Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 185
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Santa Ana, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, etc
    Corpus Cristi
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's not hypersensitivity. It's a simple principle of the gov't not endorsing religion by having a public school function in a christian church.
    Really? It's not hypersensitivity to think that the use of a church for a non-religous function is tantamount to endorsing a religion?
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Actually the ACLU and other similiar organizations have gone to court for even the Boy Scouts to use school grounds stating they are a christain supporting org and cannot use school grounds.
    The official viewpoint of the Boy Scouts by the ACLU:
    "The Boy Scouts deserve the same rights as similar organizations to gain access to government services. But a federal charter is a special right available only to a few special organizations. The government should not deny the Boy Scouts equal rights to access government services, but it should deny the Boy Scouts special rights not open to all other groups."
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Not in several California and other states communities where the ACLU and other organizations, like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, have sued local gov and shool board for allowing churches to use school ground for services on non school days, like Sunday.
    If a school allows a church to use its property for a church service, even during non-school time, its arguable that it is violating the establishment clause (because schools are run and paid for by the government).

    If a school refuses to allow a church to use its property for a study group during non school times, its arguable that the school is violating the equal protection/first amendment clauses (because if other groups can use the school, then the church will claim that they can to...otherwise the school is discriminating). For the most part, the only way around this is for schools to not allow any activities (which sucks for the kids). That way they are not being discriminatory (or appearing that way.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If a school allows a church to use its property for a church service, even during non-school time, its arguable that it is violating the establishment clause (because schools are run and paid for by the government).

    If a school refuses to allow a church to use its property for a study group during non school times, its arguable that the school is violating the equal protection/first amendment clauses (because if other groups can use the school, then the church will claim that they can to...otherwise the school is discriminating). For the most part, the only way around this is for schools to not allow any activities (which sucks for the kids). That way they are not being discriminatory (or appearing that way.)
    How does this square with the Supreme Court's ruling that if any club activity is allowed a religion based club must be allowed too?
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Really? It's not hypersensitivity to think that the use of a church for a non-religous function is tantamount to endorsing a religion?
    It's not just a "non-religious" it's a gov't entity funcction. That's my hangup with it and also, as already stated, it's not an urgent need that can only be met by the church building. It's quite traditional to have these ceremonies outside.
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    How does this square with the Supreme Court's ruling that if any club activity is allowed a religion based club must be allowed too?
    These clubs/activities take place outside of normal school hours.
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    These clubs/activities take place outside of normal school hours.
    But basd on t2gungho's statements, it has to do with religion so regardless of when it takes place the mere fact it takes place on government owned property would argue it violates the separation?
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's not just a "non-religious" it's a gov't entity funcction. That's my hangup with it and also, as already stated, it's not an urgent need that can only be met by the church building. It's quite traditional to have these ceremonies outside.
    We'll have to agree to disagree here - I just don't see how it would be construed as an endorsement.

    An endorsement to me would be if the school district said "we're having it here because it's a church"
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Agreed. I think this may be getting somewhere now...
    Let's turn this around for a moment....
    Why do so many congregations meet in public (govn't) schools for services on Sunday? I am okay with school study groups, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, youth groups, etc using the schools....that's where our property taxes go. Therefore, my taxes are paying (indirectly or directly) for the building of a Christian church that isn't my own. I don't like this widely practised use.

    To restate this...Is it okay for churches to use schools, but not ok for schools to use churches? Why the double standard?
    You bring up a good point: Lets see if we can work through it.

    I kind of touched on this in my response to Hobbes but:

    (IMHO) Its ok for churches (not government funded) to use schools because arguably if the schools say no, they are being discriminatory and violating 1st amendment rights. Schools either have to let all groups use them or not let any groups use them. They cant pick and choose.

    Its not ok for schools to use churches because schools (government funded) would be picking a church and therefore violating the establishment clause (which says that the government cant recognize one religion over another.)

    Along this similar concept, traditionally if you have a nativity scene on government property, it would be unconstitutional. Some courts have allowed nativity scenes if it has incorported religious and non-religious symbols from all religions and non-religions alike (so it at least appears that the government property is not supporting one religion over another and not violating the establishment clause.)

    The courts are balancing the establishment clause against the 1st amendment (its probably never going to be perfect.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    But basd on t2gungho's statements, it has to do with religion so regardless of when it takes place the mere fact it takes place on government owned property would argue it violates the separation?
    No, he said two things. First he said a "church service" violates regardless of out of school schedule or not.

