Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But there are no problems accpeting taxes from Christians for purely secular activites---some of which attempt to suppress religious ideology ?
No, this makes no sense. The US is a state for all religions (freedom of religion), therefor it has no state religion and it does not fund any religious causes.
It does not suppress religious ideology, it still allows them to use private money for their private Causes: religion.
Public money is used for public causes: no religion because each taxpayer has the right to have a different religion, so a christian/Jew/atheist should not see his taxpayermoney go to fund a mosque or and atheist should not see his taxpayermoney go to fund a scientology church.
This isn't about funding churches or mosques, lmao. It's about banning the use of a public facility for anything that is associated with religion.
This thread is long and I don't know if anyone has noted this yet....
but it says they are prohibited from funding the repair of buildings that are used PRIMARILY FOR religious use....the primary function of the BUILDING.
If kids meet after school for a Bible Study club, one night a week in a classroom WOULD NOT MEET the standard of the room being used PRIMARILY for religious purposes.
This SCARE is just a bunch of HOT AIR....from what i am reading on it....
Care
This thread is long and I don't know if anyone has noted this yet....
but it says they are prohibited from funding the repair of buildings that are used PRIMARILY FOR religious use....the primary function of the BUILDING.
If kids meet after school for a Bible Study club, one night a week in a classroom WOULD NOT MEET the standard of the room being used PRIMARILY for religious purposes.
This SCARE is just a bunch of HOT AIR....from what i am reading on it....
Care
And therein lies the problem. If a religious group uses a room in a school that is used infrequently by the school, the government can cut-off funding for that school. If a religious group uses a classroom 6 days a week while the public kids only use it 5 days a week, the government can cut-off funding. Imagine if you live in a small town and buildings are in short supply. The school could lose funding.
There are a lot of loopholes in this. On the surface, it appears to give the government a way to attack conservative organizations.
In the end this will cost taxpayers more money as many of these groups pay to use these facilities, which means the schools will have to choose between the loss of revenue from the government funding or from these groups. Shogun, you are such a twit it's pathetic. You're so obsessed with ridding this country of religion that you don't care how it affects anyone, even those atheists who will end up paying higher taxes because of this stupidity.
I posted MY evidence, dude. Where is yours? Read any good "Boyscouts kicked the fuck out of public venues becaue of their anti-gay stance" articles lately? do you have EVIDENCE that the general population will "pay more taxes" if your silly dogma junkie ass is not allowed free reign of public resources? Non-sequiters may increase the tithes in the donation plate but i'm just not all that impressed.
Indeed, a nation without religion would give each of us one less reason to marginalize others. I look forward to that AFFECTING the nation. The FACT remains that you will not be hindered at all by being excluded from the public tax tit. Tell me, IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK JESUS WOULD HAVE DONE? Crying about funding from Ceasar?
Your evidence is the twisting of our Constitution, plain and simple. When organizations that pay to use these facilities are no longer permitted to use them, then the schools will lose revenue. But I'm sure you believe that by removing these organizations, others will take their place.
No, this makes no sense. The US is a state for all religions (freedom of religion), therefor it has no state religion and it does not fund any religious causes.
It does not suppress religious ideology, it still allows them to use private money for their private Causes: religion.
Public money is used for public causes: no religion because each taxpayer has the right to have a different religion, so a christian/Jew/atheist should not see his taxpayermoney go to fund a mosque or and atheist should not see his taxpayermoney go to fund a scientology church.
This isn't about funding churches or mosques, lmao. It's about banning the use of a public facility for anything that is associated with religion.
or, more specifically, banning the payout to dogma junkies who seem to think that public tax money should go to fix their roof and pour the foundation of a bigger church building.
Where did jesus tell you to depend on Ceasar for your faith based social efforts? What specific piece of scripture suggests that thou shouldeth petitioneth the Governmenteth for Thy Fundage to payeth for your faith based initiatives?
This isn't about funding the repair or construction of churches, mosques, or synagogues. But apparently, you think it is.
