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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko



My child will not become religious because he plays on a playground and neither will anyone else's.


No. Their children will become religious because of the school's religious curriculum. This isn't about playground equipment or desks. It's about governmental support of religious institutions in their goals to provide a religious atmosphere.





So basically, you don't want this grant to go to a church-based daycare for a non-religious reason because then you think no one will send their kids there and thus no one will be religious?

You are enforcing a type of segregation mindset. Church facilities can be separate but equal ... it's just that none of the state money better go to those facilities because those kids have religion cooties instead of skin-color cooties.

As noted, the money is being sought for a non-religious reason and if other facilities can get the same item for the same purpose and the ONLY difference is what kind of facility is housing the daycare, then your bigotry is showing.

How long until you advocate we cut them off from public utilites, police and fire for the same reasons?
edit on 17-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

You stick boys and girls together in tents in a campground and you may have possible problems nine months later.

Oh PLEASE! Girls and boys get sent to co-ed summer camps every year around the country. If those camps can figure out how to handle mixed gendered tweens and teenagers in an overnight setting, then the scouts organizations should have no problem figuring it out either.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



How long until you advocate we cut them off from public utilites, police and fire for the same reasons?

Absurd comparison. The playground is ON church's property.

And what is the reason for children being there? Hmm? Oh yeah religious indoctrination. See the problem? Why should we pay for that?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Something remembered from an argument elsewhere. However, checking it seems I confused it and this center took advantage of a farm subsidy with loopholes a mile wide that nearly everyone receiving it wasn't actually farming. Either way as a religious org. they should not have had access to it at all. I bet if dug into though you find some Churches and Diocese... maybe even Buddhist retreats in there.

It would be nice if that grant got cleaned up and the money saved could go to Meals on Wheels or Mar-a-Largo security... whichever.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Apparently you are trying to extend a separation of church and state issue to all NPO's. I have no problem with non-religious NPO's and they can still receive tax money. Because there is no separation of church and state there.

Apparently there isn't here either, because Missouri already said church's can apply for these grants now, and the Supreme Court is going to hear it.

The problem is your claiming it IS an issue, when it is yet to be determined, and Missouri itself is saying it's not apparently.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

It would be nice if that grant got cleaned up

Completely agree and I am 100% behind any christian group exploiting that loophole losing the money too.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko



How long until you advocate we cut them off from public utilites, police and fire for the same reasons?

Absurd comparison. The playground is ON church's property.

And what is the reason for children being there? Hmm? Oh yeah religious indoctrination. See the problem? Why should we pay for that?


Or ... momma needs a daycare and this or that one happened to have an opening at the right time and at the right rates. Unless momma objects on religious grounds which some do, one daycare is as good as another when you need one so long as the actual place itself is clean, bright, has a good reference and has nice, caring caregiver/teachers.

If you've never been in the position of having to find an option for a daycare for a child, then you have no clue what I'm talking about.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you want your Church to have to comply with Federal guidelines on discrimination? Do you want your minister forced to marry gay couples? Better yet, at risk to be sued by the trans-man for not hiring him to be Pastor?

You can't have it both ways. I really think it's best to keep the Fed's out of Churches, don't you?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It IS an issue because we are discussing a news article reporting on how it is about to be a case in the Supreme Court. Just because Missouri currently thinks it is ok and the case isn't being heard yet doesn't mean it isn't an issue yet.

Also, you are wrong. Missouri thinks that their current laws preventing churches for getting grants are fine. It is the Governor of the state that is saying it is ok now, and the ADF are the ones suing the state. If Missouri said it was fine now, then there would be no reason to sue the state.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It IS an issue because we are discussing a news article reporting on how it is about to be a case in the Supreme Court.

That makes it a potential issue. It has not been determined whether this breaks separation.

And I am not wrong. Missouri is saying the lawsuit may not need to be heard anymore, ADF is the one wanting this resolved pushing to keep it being heard.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Then they pay for it? It's really simple.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

Then they pay for it? It's really simple.

Great solution. Let's roll it out across the board.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Glad you agree.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Glad you agree.

I do. No money for NPOs and let's get rid of all these grants. If they want it, they pay for it, not make tax payers pay.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

All NPO? Why?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
It appears that the problem with gays in the bible comes from their pushy and overpowering tendencies, not from their sexual orientation.




Before Sodom was destroyed. They DEMANDED that the two angels inside visiting the men worthy of receiving such visitation be brought outside so they could know them carnally.

They didn't ask, or request. They DEMANDED it.
edit on 17-4-2017 by Miracula2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

I already answered your question; that is unless you need me to explain to you what "Separation of Church and State" means.


So how far does your interpretation reach?
Should local fd and pd respond at taxpayers expense?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

All NPO? Why?

Like I said, across the board. You seemed to agree. Why is a group that pays no taxes taking my hard earned tax dollars? If you are a needed NPO people want funded then you will get donations.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I thought you meant all religious NPOs. My bad.
If the NPOs are willing to follow federal and state guidelines while receiving funding then I see no problem.
I don't know why you cannot see the separation of church and state issue. Maybe it'll dawn on you eventually.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Miracula2

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." - Ezekiel 16:49

Anyway that was attempted rape, not homosexuality. You seem to forget that Lot offered his daughters.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join