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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I don't know why you cannot see the separation of church and state issue. Maybe it'll dawn on you eventually.

What issue, can you tell me who determined there was in fact an issue? Missouri says there isn't.




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



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?


No, that's not what I said at all. I said that the rubber mats for the playground, paid for by tax payer dollars, potentially wont benefit the children of gay couples, or unwed mothers, or mixed race or religion couples. Religious institution are allowed to discriminate against random segments of the public, so, I don't think they should be given public funds. Doing so sends the message that the government endorses the grant recipient's religious views.

I doubt you would feel the same about equal day care opportunities if a Satanist Church wanted public funds for their school. Be careful what you wish for.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

“Forcing states to provide cash to build church property could open the floodgates to programs that coerce taxpayers to underwrite religion.”

"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."

And others.

It's right there in the article. Read.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: rickymouse

You may see a school for the blind as an institution that discriminates against seeing people, but if they take tax dollars, they can't violate civil rights laws in keeping with their mission statement. They can't prevent seeing parents from attending PTA meetings, for example.

Churches are allowed to violate civil rights laws, in keeping with their religious mission statements. For the government to look the other way, allowing religious institutions to violate civil rights based on a religious mission statement, while receiving tax dollars, is the same as the government endorsing a religion and sponsoring discrimination.



Our government gives money to support the mostly Muslim Refugees that are way more against Gays and Transvestites than the vast majority of Christians who are civilians and are personally not allowed to discriminate because they are citizens. Most Churches do not bash gay people in this country much, I think it is in the mindset of those who are against religion that this exists..



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

“Forcing states to provide cash to build church property could open the floodgates to programs that coerce taxpayers to underwrite religion.”

"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."

And others.

It's right there in the article. Read.

I read it. I see Missouri is not even sure if there is an issue, and I see NO ONE having determined there is in fact an issue here.

Missouri's new governor, Republican Eric Greitens, injected some uncertainty into the high court case on Thursday, when he directed state agencies to allow religious groups and schools to receive taxpayer money for playgrounds and other purposes.

a top aide to state Attorney General Josh Hawley told the AP that state lawyers were evaluating whether the new policy would affect the case.

abcnews.go.com...

So Missouri is saying they may have been in the wrong after all and the case may not need to be heard.

Now, can religious people apply for grants for non religious use? You seem to be suggesting they can not.
edit on 17-4-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko



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?


No, that's not what I said at all. I said that the rubber mats for the playground, paid for by tax payer dollars, potentially wont benefit the children of gay couples, or unwed mothers, or mixed race or religion couples. Religious institution are allowed to discriminate against random segments of the public, so, I don't think they should be given public funds. Doing so sends the message that the government endorses the grant recipient's religious views.

I doubt you would feel the same about equal day care opportunities if a Satanist Church wanted public funds for their school. Be careful what you wish for.



So my point still stands ... this *evil* religious institution might have views that conflict with what you consider to be correct ones and they are allowed to use public utilties and police and fire. Don't you have the same issues with that? I mean that water and electricity they use might be benefiting a group that could discriminate against random segments of the public who pays for those things in common.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



You seem to be suggesting they can not.

Sighs. We keep bringing up First Amendment and you still don't get it. I have no idea why.
If a government funds a religious organization then it is PROMOTING a religion.
Understand?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



You seem to be suggesting they can not.

Sighs. We keep bringing up First Amendment and you still don't get it. I have no idea why.
If a government funds a religious organization then it is PROMOTING a religion.
Understand?

Apparently you are wrong since Missouri changed course?

Are they funding a religion by funding a religious person?
edit on 17-4-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Again we see so many States Rights "supporters" don't like it when a State doesn't dance to their tune:

From the Missouri State Constitution:



Public aid for religious purposes--preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.


That's pretty dang clear.

Constitution of the State of Missouri - Section 7



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



they are allowed to use public utilties and police and fire. Don't you have the same issues with that? I mean that water and electricity they use might be benefiting a group that could discriminate against random segments of the public who pays for those things in common.

I am scratching my head at why you keep using that ridiculous comparison. You might have a point if the fire dept and police dept are on church's property.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong issue, try again?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: rickymouse

The opposite is also true. Anti-gay Christians lead to more anti-Christian sentiment.

Just thought I'd point that out.


That is actually true. If Christians wanted to expand their numbers, they should refrain from riling people up.