Sorry, it's just not true that filtering out your dogma junkie handout reflex from funds meant to do more than line your tithing coffer amounts to limiting your freedom of religion. Again, WE THE PEOPLE do not subsidize your fucking faith. Cry like lionfood all you need to but Ceasar doesn't have to wipe your ass just because you feel the urge to eat beans and ex-lax and it sure as hell isn't religous persecution if we reserve the tax based GOOD toilet paper for asses more common than those found only in your particular sect of dogma.
Where in the New Testement does jesus say to Cry Like A Bitch every time Ceasar is not coddling you like a newborn babe to a first time mother?
You're so stupid you don't realize that many of these groups of faith actually pay for the use of those facilities.
This thread is long and I don't know if anyone has noted this yet....
but it says they are prohibited from funding the repair of buildings that are used PRIMARILY FOR religious use....the primary function of the BUILDING.
If kids meet after school for a Bible Study club, one night a week in a classroom WOULD NOT MEET the standard of the room being used PRIMARILY for religious purposes.
This SCARE is just a bunch of HOT AIR....from what i am reading on it....
Care
Care,
Go back and read the proposed statute again!
Youre correct that Paragraph (ii) prohibits the use of the funds for a building that has as its purpose primarily religious activities. But, the paragraph before it, Paragraph (i), is much broader and is separated from paragraph (ii) not by the word and, but by the word or. This distinction is critically important in interpretation of the language.
In other words, Paragraph (i) prohibits the use of the funds in a building that is used for any religious activity no matter if it is only incidental to the buildings primary purpose or not!
That little word "or" changes everything.
"Nestled away in the now $900 billion-plus stimulus is a provision some conservatives believe is a backdoor attempt to stifle religious dialogue in the public square. While the bill provides $20 billion for the modernization of school facilities with $14 billion going to elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education it also expressly prohibits using the funds to modernize buildings where religious activities take place." The Bulletin > Philadelphia's Family Newspaper > Archives > Top Stories > Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination
Under current law a public school must allow after school use of its facilities for religiouos activities such as Bible study and religious services. What this bill will do is make it illegal for any school that accepts these funds for improvements, repairs or new construction to do so.
This thread is long and I don't know if anyone has noted this yet....
but it says they are prohibited from funding the repair of buildings that are used PRIMARILY FOR religious use....the primary function of the BUILDING.
If kids meet after school for a Bible Study club, one night a week in a classroom WOULD NOT MEET the standard of the room being used PRIMARILY for religious purposes.
This SCARE is just a bunch of HOT AIR....from what i am reading on it....
Care
And therein lies the problem. If a religious group uses a room in a school that is used infrequently by the school, the government can cut-off funding for that school. If a religious group uses a classroom 6 days a week while the public kids only use it 5 days a week, the government can cut-off funding. Imagine if you live in a small town and buildings are in short supply. The school could lose funding.
There are a lot of loopholes in this. On the surface, it appears to give the government a way to attack conservative organizations.
Do you even know of a school with those kind of conditions X...ie. classrooms not being used? Most all schools are over crowded....even where my sister teaches in rural florida, they have to use trailers, outside, in order to accommodate them all....?
a single classroom is used a minimum of 6 classes a day, 5 days a week....in my old school it was so over crowded, we had to have 2 shifts for our school...a morning shift that went thru about 1 pm starting at 7 am with seniors and juniors and and afternoon shift for the freshmen and sophmores going another 5 hours....
Honestly Xsisted.....unless the school has a chapel on the grounds, used 24/7, i can't see this being a problem....?
Is this for State colleges as well....the stimulus help for schools?
maybe this is why this part is in the legislation, because many colleges do have chapels?
This thread is long and I don't know if anyone has noted this yet....
but it says they are prohibited from funding the repair of buildings that are used PRIMARILY FOR religious use....the primary function of the BUILDING.
If kids meet after school for a Bible Study club, one night a week in a classroom WOULD NOT MEET the standard of the room being used PRIMARILY for religious purposes.
This SCARE is just a bunch of HOT AIR....from what i am reading on it....
Care
Care,
Go back and read the proposed statute again!
