots is carrots and if you string a carrot in front of a horse or a buck in front of a human they will eventually try to get it and they will get led wherever the driver is leading.


As it is, the playground equipment is regulated by safety codes. The church construction was built to code. The parking lots were built to code, etc. Those codes are not infringing on the church or its free exercise of religion.

Common sense, we haz it.


So they built everything to code except for the playground? Which they need government funds to now go back and correct? Who builds everything BUT the kid's play area, up to safety codes? They have some mixed up priorities if that's the case.


And yes, I had hoped we haz it, but I wonder sometimes.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: mOjOm
In this scenario there is ZERO risk of the government getting involved in the affairs of a religious organization. If there were strings attached to the program then the religious group would likely not participate. That is one of the main reason that parochial schools are not gung-ho about school vouchers, they don't want strings attached to government money that would tell the school how to behave.

There is always a risk of government interference in anything they are involved in. Since when is government money not attached to strings? You have been reading the threads on this site, I assume? People freak out anytime the government does anything, good or bad, because of what they fear their underlying motives are. Why would that not apply with respect to churches? And they may not be "gung ho" about vouchers but there sure are alot of church schools willing to accept them, aren't there? Money is money and carrots is carrots and if you string a carrot in front of a horse or a buck in front of a human they will eventually try to get it and they will get led wherever the driver is leading.


Yes, government has an inclination to do that. In this case the situation is "Hey, looks like some companies are recycling used tires into rubber mats. If you have a playground, are willing to fill out this paperwork, *and* meet our criteria we will reimburse you for purchasing the mats."

paperwork



As it is, the playground equipment is regulated by safety codes. The church construction was built to code. The parking lots were built to code, etc. Those codes are not infringing on the church or its free exercise of religion.

Common sense, we haz it.


So they built everything to code except for the playground? Which they need government funds to now go back and correct? Who builds everything BUT the kid's play area, up to safety codes? They have some mixed up priorities if that's the case.


No, looks like everything in the paperwork and premises was in order, and supported by pertinent agencies.

edit on 23-4-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Well if you really don't believe that this is one of those "slippery slopes" everyone loves to be so afraid of, best of luck and I hope you're right. Far be it from me to try and force someone to see things differently if they are adamantly opposed to alternative perspectives. I was just trying to point out something that people involved in this argument from the proponent's viewpoint seem to miss more often then not. Hope everything comes up roses for ya! Have fun on the monkey bars and don't let the anti-discrimination lawsuits hit ya where the good lord split ya!



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Usually the ones screaming about Sharia are the ones who demand prayer in public schools. The only difference between Sharia and any other religious law is how they refer to God and prostration.


Except it only seems to be Islam in the modern world which bases it's laws off of it's religion.

America in 1948 was nearly 92% Christian or Catholic. Did that generation, despite being such an amazing majority, change the laws to strictly follow the Bible? no, not at all

Yet when Islam takes hold in a country Sharia law is enacted.

Once again, proof that Islam trumps law, and becomes law, in muslim countries.

Don't compare Sharia law with other countries and religions in the West which don't base their civil law on religion.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So we should blame the tax payers for our national debt and not the people who have been trusted with spending the money - your logic makes no sense to me



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join