I have no problem with someone being gay, I have known gay people since I was in my late teens. Back when everyone was anti-gay, I was living in a house with some friends, four of which were lesbians. People thought I was gay because I stayed there, I laughed at them, they were Lesbians, not gay guys. The Fire department burnt down the tent of a gay guy camping at a park in a town up where I used to live, not because he was gay, because he was trying to get the boys who partied there on weekends drunk so he could take advantage of them.. That was not a gay issue, the boys were sixteen to seventeen years old, they were minors. The guy was probably in his late thirties to early forties. They had the fire truck out there to make sure anything else didn't catch fire. The guy left town, he got the hint. Can't be having high jail and legal costs for charging someone with sex with a minor, they saved the taxpayer money.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

That's terrible.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko



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?


No, that's not what I said at all. I said that the rubber mats for the playground, paid for by tax payer dollars, potentially wont benefit the children of gay couples, or unwed mothers, or mixed race or religion couples. Religious institution are allowed to discriminate against random segments of the public, so, I don't think they should be given public funds. Doing so sends the message that the government endorses the grant recipient's religious views.

I doubt you would feel the same about equal day care opportunities if a Satanist Church wanted public funds for their school. Be careful what you wish for.



So my point still stands ... this *evil* religious institution might have views that conflict with what you consider to be correct ones and they are allowed to use public utilties and police and fire. Don't you have the same issues with that? I mean that water and electricity they use might be benefiting a group that could discriminate against random segments of the public who pays for those things in common.


Man, you just can't stop spinning can you? I don't think public funds should go to institutions that will use those funds to discriminate and violate civil rights. Everyone is entitled to public utilities. The police and/or fire aren't allowed to refuse to help someone based on their religion, or lack therefor, or because they're gay or an unwed mother, etc.


edit on 17-4-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
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.


He offered his daughters in place of the male angels.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong issue, try again?


Wrong issue?

How so?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Your whole objection is the use of public funds to support anything religious. Well, public utilities are use of public funds, and churches use them same as everyone else. Churches also use the public safety apparatus same as everyone else. Those also are supported by public funds.

By allowing churches to use those amenities, it enables religious activities to take place and thus religious indoctrination.

It's as ridiculous as saying that if a a rubber playmat is installed on the playground with public funds it will support religious indoctrination.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko



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?


No, that's not what I said at all. I said that the rubber mats for the playground, paid for by tax payer dollars, potentially wont benefit the children of gay couples, or unwed mothers, or mixed race or religion couples. Religious institution are allowed to discriminate against random segments of the public, so, I don't think they should be given public funds. Doing so sends the message that the government endorses the grant recipient's religious views.

I doubt you would feel the same about equal day care opportunities if a Satanist Church wanted public funds for their school. Be careful what you wish for.



So my point still stands ... this *evil* religious institution might have views that conflict with what you consider to be correct ones and they are allowed to use public utilties and police and fire. Don't you have the same issues with that? I mean that water and electricity they use might be benefiting a group that could discriminate against random segments of the public who pays for those things in common.


Man, you just can't stop spinning can you? I don't think public funds should go to institutions that will use those funds to discriminate and violate civil rights. Everyone is entitled to public utilities. The police and/or fire aren't allowed to refuse to help someone based on their religion, or lack therefor, or because they're gay or an unwed mother, etc.



Then if the public grant is made available to schools and daycares for the purpose of upgrading facilties, all such faciltires are entitled to apply and the grant isn't allowed to be applied in a discriminatory manner by the state unless the grant was going to endorse religion which it clearly is not.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


If the boy scouts were like those summer camps, I would have never been a boy scout. We used to go out winter camping, and go on all sorts of trips out into the woods and there were only a few scoutmasters around much of the time. Those camps you talk about are summer camps. They will have ten people watching after the kids.

Boy scouts used to be about teaching the young guys about survival and fending for themselves. They were not about putting the boys into a situation that would possibly cause them to have sex. They were actually anti-sex. Teaching us there was more to life than promoting dating.

Now they are trying to get girls and gays into boy scouts.....how does that teach them to manage their sexual urges? Some may say that separating people from others to have sex with was not the right way, it worked fine back then. There were far less problems with Boy scouts and girl scouts back those days than within the regular people who were all wrapped up in finding partners of the opposite sex. The girls in girlscouts were way less wild back then, they were more into nature than being obsessed with cute movie stars and young rock stars. Beetle freaks were not the same as those who loved nature back then.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Are police and fire depts on church's property? Yes or no? Are they paying for the utilities? Yes or no? So your comparison is invalid.

Not sure why you are avoiding the real issue. Are you willing to have federal and state force churches to hire gay ministries? And I notice you didn't answer about willing to pay for Mosques and Sharia Law. I know why.




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join