You’re correct that Paragraph (ii) prohibits the use of the funds for a building that has as its purpose primarily religious activities. But, the paragraph before it, Paragraph (i), is much broader and is separated from paragraph (ii) not by the word “and”, but by the word “or”. This distinction is critically important in interpretation of the language.
In other words, Paragraph (i) prohibits the use of the funds in a building that is used for any religious activity no matter if it is only incidental to the building’s primary purpose or not!
That little word "or" changes everything.
patriot,
huh? I just read the part that was printed in the article? Is this other part in the article from your original link as well and i missed it?
Can you please copy and paste for me, what you are talking about? I think I am confused....actually i know i am confused... i promise to read it carefully!!!
care
Sorry, it's just not true that filtering out your dogma junkie handout reflex from funds meant to do more than line your tithing coffer amounts to limiting your freedom of religion. Again, WE THE PEOPLE do not subsidize your fucking faith. Cry like lionfood all you need to but Ceasar doesn't have to wipe your ass just because you feel the urge to eat beans and ex-lax and it sure as hell isn't religous persecution if we reserve the tax based GOOD toilet paper for asses more common than those found only in your particular sect of dogma.
Where in the New Testement does jesus say to Cry Like A Bitch every time Ceasar is not coddling you like a newborn babe to a first time mother?
You're so stupid you don't realize that many of these groups of faith actually pay for the use of those facilities.
Let them pay. You are not here crying about who the church pays for what. You are here crying about your grubby fucking paws being slapped out of the tax payer cookie jar. By all means, let them pay. Hell, if the boyscouts COULD PAY rather than take public charity then they wouldn't have to be kicked out of their fucking building, eh? You know, that article that one of us posted? THAT would have been RENT if they COULD PAY. But, thats not at all what you are bleeding all over the carpet about, now is it?
FYICare,
Go back and read the proposed statute again!
Youre correct that Paragraph (ii) prohibits the use of the funds for a building that has as its purpose primarily religious activities. But, the paragraph before it, Paragraph (i), is much broader and is separated from paragraph (ii) not by the word and, but by the word or. This distinction is critically important in interpretation of the language.
In other words, Paragraph (i) prohibits the use of the funds in a building that is used for any religious activity no matter if it is only incidental to the buildings primary purpose or not!
That little word "or" changes everything.
patriot,
huh? I just read the part that was printed in the article? Is this other part in the article from your original link as well and i missed it?
Can you please copy and paste for me, what you are talking about? I think I am confused....actually i know i am confused... i promise to read it carefully!!!
care
Care,
No problem.
Heres the specific provision were talking about, with my emphasis added (found at Pages 164-165 of the stimulus bill):
(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.No funds awarded under this section may be used for
(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.
What the Supreme Court has held is that if a school, or, I believe, other publicly owned buildings such as community centers and so on, make the facilities available to the public for non-government uses, i.e., student extra-curricular activities, club meetings, and other such uses, it must make the same facilities available to groups intent on using the facilities for religious activities as well [See GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL (99-2036) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZS.html].
It is common for church clubs, small congregations that cant afford to build a church, Bible study groups and other religious groups to use public buildings in this manner. Our church held an outreach dinner in a neighboring community elementary school recently.
That's not different from this, actually... and it comports with my understanding. this is from the bill...
"used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.
I think it might just be a way to head off scalia and roberts from changing those limits. And I am very much ok with that.
Pages 164-165 of the stimulus contain the following prohibitions on the use of $3.5 billion available for renovation of public or private college and university facilities:
(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.No funds awarded under this section may be used for
(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.
OK, Part (2)(C)(i) is the offending provision. Part (2)(C)(ii) isnt a problem because it is already common in federal funding laws. The (ii) paragraph means that the funds cant be used to build, renovate or repair what would be a church or church instructional building. Some campuses include a school chapel. Any work on such a building couldnt be performed with these funds. Although I personally wouldnt have a problem with such a use of the stimulus money some would and I understand such objections.
