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: 15
8
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3


Everyone who makes $10,500 per year has to file with the IRS. Everyone that gets a paycheck pays into social security and workmans comp. Should be the same for churches just like everyone else. They are very active and vocal and powerful in the US politics. The White House is full of evangelicals.



They are no longer the churches that our founding fathers knew. They have become a political party with one mind.

Let me make sure I understand this:

You want to deny all benefits to churches, tax charitable contributions to a non-profit charity because it is called a church, forbid anyone who believes differently from you from speaking out... did I miss anything?

Shall we burn the religious at the stake or bring back witch-dunking too? I mean, I'm trying to have a serious discussion with you and you just keep on hatin'...

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Then how has this made it all the way to supreme Court. Not being awarded grant money had nothing to do with this church practicing it's religion.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Personally, sounds good to me. But I don't make laws. We could have solved so many human problems without religions constantly fighting for gods.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
A reply to: MOMof3

QNice to know where you stand, at least. It makes people so much easier to handle when they identify themselves.


TheRedneck

edit on 6/26/2017 by TheRedneck because: Poor wording



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for it. Now we can openly discriminate against anyone we don't like. That would be Christians for me.



Why would you want to discriminate against Christians?

The SCOTUS has now ruled on this so for now, that is that. It's a playground for kids.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Because I don't like them as a whole. They think they are special, now they get special laws to be a cult. The state was not doing anything that stopped this church from practicing its religion. Why don't we fund Islam now, opened the door for it. It's called legal precedent.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...." First amendment



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3


They think they are special, now they get special laws to be a cult.

No one thinks they are any more 'special' than anyone else. People have a right to believe as they wish, not only as you wish them to.


The state was not doing anything that stopped this church from practicing its religion.

No, they were discriminating by withholding funding from a daycare. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?


Why don't we fund Islam now, opened the door for it. It's called legal precedent.

No one is talking about funding a church. We're talking about providing mats for daycare centers... ALL daycare centers, without respect to religion.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...." First amendment

That also means you can't exclude someone simply because they're Christian.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

Because I don't like them as a whole. They think they are special, now they get special laws to be a cult. The state was not doing anything that stopped this church from practicing its religion. Why don't we fund Islam now, opened the door for it. It's called legal precedent.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...." First amendment



We went through this the first time the issue was brought up. Under the conditions of the program itself, they met every single one of the requirements needed to qualify for the special matting. The playground itself is one that is left open to the wider community for use when the daycare isn't in session, so it's more or less public.

The only reason they were denied was that the playground in question was at a church which made it a pretty obvious question of discrimination against the group because they were religious and for no other reason. There weren't even any provisions written into the program to bar religious groups from receiving grant funding.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

But you can't hold the tax payers accountable, unless you pursue the recourse to neglect paying taxes.

So we either stop paying taxes or start holding elected officials accountable.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: fatkid

You got it right the second time.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

Because I don't like them as a whole. They think they are special, now they get special laws to be a cult. The state was not doing anything that stopped this church from practicing its religion. Why don't we fund Islam now, opened the door for it. It's called legal precedent.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...." First amendment



You don't like Christians as a whole? Ok. Weird, but at least you are honest.




top topics



 
8
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join