PDA

View Full Version : The 2nd Amendment isn't the only Amendment getting stomped



BoringGuy45
06-21-16, 16:54
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/california-bill-would-ultimately-erase-religious-schools/#.V2l5F0o6-vs.facebook


People used to expect that attending something sponsored by religious organization required abiding by mores and behavior that religious body professes. There was a simple option for avoiding the ideas or practices of a belief system you don’t agree with: don’t frequent their space. This courteous expectation naturally applied to all religions and expressions of faith.

California is now attempting to end this system of free association that allows people to define their local and religious cultures. California Senate Bill 1146 (SB 1146), which is slated for a vote Tuesday, seeks to limit the religious exemptions from federal Title IX regulations that colleges and universities use for hiring instructors, teaching classes, and conducting student services in line with their faith. Under SB 1146, a college would be eligible for an exemption only for training pastors or theology teachers.

This threatens religious institutions ability to require that students attend daily or weekly chapel services, keep bathrooms and dormitories distinct according to sex, require students to complete theology classes, teach religious ideas in regular coursework, hold corporate prayer at events such as graduation, and so on. In other words, it threatens every practice that makes religious institutions distinct from secular institutions.

“The most troubling provision of this bill limits the religious liberty to integrate faith and learning throughout the educational experience,” said Dr. Kurt Krueger, president of Concordia University Irvine, in a letter about this bill. “The bill effectively eliminates the religious exemption under current law that allows Christian colleges and universities to operate in accordance with their beliefs, including the freedom to hire only Christian faculty and staff. If passed without amendments, the new law would also very likely disqualify students attending California Christian colleges and universities from eligibility for Cal Grants, a key state-level student aid program.”

The bill came directly after LGBT activists got the Obama administration to release a list of religious higher education institutions that receive exemptions from federal regulations requiring androgynous and secularizing policies, such as sex-eradicated group showers and the freedom to hire partially based on fidelity to strains of philosophy or theology a particular institution promises to uphold.

“Universities [currently] are able to submit an exemption request to the U.S. Department of Education, and are typically granted the exemption by the department. But SB 1146 makes these universities’ biases public, informing students, staff members and other academic institutions ahead of time so that certain individuals can protect themselves from being targets of discrimination…LGBT individuals [may otherwise] have no idea what type of educational institution they are attending or working at, and what sorts of consequences this exemption may have for their health, safety and well-being,” a California legal firm says in its supportive rundown of the bill. There’s no obvious reason a legal firm that specializes in suing over employment law would want expand the ways people can sue regarding employment, right?

Bill supporters say religious teachings constitute discrimination and therefore should be banned in higher education: “California should not be using taxpayer money to subsidize colleges that choose to discriminate against LGBT students,” Assemblyman Evan Low said, according to EdSource. “He called the schools that seek a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws ‘the worst of the worst in terms of institutions that discriminate.’”

There really is no practical way to attend or work for a religious institution without realizing you will be exposed to a faith system. If you look at their website, promotional materials, and certainly the student or employee handbooks without being able to figure out where they stand on issues of faith, they’ve failed at being religious. If the school has been clear about its faith stances, at what point does the student have some responsibility to understand the doctrine and rules of the sponsoring religion?

When in doubt about the requirements of a school, ask questions. Don’t attend a college that doesn’t offer your major, and don’t attend one that teaches ideas you find intolerable.

It seems sensible that if you don’t want an education imbued with the values of a religion—any religion—attending classes at a religious school would be a poor choice for you. This is not a day or age of limited academic choices. California alone has hundreds of college and university options. Of its 281 accredited four-year options, only 42 are religious.

Let me simplify this. If a Jewish education isn’t your speed, don’t attend American Jewish University. If you aren’t interested in a Muslim university, don’t attend Zaytuna College. And if you don’t want to go to a Christian college, avoid them.
This Bill Would Essentially Outlaw Religious Schools

In case this wasn’t clear, choosing not to attend a religious college still leaves you the majority of options for higher education available in California. For many religious people, religion cannot be separated from vocational training or relegated to only theological classes. Religion is intrinsic to all of life.

People are making this about student loans and dollar signs. It’s bigger than that, though. This isn’t really about money and it’s not about a lack of options. Bills like this set precedents. They change how we think about what is acceptable, and this one in particular may open the door for civil suits that have the potential to ultimately eradicate religious activities from public life.

