So God gave us Trump.

[SteyrAUG]

If a Church isn't giving back to the Community and someone is building a palace to worship in, a Palace to live in and they're being Chauffered every where they go. That wasn't the intent of you being Tax Free.
The intent of the .gov giving them that tax break was totally lost on them. It's intent was not to hinder the good works done by established religion.
If the Governor of your State has to call you and tell you to open the doors of your Church to hundreds of Storm victims and you give him some shit about it and stall 48 hours, Clergy or not You SIR, are a Piece of Shit.
And with that example I will rest my case, Churches do not need a Tax Break.
This isn't your Grandma's old time religion. They aren't feeding the poor or invalid, it's become a business.
There are Church's in the United States that are more wealthy than some States. That money was never intended to be used to gain wealth.

No matter what the good intentions, no matter what good works have been done in the past, bad people will arrive to game the system when the system presents a new vulnerability. I mean christ, we passed a group of laws designed to help feed children because their parents didn't have the money to feed their children. Rather than just feed their children, they simply had more children so that they could be paid more money and they still typically don't feed their children.

If you can't win that simple problem, you are never gonna take something like religion and make it less murky.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

If a Church isn't giving back to the Community and someone is building a palace to worship in, a Palace to live in and they're being Chauffered every where they go. That wasn't the intent of you being Tax Free.
The intent of the .gov giving them that tax break was totally lost on them. It's intent was not to hinder the good works done by established religion.
If the Governor of your State has to call you and tell you to open the doors of your Church to hundreds of Storm victims and you give him some shit about it and stall 48 hours, Clergy or not You SIR, are a Piece of Shit.
And with that example I will rest my case, Churches do not need a Tax Break.
This isn't your Grandma's old time religion. They aren't feeding the poor or invalid, it's become a business.
There are Church's in the United States that are more wealthy than some States. That money was never intended to be used to gain wealth.

The Supreme Court spoke to this over 50 years ago in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. Opinion of the court "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” , “freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief."

The notion of government officials demanding that churches open their places of worship to house millions of illegals (pick whatever group you like) else punish them by removing their tax exempt status should send chills down the spine.

That's not to say that I personally approve of the actions of all churches or leadership, I don't. Nor do I approve of the actions of all gun owners. However, I support both groups to freely exercise their Constitutionally protected liberties.

* A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

* Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I'm good with both.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Ok, so we'll just use this example:

Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)

Just as I can figure out when anti gun people are trying to play the public safety angle to ban guns, I can figure out when very religious people are trying to do the same kind of things.

As for religion in school, it's hardly banned or anything. Any kid can bring a bible to school. Any kid can pray in school. The difference is the school mandating or endorsing either. If you bring a prayer rug and start praying out loud, that could be considered a distraction, but any kid can pray at any time of the day so long as it wouldn't be interrupting a class.

It's important to consider that the remark Re-instill right to pray in school, absent far too long (Jan 2022): that you cite was likely in reaction, at least in part, to the highly publicized Joseph Kennedy case, a high school football coach who lost his job when he knelt midfield after games to offer a quiet personal prayer.

Opinion of the Court: June 2022

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.

The District disciplined Coach Kennedy after three games in October 2015, in which he “pray[ed] quietly without his students.” In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s prayers, the District sought to restrict his actions because of their religious character, thereby burdening his right to free exercise. As to his free speech claim, the timing and circumstances of Kennedy’s prayers—during the postgame period when coaches were free to attend briefly to personal matters and students were engaged in other activities—confirm that Kennedy did not offer his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. The District cannot show that its prohibition of Kennedy’s prayer serves a compelling purpose and is narrowly tailored to achieving that purpose.

The Court’s Lemon test, and the related endorsement test, are “abandoned,” replaced by a consideration of “historical practices and understandings.” Applying that test, there is no conflict between the constitutional commands of the First Amendment in this case.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed concurring opinions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined.

-----

Seems to well compliment the title of this thread: God gave us Trump (grin)

[Alpha-17]

Not at all. I'm 100% fine with somebody who is religious. When they advocate legislating their beliefs, THEN I have a problem.

I won't bother with the abortion stance because it's a whole debate on it's own.

Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Religious objections to GLBT services same as 1960s racism. (May 2016)
Respect faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage. (Jul 2015)

Re-instill right to pray in school, absent far too long. (Jan 2022)


Seems very interested in making her religious views laws. And of course I agree with 95% of her other views, but this shit always makes me nervous in the same way people who say "I support the second amendment BUT..." make me nervous.

I have seen LOTS worse, Asa for instance is LOTS worse.

None of that makes her a theocrat. Or even comes close to being a damn theocracy.

None of that is 'mandating religion'.

Examples:

Re-instill right to pray in school, absent far too long. (Jan 2022): Allowing prayer in school is not mandating religion. It's allowing folks to exercise their religion in way of a prayer if they so choose.

Respect faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage. (Jul 2015): That's not mandating religion, that's respecting religious freedom. Why would allowing faith-based organizations to believe and practice what they wish bother you? To the contrary, the notion that it's Joe Biden's business what people in a Mosque or Lutheran church believe about same sex marriage makes me nervous.

Yes, I feel the same way about those who say "I support the second amendment BUT..." Same applies to Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof BUT...

Spot on.

As for religion in school, it's hardly banned or anything. Any kid can bring a bible to school. Any kid can pray in school. The difference is the school mandating or endorsing either.

As Phil said, that's not entirely true, and ignores the reasons why it's on the list.


