Separation of Church and State

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun -

It will be funny to see all those religious leaders run to the White House to grovel for money the same way that corporate leaders grovel.

They'll have to get in line behind all the liberals.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

don't bastardize my statements again.

I haven't... I'm just stating the facts... but if you'll have me quote:

Imran:

Most religions don't want the state interfering in their sphere.

MrFun:

Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

Game. Set. Match.

I didn't bastardize anything, just quoted... and I was refering to 'Most religions', you came back with 'Many fundies'.

Lets see you continue to back away from your statements now .

As I said we were talking about two different groups of people.

It was my mistake.

And quit with that tongue.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mr Fun -

They'll have to get in line behind all the liberals.

Makes you feel like you have a bigger d*ck because you use lame trolls, don't it??

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

So it has to be all or nothing, Drake?

It shouldn't be all or nothing, but that's what you and your liberal compadres have turned it into. You fight against every little connection between government and religion, even when the ultimate goal (helping the needy, respecting a little girl's religious beliefs) is a noble one. Your complete lack of perspective has become the status quo and the country is suffering for it.

Just to be clear -- I'm not an extreme lefty.


While I wish for religious tolerance for all religions in public schools in terms of personal, individual expression (not publicly organized by staff), I oppose government endorsement of religions.

But I don't see how the government is endorsing any one religion if I advocate that all individuals should be free to personally express their religion in public schools, as long as one religion is not endorsed by the staff/board.

[MrFun]

I'm not staying up all night to wait for you trio to continue our discussion.

I'm going to get to bed in ten minutes or so.

[Drake Tungsten]

But I don't see how the government is endorsing any one religion if I advocate that all individuals should be free to personally express their religion in public schools, as long as one religion is not endorsed by the staff/board.

In this case, they'd be making a special exception to their dress code based on religious considerations. Since no other reasons are acceptable for violating the dress code, allowing the girl to wear her head scarf could be seen as an endorsement of religion, if you have no sense of perspective.

On another note, how would you feel if it was a teacher wearing the scarf or maybe a cross? Do teachers have the same rights to religous expression as students?

I'm not staying up all night to wait for you trio to continue our discussion.

I'm going to get to bed in ten minutes or so.

Sorry, sir. I wanted some lunch.

[Heresson]

The law is based on some moral judges. Why shouldn't one use his religious ones?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Separation of Church and State

Originally posted by MrFun
I was informed from a friend earlier this evening, that the Senate refused to even floor a proposal that the federal government can legally offer financial contributions to religious denominations.

You heard wrong.

President Bush, being the high-handed, arrogant SOB, decided to invoke executive authority, and enact this into law anyway, against the Sentate's wishes.

Wrong again - Bush can issue executive orders, but they don't cover fiscal matters. Bush can also disburse funds authorized by Congress but the Executive branch can't simply spend money, since it doesn't have any until authorized by Congress.

Seems like President Bush never heard of this concept in American law called "separation of the church and state."

What concept in American law? You mean the Establishment Clause? That doesn't prohibit giving funds to religious affiliatated organizations for secular purposes on the same basis as non-religious affiliated organizations performing similar services.

What can President Bush get away with before mainstream, moderate voters realize that he is an extremist??

You've never dealt with a real extremist, so as long as whiners keep taking actions like this and whining "extremist," mainstream moderate voters will just

And even if he was an extremist, you still have to dig up a credible alternative.

[Kuciwalker]

mtg

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
If the founding fathers had no issue with this whatsoever..why hasn;t this been common practice for the last 200 years? I mean, obviosuly those guys that wrote the consitution would have felt no problem with it, which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated..I mean, the list is endless. Just in 1915, under good old Wilson, the Feds gave......

wait, no..this hasn;t been common practice since the inception of the US. I wonder why?

The Federal government's big move into the money distribution game arguable started with the 16th Amendment. It was many decades later, starting with the Warren court, that you first had successful challenges of religious symbols/practices, etc. in association with government.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

In this case, they'd be making a special exception to their dress code based on religious considerations. Since no other reasons are acceptable for violating the dress code, allowing the girl to wear her head scarf could be seen as an endorsement of religion, if you have no sense of perspective.

On another note, how would you feel if it was a teacher wearing the scarf or maybe a cross? Do teachers have the same rights to religous expression as students?

Yes -- I still don't understand how allowing individuals of all religions and their denominations to express themselves through personal religious apparel, means that the government is officially endorsing one, specific religion over the others.

Teachers and other staff should have the same right of personal, individual religious expression that students ought to have.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Separation of Church and State

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Wrong again - Bush can issue executive orders, but they don't cover fiscal matters. Bush can also disburse funds authorized by Congress but the Executive branch can't simply spend money, since it doesn't have any until authorized by Congress.


What concept in American law? You mean the Establishment Clause? That doesn't prohibit giving funds to religious affiliatated organizations for secular purposes on the same basis as non-religious affiliated organizations performing similar services.


You've never dealt with a real extremist, so as long as whiners keep taking actions like this and whining "extremist," mainstream moderate voters will just

And even if he was an extremist, you still have to dig up a credible alternative.

If you mean by "secular purposes" as in, donations of food, clothing and other essentials to third world nations and to impoverished Americans, that makes sense, I guess.


And my statements about Bush as an extremist -- that was emotional blabbering before I cooled down.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and State

Originally posted by MrFun


If you mean by "secular purposes" as in, donations of food, clothing and other essentials to third world nations and to impoverished Americans, that makes sense, I guess.

Or literacy programs, or hospice programs for seniors - there's a ton of charitable programs out there, and IMO, to the extent that grant money or other forms of Federal largesse with our money is available, it should be available to whatever organizations are most effective in providing the intended service - religious affiliation shouldn't be an absolute disqualifier.

And my statements about Bush as an extremist -- that was emotional blabbering before I cooled down.

Liberals do way too much of that emotional blabbering as it is. It really discredits any legitimate arguments they have.

[Japher]

What if the government decided to tax all food with the "Kosher" label?

How far should freedom of expression (religious or otherwise) be taken? Especially, if that freedom infringes or could infringe on the safety of others?

As far as I understand it the government cannot do anything to prevent someone from practicing their religion. Yet, that doesn't mean that can't promote one of the other. Does such promotion prevent the practice? No.

As for the scarf. It shielded her face, thus you couldn't identify her. Driving is not a right it is a privilage. You have to be willing to play by the rules to even enter the game... She did not, and was therefor in the wrong. Take a taxi.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Earth calling Japher:

This is not about the woman in Florida wearing a full head cover.

The issue in question is a schoolgirl in Oklahoma wearing a hajib (which just covers the hair) in class.