But, the (i) paragraph is something new and is a departure from already existing federal law. It is far broader and includes all occasional or less than substantial uses for any religious activity. In other words this isnt a matter of banning the use of the funds for an old oncampus chapel or church. It bans the one-time or two-time outreach dinner such as the one my church hosted at that elementary school one Thursday night. Thats a big difference.
The irony is that it wouldnt ban a night of gambling on bingo by a local social club in the same building!
from the article, it looks like they are talking about COLLEGE CAMPUSES.....near the end it talks of campuses with a ministry on campus.....
Do we call elementary schools campuses? And do elementary schools have religious ministries on their grounds?
PLEASE....this is not what the article made it out to be....it's just not....
In the end this will cost taxpayers more money as many of these groups pay to use these facilities, which means the schools will have to choose between the loss of revenue from the government funding or from these groups. Shogun, you are such a twit it's pathetic. You're so obsessed with ridding this country of religion that you don't care how it affects anyone, even those atheists who will end up paying higher taxes because of this stupidity.
I posted MY evidence, dude. Where is yours? Read any good "Boyscouts kicked the fuck out of public venues becaue of their anti-gay stance" articles lately? do you have EVIDENCE that the general population will "pay more taxes" if your silly dogma junkie ass is not allowed free reign of public resources? Non-sequiters may increase the tithes in the donation plate but i'm just not all that impressed.
Indeed, a nation without religion would give each of us one less reason to marginalize others. I look forward to that AFFECTING the nation. The FACT remains that you will not be hindered at all by being excluded from the public tax tit. Tell me, IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK JESUS WOULD HAVE DONE? Crying about funding from Ceasar?
Your evidence is the twisting of our Constitution, plain and simple. When organizations that pay to use these facilities are no longer permitted to use them, then the schools will lose revenue. But I'm sure you believe that by removing these organizations, others will take their place.
What the constitution allows:
Again, this is in a state of flux. As of early 1999, the following activities are permitted. In fact, they are more than allowed. They are constitutionally protected as freedom of speech, religion and assembly rights:
Graduation ceremonies: Some invocations, benedictions and prayers at graduation ceremonies. This is very much a gray area as far as court rulings is concerned. More details.
Teaching religion: The positive and negative effects of religion on society may be studied in history, literature, comparative religion, and other courses. Comparative religion classes are allowed, as long as one religion is not presented as being superior to any another, or as absolute truth. Bible study is allowed, as long as the texts from other religions are also studied. Schools can communicate the broad field of religion but not indoctrinate their students in a particular faith.
Student religious clubs: If the school receives federal funds, then it must obey the federal Equal Access Act of 1984. Students are free to organize Bible study and other religious special interest clubs if any other secular clubs are allowed. The school may prohibit religious clubs, but only if it prohibits all student groups. Religious clubs must be given the same access to school facilities (space to meet, permission to advertise on school bulletin boards, permission to have announcements read over the PA system, inclusion in the year book, etc.) as do other clubs. Group meetings must be "voluntary and student initiated." There must be no "sponsorship" of the meetings by the school. "Non-school persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend" the activities. One effect of this law is the flourishing of Christian clubs in public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates that 10,000 Christian clubs are operating in U.S. high schools. 2 More information
Moment of silence: Having students engage in a moment of silence during which they can pray, meditate, plan their day, or engage in any other silent mental activity. In late 2000, a federal court affirmed the constitutionality of the moment of silence law which came into effect in Virginia on 2000-APR-1. The decision is under appeal by the ACLU. The Natural Law Project promotes this alternative.
Prayer outside of school building: Students can organize prayers on school property outside the classroom. e.g. they can conduct group prayer meetings at the school flagpole.
School religious speech: Students can carry Bible or other religious texts to and in school. They can pray before eating. A student can pray on the school bus, in the cafeteria, in classrooms before and after class, in the corridors, in the washrooms, etc. They can wear T-shirts with religious text. They can wear religious jewelry (buttons, symbols). They can hand out religious materials. They can freely talk about religion to fellow students, outside of class. They can pray before eating in the cafeteria. These are well-known freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Yet not everyone is aware of these forms of protected speech. Bill Keane's cartoon "Family Circus" for 1999-NOV-15 shows a mother waving at two children leaving the house. She says "Get to school safely." The caption reads "Chances are they will as long as they're allowed to pray on that old school bus."
