The Church Thread: Chapter I Verse I

[Huckleberry]

Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates

The case, a major test of the separation of church and state, was an unexpected loss for those advocating a greater role for religion in public life.

www.usatoday.com

 

[crimsonaudio]

I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored, but it doesn’t make the point less valid.

Sure, I mean it could be an issue, but unless or until there's proof I'm not worried about it any more than I worry about homosexuals serving in the military (which *could* also cause issues).

 

[Huckleberry]

Sure, I mean it could be an issue, but unless or until there's proof I'm not worried about it any more than I worry about homosexuals serving in the military (which *could* also cause issues).

The possibility of it is enough to concern me. The idea of someone favoring those of similar religious or political beliefs isn’t that outrageous, but it would be extremely difficult to prove.

 

[AWRTR]

No one should be getting their moment. Have your worship services at whatever building houses your version of church. Work places, particularly government ones, shouldn’t have to accommodate religious preferences. I realize the law doesn’t quite see it that way, but nowhere does it say that religious services have to be held in the workplace.

As for voluntary attendance, that’s all fine until the devoutly religious boss starts to look to see which of his employees skip the service.

It also doesn’t say they can’t be held there either. If all are treated equally what’s the problem? It’s a freedom of religion not from religion. The founders never intended for religious expression to be confined to the home or a church, mosque, or temple. You are out of step with the law and the intention of the founders.

 

[Huckleberry]

It also doesn’t say they can’t be held there either. If all are treated equally what’s the problem? It’s a freedom of religion not from religion. The founders never intended for religious expression to be confined to the home or a church, mosque, or temple. You are out of step with the law and the intention of the founders.

I think it’s pretty clear to anyone who chooses to fairly read my words that I’m not referring to religious expression.
And all are treated equally? What is this all to which you refer? Just the major religions? Maybe the ones you prefer or find acceptable? Are you ok with any religion/sect/cult setting up worship shop in every government building?

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Here's the First Amendment's entire mention of religion, verbatim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's it and that's all. And what sort of laws would be respecting the establishment of religion? Apparently that's a really hard question to answer because the courts are still refereeing slap-fights over this over 200 years later.

 

[AWRTR]

I think it’s pretty clear to anyone who chooses to fairly read my words that I’m not referring to religious expression.
And all are treated equally? What is this all to which you refer? Just the major religions? Maybe the ones you prefer or find acceptable? Are you ok with any religion/sect/cult setting up worship shop in every government building?

All means all.

You said keep it in your church. That kind of limits expression to one place.

 

[Huckleberry]

All means all.

You said keep it in your church. That kind of limits expression to one place.

To your credit, all means all to you. Recent efforts to allow religious events in public schools demonstrate that many others don't feel the same way.

I said keep the worship services in your church rather than government buildings. I've not been to a religious church service in decades, yet I see Christian (and other) expressions of faith all the time.

 

[AWRTR]

To your credit, all means all to you. Recent efforts to allow religious events in public schools demonstrate that many others don't feel the same way.

I said keep the worship services in your church rather than government buildings. I've not been to a religious church service in decades, yet I see Christian (and other) expressions of faith all the time.

That’s how the founders wanted it. There was no intention to remove religion from public life. Faith was foundational to the country.

 

[Huckleberry]

That’s how the founders wanted it. There was no intention to remove religion from public life. Faith was foundational to the country.

No one is telling people to keep their religion behind closed doors. Worship and praise your God(s) however you like (within reason), but do it without government assistance or endorsement.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

As Tidewater has posted in the past, religion in the colonies had a checkered history, with VA, for example, having an "established church," like the Church of England which was such anathema to the majority of the colonists and drafters of the constitution and original amendments. IOW, religion paid for by all for the benefit of the adherents to a particular sect. I haven't followed the OK situation that closely, but, if it envisioned school vouchers, paid for by all taxpayers, to be used for a particular sect, the parallels are pretty obvious...