There is a simple question here. Do likeminded people have the right to peacefully assemble, or not? Perhaps the lawmakers of California should reread the First Amendment. But as the Bill of Rights seems to mostly be an inconvenience to their authoritarian goals, I’m not going to hold my breath.

Anyone who needs any further proof that yes, the left DOES intend to completely dispose of all freedoms needs only to see this. This kind of thing is what pushes our country closer to civil war.

Firefly
06-21-16, 17:06
In a morbid way, I'm glad.

I think if people suffered enough and enough people went home teetotaling pissed off everyday that snuggling up to Netflix and showbinging will no longer soothe them.

Then people will get disgruntled and hungry and the backlash comes.

Run out of money to make and gated communities to retreat to.

How reasonable is a wounded animal?

France had it going on back in the day. Then they were guillotining elites like it was cool.

TAZ
06-21-16, 18:09
LOL. What does the Koran say about girls and education??

The more rights they trample on the more people impacted. No more when they came for the "X" I didn't are cause I wasn't "X".

glocktogo
06-21-16, 18:31
In a morbid way, I'm glad.

I think if people suffered enough and enough people went home teetotaling pissed off everyday that snuggling up to Netflix and showbinging will no longer soothe them.

Then people will get disgruntled and hungry and the backlash comes.

Run out of money to make and gated communities to retreat to.

How reasonable is a wounded animal?

France had it going on back in the day. Then they were guillotining elites like it was cool.

I've always felt we'll eventually get to the point of having our very own Bastille Day. I just hope someone somewhere is keeping a current list of all the naughty people who need to part ways with themselves. For my part, I plan to attend wielding a man portable margarita machine. I'll make a killing (pun intended) if I can avoid consuming all the product myself. :D

Co-gnARR
06-21-16, 19:06
Are we witnessing the beginning of a kind of secular apartheid? As in, the elite untouchable minority dictates policy, society and culture to the voiceless (because they are ignored) masses.
Our traditions and mores are challenged, ridiculed or outright ignored, all in the name of progress, equality, balance. All the while we are told any objection to this is bigotry, hatred, or intolerance, and is unacceptable in modern life.

newyork
06-21-16, 19:48
That is incredible. We are circling the drain.

Averageman
06-21-16, 19:54
Maybe he's just trying to get his Daughter in the school of her choice. After-all, didn't she graduate this year?
Jeeze, some Dad's just write a check.

Digital_Damage
06-21-16, 19:58
Faith based schools are BS anyways.

Singlestack Wonder
06-21-16, 20:11
Faith based schools are BS anyways.

Must be a liberal from california...

We were very blessed to be able to have the means to send our girls to parochial schools from elementary thru high school, keeping them out of the experiment that is now public education in America...

The_War_Wagon
06-21-16, 20:23
Faith based schools are BS anyways.

Based on... ??? :confused:

Koshinn
06-21-16, 20:24
I thought you were going to post this article, which is far worse and might be deserving of its own thread:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html?_r=0&referer=

Straight Shooter
06-21-16, 20:46
[QUOTE=glocktogo;2335887] I've always felt we'll eventually get to the point of having our very own Bastille Day. I just hope someone somewhere is keeping a current list of all the naughty people who need to part ways with themselves. For my part, I plan to attend wielding a man portable margarita machine. I'll make a killing (pun intended) if I can avoid consuming all the product myself.

Ill take one of those 'rita's please- my naughty list starts with the JUDENRATS and media, fwiw. There are MANY who need to "part ways with themselves".

BoringGuy45
06-21-16, 20:54
I thought you were going to post this article, which is far worse and might be deserving of its own thread:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html?_r=0&referer=

I'd hold them both as pretty disturbing, but the bill in CA is a much more blatant attack on the Constitution. The ONLY thing the government is allowed to rule on with any private religious institution is any practice that would be criminal otherwise: No offering human sacrifices to the Aztec gods, no holding your congregation hostage in a compound, no taking 9 year old girls as wives, no shooting up gay clubs in the name of Allah. Other than that, there is to be no laws restricting free practice of one's faith.

Even if one thinks that religious schools are stupid, that's not the point. The fact is, this is totalitarianism. The emperor's clothes are pretty apparent now. As Firefly said, this is almost a good thing. We're at a point where people are hopefully going to stop cooperating, and the government is going to face the dilemma of either brutal enforcement or backing off.

Digital_Damage
06-21-16, 20:56
Must be a liberal from california...