Rental of school facilities: Many religious organizations rent school facilities after hours. Past court decisions generally supported this right, if rooms are also rented to secular groups. Court rulings specified that schools can refuse to rent to religious groups, but then they cannot rent to outside secular organizations as well. However, recent court decisions have split on this issue.
Teaching of evolution: Schools may require their teachers to explain evolution as a scientific theory, as supported by 95% of scientists. This would include teachers who might not believe evolution to be true because of their personal religious grounds.
Teacher display of religion: Teachers may be prohibited from displaying a Bible on their desk or from placing religious posters on the classroom wall. This would imply state support for a specific religion.
In summary, the law guarantees students' fundamental religious freedoms while requiring the school to maintain a religiously neutral environment. Sometimes the latter requires some limitations on teachers' freedoms. A 1996-JUN court decision by the US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi covers many of the above items, including prayer over a school-wide intercom, a pre-school religious group, classroom prayer, teaching a Bible class and religious instruction in a history class. The text of the court order is also available on the Internet.
That's not different from this, actually... and it comports with my understanding. this is from the bill...
"used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”
I think it might just be a way to head off scalia and roberts from changing those limits. And I am very much ok with that.
Pages 164-165 of the stimulus contain the following prohibitions on the use of $3.5 billion available for renovation of public or private college and university facilities:
“(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—
(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.”
OK, Part (2)(C)(i) is the offending provision. Part (2)(C)(ii) isn’t a problem because it is already common in federal funding laws. The (ii) paragraph means that the funds can’t be used to build, renovate or repair what would be a church or church instructional building. Some campuses include a school chapel. Any work on such a building couldn’t be performed with these funds. Although I personally wouldn’t have a problem with such a use of the stimulus money some would and I understand such objections.
But, the (i) paragraph is something new and is a departure from already existing federal law. It is far broader and includes all occasional or less than substantial uses for any religious activity. In other words this isn’t a matter of banning the use of the funds for an old on–campus chapel or church. It bans the one-time or two-time outreach dinner such as the one my church hosted at that elementary school one Thursday night. That’s a big difference.
The irony is that it wouldn’t ban a night of gambling on bingo by a local social club in the same building!
I support the continued separation of CHRUCH and STATE.
Any of you who are belivers ought to join me in supporting that ban, as well.
Why?
Because of the GOLDEN RULE, of course.
As long as the religion does NOT take coin from the government, the government has to leave it ALONE.
The moment you go down the path where the religion becomes in any way dependent on that government for help (other than its tax free status, I mean) your religion has gone down that road to hell paved with expedient intentions.
This isn't about funding churches or mosques, lmao. It's about banning the use of a public facility for anything that is associated with religion.
or, more specifically, banning the payout to dogma junkies who seem to think that public tax money should go to fix their roof and pour the foundation of a bigger church building.
Where did jesus tell you to depend on Ceasar for your faith based social efforts? What specific piece of scripture suggests that thou shouldeth petitioneth the Governmenteth for Thy Fundage to payeth for your faith based initiatives?
As I said, you are
"Nestled away in the now $900 billion-plus stimulus is a provision some conservatives believe is a backdoor attempt to stifle religious dialogue in the public square. While the bill provides $20 billion for the modernization of school facilities with $14 billion going to elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education it also expressly prohibits using the funds to modernize buildings where religious activities take place." The Bulletin > Philadelphia's Family Newspaper > Archives > Top Stories > Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination
Under current law a public school must allow after school use of its facilities for religiouos activities such as Bible study and religious services. What this bill will do is make it illegal for any school that accepts these funds for improvements, repairs or new construction to do so.
Not hard to see why the country is going to hell in a handbasket is it..
Like it or not a country full of REAL Christians is better than a country full of non-Christians.