Again, what this boils down to is less that anyone is likely to support a theocracy, and more that they infringe on the sins you either like or at least tolerate. Abortion, LGBT "rights", etc. That's fair, as you are certainly entitled to your opinions. But again, it doesn't make everyone you disagree with proponents of a theocracy any more than disagreeing with Obama made someone racist or supporting Trump "a literal Nazi".

And you are more than welcome to disagree, but hopefully you can see where people are coming from here, even without a similar faith based background yourself. Many of the societal problems we face today are a result of abandoning traditional morality, both on the cultural level and in the courts. Toleration, hell, the endorsement of LGBT causes has netted us the current year insanity of Trans issues, and if the "slippery slope" continues, will ultimately see the acceptances of pedophilia through the "Minor Attracted Person" arguments that worked to normalize homosexuality.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Again, what this boils down to is less that anyone is likely to support a theocracy, and more that they infringe on the sins you either like or at least tolerate. Abortion, LGBT "rights", etc. That's fair, as you are certainly entitled to your opinions. But again, it doesn't make everyone you disagree with proponents of a theocracy any more than disagreeing with Obama made someone racist or supporting Trump "a literal Nazi".

What I see are those who wish to use government to force people to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate those of differing beliefs. Colorado bakery and Hobby Lobby cases are two examples. It's not about mandating religion on others, but rather folks defending their religious beliefs from attack.

.

[SteyrAUG]

It's important to consider that the remark Re-instill right to pray in school, absent far too long (Jan 2022): that you cite was likely in reaction, at least in part, to the highly publicized Joseph Kennedy case, a high school football coach who lost his job when he knelt midfield after games to offer a quiet personal prayer.

Opinion of the Court: June 2022

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.

The District disciplined Coach Kennedy after three games in October 2015, in which he “pray[ed] quietly without his students.” In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s prayers, the District sought to restrict his actions because of their religious character, thereby burdening his right to free exercise. As to his free speech claim, the timing and circumstances of Kennedy’s prayers—during the postgame period when coaches were free to attend briefly to personal matters and students were engaged in other activities—confirm that Kennedy did not offer his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. The District cannot show that its prohibition of Kennedy’s prayer serves a compelling purpose and is narrowly tailored to achieving that purpose.

The Court’s Lemon test, and the related endorsement test, are “abandoned,” replaced by a consideration of “historical practices and understandings.” Applying that test, there is no conflict between the constitutional commands of the First Amendment in this case.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed concurring opinions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined.

-----

Seems to well compliment the title of this thread: God gave us Trump (grin)

And honestly, I think that does fall under tradition. Given that it's an extra curricular activity that doesn't require the participation of the student body they need to allow for these things.

Allowing people to do things should usually take precedence over requiring people to do things when it comes to first amendment protections / freedoms. So with prayer in school it should be allowed but at the same time I don't think we need to establish "prayer time" where people have to participate or otherwise stand around and feel like they are being left out. I also think anyone who wants to create a "bible club" as an after school program is also not in any conflict and it should be viewed as no different than chess club or drama club.

[SteyrAUG]

As Phil said, that's not entirely true, and ignores the reasons why it's on the list.


Again, what this boils down to is less that anyone is likely to support a theocracy, and more that they infringe on the sins you either like or at least tolerate. Abortion, LGBT "rights", etc. That's fair, as you are certainly entitled to your opinions. But again, it doesn't make everyone you disagree with proponents of a theocracy any more than disagreeing with Obama made someone racist or supporting Trump "a literal Nazi".

And you are more than welcome to disagree, but hopefully you can see where people are coming from here, even without a similar faith based background yourself. Many of the societal problems we face today are a result of abandoning traditional morality, both on the cultural level and in the courts. Toleration, hell, the endorsement of LGBT causes has netted us the current year insanity of Trans issues, and if the "slippery slope" continues, will ultimately see the acceptances of pedophilia through the "Minor Attracted Person" arguments that worked to normalize homosexuality.

Maybe I just spent too much time living around the fundies in South Florida, but the total read on her position looks like somebody who is interested in legislating her religious beliefs. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

As for schools, I don't know why it's so hard for some people to draw that line. I support people who are gay and want to get married, but I don't think any of those things should be taught, let alone endorsed by public schools, especially with school funding. That's pretty much how I view religion, the student body should be free to practice whatever religion they want so long as it doesn't interfere with classroom instruction but I also don't think any religion should be taught or otherwise endorsed by public schools except for the obvious exceptions of historical context and specific religious studies classes if offered.

If people want their kids to go to a school with a specific religious context, those schools exist. Same for people who want their kids to go to a school that embraces a LBGTXYZ context, they need to start their own private schools because that isn't what most people are sending their kids to school to learn.

[SteyrAUG]

What I see are those who wish to use government to force people to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate those of differing beliefs. Colorado bakery and Hobby Lobby cases are two examples. It's not about mandating religion on others, but rather folks defending their religious beliefs from attack.

.

I also agree with private owned businesses being able to decide how they do business and whom they do business with.

A bakery should not be required to bake your "Gay Wedding" cake any more than they should be required to bake a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake. Chic Fila should be completely free to endorse a view regarding homosexuality if they wish and people can support that business or not in light of their chosen views. Same as when the consumers responded to Target and Bud Light when they decided to practice business activism.

[Artos]

Can you imagine the crap storm the msm media would be having if teachers / districts were supporting grooming kids in Christianity behind parents backs vs. the virtual silence & avoidance of addressing the perverse deviant gender ID dogma that is going on.

Clown show.

[SteyrAUG]

Can you imagine the crap storm the msm media would be having if teachers / districts were supporting grooming kids in Christianity behind parents backs vs. the virtual silence & avoidance of addressing the perverse deviant gender ID dogma that is going on.

Clown show.

Well there is that.