13-10-2003 10:00									#61
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Mr Fun -

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 10:00									#62
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: don't bastardize my statements again. I haven't... I'm just stating the facts... but if you'll have me quote: Imran: quote: Most religions don't want the state interfering in their sphere. MrFun: quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 10:01									#63
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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??

	13-10-2003 10:07									#64
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 10:12									#65
	Tired of ads?

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.

	13-10-2003 10:43									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 13:15									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	13-10-2003 20:31									#68
	Re: Separation of Church and State Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 20:37									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

mtg

	13-10-2003 20:37									#70
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 21:33									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 21:36									#72
	Re: Re: Separation of Church and State Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 22:06									#73
	Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and State Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 22:06									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	13-10-2003 22:09									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	13-10-2003 22:20									#76
	Suffering from ads?

Huh? Oh...

Good for that school Rules are rules.

	13-10-2003 22:24									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	13-10-2003 22:27									#78
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 22:28									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

	13-10-2003 22:33									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	13-10-2003 22:55									#81
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: 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?

	14-10-2003 01:40									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How about dumb polypeople who overgeneralize?

	14-10-2003 03:25									#83
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	14-10-2003 04:32									#84
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

	14-10-2003 04:38									#85
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	14-10-2003 04:42									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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.

	14-10-2003 05:14									#87
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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 bullshit 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.

	14-10-2003 05:23									#88
	Support Apolyton

Mr "Fun" -

quote: 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:

quote: 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:

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

The truth hurts...

	14-10-2003 06:39									#89
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: 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.

	14-10-2003 06:48									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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