Separation of Church and State

[Japher]

Huh? Oh...

Good for that school Rules are rules.

[Jack_www]

Has this not been around for a couple of years? I remember Bush talking about giving founding to such groups like a year or two ago.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by MrFun


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.

There was a case in the news a few months ago were a teacher was fired for wearing a cross, but sued and was able to get her job back. Also the ACLU did not step in to help this teacher though.

[Japher]

Also the ACLU did not step in to help this teacher though.

The ACLU only hates christian denominations... They are very picky on who has rights and who doesn't.

[Jack_www]

There is also anther case in San Deigo were the city allowed the Boy Scouts to use a city park for $1 dollar a year. The ACLU sued saying it was a violation of the speration of Chruch and State, saying the Boy Scouts are a religous group and there for could not lease the park from the City like this. Even if they are a religous group I dont see what the problem is in allowing religous and nor religous groups to use public land and buildings.

[MRT144]

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.

You mean like cracker, good ole boy, republicans who have no perspective?

[Elok]

How about dumb polypeople who overgeneralize?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jack_www
There is also anther case in San Deigo were the city allowed the Boy Scouts to use a city park for $1 dollar a year. The ACLU sued saying it was a violation of the speration of Chruch and State, saying the Boy Scouts are a religous group and there for could not lease the park from the City like this. Even if they are a religous group I dont see what the problem is in allowing religous and nor religous groups to use public land and buildings.

God -- some of the ACLU's stands are RIDICULOUS.


I want you to know that I am not anti-religious.

[Dr Strangelove]

Has anyone here ever seen the Boy Scout "God and Country" merit badge? They have seperate versions for Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Shinto. It is really a stretch of the imagination to claim that an organization that embraces knids of such a diverse array of beliefs is a religious organization.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The Boy Scouts like to have it both ways - they have huge dedicated facilities on public lands, supported by taxpayers, then use their unspecified "religious" beliefs to exclude gays as "morally unclean."

That's the rub - you can't have ongoing public subsidy (to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars a year in this case), and then claim "private organization" and "religious objections" to pick and choose who has the right to access and use of those publicly funded facilities.

Doc - the BSA claimed they were a religious organization in their recent SCOTUS case regarding the expulsion of a gay Eagle Scout in New Jersey.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jack_www


There was a case in the news a few months ago were a teacher was fired for wearing a cross, but sued and was able to get her job back. Also the ACLU did not step in to help this teacher though.

The teacher in question wore a rather large (over 3 inches) cross, always over whatever other garments she was wearing, and she actively proselytized in the school. She never contested that the point of wearing a cross of that size was to attract attention and create openings to discuss her particular religious beliefs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jack_www
There is also anther case in San Deigo were the city allowed the Boy Scouts to use a city park for $1 dollar a year. The ACLU sued saying it was a violation of the speration of Chruch and State, saying the Boy Scouts are a religous group and there for could not lease the park from the City like this. Even if they are a religous group I dont see what the problem is in allowing religous and nor religous groups to use public land and buildings.

I don't either - if the access to public facilities is granted on a non-preferential basis.

One of the funnier issues, since it's been such an ongoing source of BS, is the cross at Mt. Soledad park in La Jolla (one of the hoighty-toity areas of San Diego).

It's fairly prominent, being a rather large piece of concrete atop the highest point in 20 miles or so, and the views are pretty spectacular. There's a small city park there, so the cross isn't the only thing, but parking is pretty limited, so to schedule any group events at Mt. Soledad park, you have to get a permit from the City of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation.

In the late 1970's and through mid 1980's, there was the typical cross on a piece of public land lawsuit that wound it's way up to the Ninth Circuit. Predictable ruling, it's an endorsement. So the city decides to sell the cross to a "private" group created expressly for that purpose. Uh-uh, that's a no-no, because the cross is still on city land. So then the city council approves a transfer of about one square meter of land, without a legal description, but the city will still maintain the cross and the land without charge. Bzzzzzzt! Wrong, try again. And again.

Finally, enough BS fun and games by the city and "private foundations" lawyers, and they transfer a decent size piece of property that covers the footprint of the cross and it's connected landscaping, they create a proper legal description and record a proper deed, just like any other land transfer under California's Subdivision Map Act, the private group endows a fund that will pay for the city's cost in maintaining what it maintains, and the city retains scheduling rights, as the parking, trash, and related services are all still part of the park. No problems on that end, finally, after 15 years of game playing.

Then there's the little bit about Easter sunrise services. By tradition, the same religious group monopolized the site, got a waiver on the day use fee (it was just ignored, no formal waiver), but this one congregation got the advance res on the site every year. They allowed other people to attend, but, it was "their" function, so who could attend was subject to their control.

Hence another lawsuit, this time over preferential access and improper fee waivers. (Everyone else pays, and the fee is reasonable and based on the number of people and whether you're half day or less, or full day).

So this one was a no-brainer, and the access rules were squared away so it was on the same basis as everyone else. Then to prove a point, exactly one year ahead of time (max to reserve an event), first thing in the morning, these self-styled pagan folks show up and plunk down their fee to reserve the cross section of the park for the next Easter Sunday, one year hence. Oh mah gawd, pagan and wiccans and heathens oh my! So the other guys just reserved another chunk of the park, and the next easter, each group did its thing without bugging the other one, and it's been a non-issue since.

IMO, for every bull**** lawsuit (and there are plenty), there is another case where someone is milking their position to spread the word, or someone is getting preferential and subsidized use of public facilities on a basis nobody else can get. There are gameplayers on both sides.

[Berzerker]

Mr "Fun" -

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

No, just makes me feel smarter and funnier. This thread you started is hypocritical as I've pointed out, and now you've continued with the hypocrisy. My "lame troll" was in response to your lame troll. shall we revisit it just so my commentary doesn't fly over your head again?

Here is what you said:

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.

And my response:

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

The truth hurts...

[chequita guevara]

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.

No we didn't. That's what the right said we turned it into, and by repeating this lie for twenty+ years, many people now believe that individuals may not express any religious sentiments in schools. But if you look at what we pushed, it was always against institutional religious expressions, never individual.

Actually, I think it might be unconstitutional to prevent religous charities from being eligible for these types of grants, however, they should be narowly granted. The example of giving money for someone to work in a church should be right out. That's public sponsorship of religion. However, giving money to a church that can only be used in a non-sectarian food pantry, for example, should be allowed.

[CygnusZ]

A few things here...

1) Just because the President made an executive order, doesn't mean that he'll be able to accomplish it. The budget depends upon passage in the Senate, and so he cannot implement his program until he gets his funding. If he never gets his funding, no group can challange his order.

2) I'm pretty sure there's no precedent of the Federal Government giving block grants to Church's. I believe there have been instances of the Government supporting specific programs. This probably presents a new constitutional question which should be brought before the USSC (to be declared unconstitutional! )

3) In the case of the Boy Scouts (someone mentioned that I think), the problem sit hat the Boy Scouts accept people from a variety of backgrounds yet discriminate on the basis of homosexuality. This is slightly different, as a church recieving faith based aid shouldn't be able to deny a service on the basis of sexuality or religion.

Still, government funding the Boy Scouts is legal as it stands. Hopefully in time it will become as politically untenable to fund the Boy Scouts as it is the KKK