We were very blessed to be able to have the means to send our girls to parochial schools from elementary thru high school, keeping them out of the experiment that is now public education in America...

Son goes to private school, felt no need to indoctrinate him in his impressionable years.

If the schools don't want to allow all tax paying citizens to teach or attend then don't accept subsidies. Taxpayers in general should not be on the hook.

SteyrAUG
06-21-16, 21:27
My dream of establishing the Church of Dionysus just encountered another obstacle.

When will the persecution end? I just want to conduct weekly "tax exempt" food orgies like any other normal American.

Koshinn
06-21-16, 21:53
I'd hold them both as pretty disturbing, but the bill in CA is a much more blatant attack on the Constitution.

Except it's restricted to CA being a piece of state legislation, it's not even law yet, and it hasn't passed the bar of a court challenge on constitutional grounds. Legislatures propose unconstitutional bills all the time, and they often get slapped down by the courts if they even make it into law.

The link I posted is to a SCOTUS ruling. It's done, your 4th Amendment rights have been gravely abridged throughout the entire nation and no one is talking about it.

SteyrAUG
06-21-16, 22:11
Except it's restricted to CA being a piece of state legislation, it's not even law yet, and it hasn't passed the bar of a court challenge on constitutional grounds. Legislatures propose unconstitutional bills all the time, and they often get slapped down by the courts if they even make it into law.

The link I posted is to a SCOTUS ruling. It's done, your 4th Amendment rights have been gravely abridged throughout the entire nation and no one is talking about it.

Nobody made much of a fuss when SCOTUS ruled Eminent Domain can be used for "private use" if it can be demonstrated that it would contribute to the betterment of the community despite the specific wording of the Constitution limiting ED to "public use."

That means if you have land that you and your family has owned since the country was founded, but it happens to be a choice piece of beachfront property, the government can forcibly buy it from you and build a casino if they believe it will be to the "betterment and benefit of the community."

I think it is the most blatantly unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling I've seen in my lifetime. But it happened during the Bush Administration so most "defenders of the Constitution" really didn't seem to mind.

Rekkr870
06-21-16, 22:33
Nobody made much of a fuss when SCOTUS ruled Eminent Domain can be used for "private use" if it can be demonstrated that it would contribute to the betterment of the community despite the specific wording of the Constitution limiting ED to "public use."

That means if you have land that you and your family has owned since the country was founded, but it happens to be a choice piece of beachfront property, the government can forcibly buy it from you and build a casino if they believe it will be to the "betterment and benefit of the community."

I think it is the most blatantly unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling I've seen in my lifetime. But it happened during the Bush Administration so most "defenders of the Constitution" really didn't seem to mind.
Happened to my wife's father. Now that beautiful 1000+ acres that was yours since forever is now a state park......

Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk

Koshinn
06-21-16, 22:34
Nobody made much of a fuss when SCOTUS ruled Eminent Domain can be used for "private use" if it can be demonstrated that it would contribute to the betterment of the community despite the specific wording of the Constitution limiting ED to "public use."

That means if you have land that you and your family has owned since the country was founded, but it happens to be a choice piece of beachfront property, the government can forcibly buy it from you and build a casino if they believe it will be to the "betterment and benefit of the community."

I think it is the most blatantly unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling I've seen in my lifetime. But it happened during the Bush Administration so most "defenders of the Constitution" really didn't seem to mind.

Maybe that or Wickard v. Filburn.

Firefly
06-21-16, 22:48
Happened to my wife's father. Now that beautiful 1000+ acres that was yours since forever is now a state park......

Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk

Sad to hear. Some things don't have a price.
Eminent Domain is wrong.

If someone wants to sell, fine. But anything else is outright theft

SteyrAUG
06-21-16, 23:09
Happened to my wife's father. Now that beautiful 1000+ acres that was yours since forever is now a state park......

Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk

At least that technically qualifies as "public use" which is actually in the Constitution. Doesn't mean I agree with every use of Eminent Domain, but can you imagine how you'd feel is some corporation was able to force the sale of the land so they could build a casino and resort complex.

SteyrAUG
06-21-16, 23:11
Sad to hear. Some things don't have a price.
Eminent Domain is wrong.

If someone wants to sell, fine. But anything else is outright theft

It has it's place if you need to run a railroad across the country or build reasonable direct route interstates and things like that.

But forcing you to sell family land to establish a park? Keep looking till you find a willing seller.

And forcing the sale to build a resort, people who voted on that one should all be hung.