    Then he said, and quite correctly, that school admins and boards will mistakenly violate the individual's rights to religious expression by not allowing them due to the fear that that will be considered religious endorsement. All they have o do is call the ACLU and ask their opinion when they're unsure. The ACLU has often defended people against govt/schools denying the individual right to religious expression.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    We'll have to agree to disagree here - I just don't see how it would be construed as an endorsement.

    An endorsement to me would be if the school district said "we're having it here because it's a church"
    I believe the problem comes in where one would say to themselves, "Why am I graduating in a church? The school didn't know a graduation was coming and thus couldn't find a non-religious venue for the ceremony?"
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    How does this square with the Supreme Court's ruling that if any club activity is allowed a religion based club must be allowed too?
    I am no expert but IMHO the difference is what the club is doing.

    In my post, I said the courts probably wont allow church services but as you pointed out you said a religious club (which, I am assuming is like a Christian club for kids).

    They do different things and probably arent as formal. If you made the argument that the Christian club is conducting worship services like a traditional church, then you would probably be able to seek and receive an injunction preventing them. The courts in balancing the 1st amendment and establishment clauses would split hairs on what it is and what it does. Just my .02
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No, he said two things. First he said a "church service" violates regardless of out of school schedule or not.

    Then he said, and quite correctly, that school admins and boards will mistakenly violate the individual's rights to religious expression by not allowing them due to the fear that that will be considered religious endorsement. All they have o do is call the ACLU and ask their opinion when they're unsure. The ACLU has often defended people against govt/schools denying the individual right to religious expression.
    Upon re-reading, my mistake, thank you for pointing it out.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    We'll have to agree to disagree here - I just don't see how it would be construed as an endorsement.

    An endorsement to me would be if the school district said "we're having it here because it's a church"
    Would you agree that if a school lets one church conduct a group meeting and denies another church that it would be an endorsement (of the church that was allowed)?

    That is the all or nothing argument. Let all groups or let none. Otherwise its discriminatory.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Would you agree that if a school lets one church conduct a group meeting and denies another church that it would be an endorsement (of the church that was allowed)?
    Absolutely I would agree - and I think that's the primary difference between da and my view on this. As I perceive it, da feels just allowing any religious activity or contact is an endorsement. I see it as long as the access/use is equal, there is no endorsement.
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The policy won't take effect until next year.

    This isn't about the kids so much as it is about their families. If each kid gets five tickets to the event, there's mom, dad, maybe a sibling. Then which set of grandparents? Who doesn't get to see this rite of passage?

    But I take the ACLU's point on this, which is why I'm looking forward to having them put a stop to voting in churches.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that conservatives are rallying to this not because they are so concerned about how many tickets each child gets, but rather conservatives are using this as a vehicle to promote their own personal political agendas on the issue of church and state and to try to portray conservatives as more righteous and more moral than liberals.

    I think that is the spin that conservatives are eager to occupy our attention with in political discussions, it happened in the Terry Shiavo case and it is happening in the discussion of federal judge selection. It seems to me that it is a clever political strategy, but in reality liberals are not less moral or less righteous than conservatives, in my opinion.

    Such mean spirited and self promoting comparisons would backfire if put forward openly. But indirectly, if your cause is for someone else and you are just trying to help them, such as these poor kids and their graduation, you can denigrate the liberals and at the same time appear you are "just helping the kids".

    Anyway that is my jaded political analysis.
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that conservatives are rallying to this not because they are so concerned about how many tickets each child gets, but rather conservatives are using this as a vehicle to promote their own personal political agendas on the issue of church and state and to try to portray conservatives as more righteous and more moral than liberals.

    I think that is the spin that conservatives are eager to occupy our attention with in political discussions, it happened in the Terry Shiavo case and it is happening in the discussion of federal judge selection. It seems to me that it is a clever political strategy, but in reality liberals are not less moral or less righteous than conservatives, in my opinion.

    Such mean spirited and self promoting comparisons would backfire if put forward openly. But indirectly, if your cause is for someone else and you are just trying to help them, such as these poor kids and their graduation, you can denigrate the liberals and at the same time appear you are "just helping the kids".

    Anyway that is my jaded political analysis.
    Democrats think it's evil for conservatives to use the power of government to impose their vision of social morality. Yet they smilingly endorse hijacking the power of government to forcibly impose their own vision of morality. WOW!
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #139  
    It seems to me that in the last political campaign, some party was promoting themselves as having more moral values? Was it the democrats?
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Absolutely I would agree - and I think that's the primary difference between da and my view on this. As I perceive it, da feels just allowing any religious activity or contact is an endorsement. I see it as long as the access/use is equal, there is no endorsement.
    I may have made things worse (because I flipped the example around).

    In DA's and your argument, we are talking about the school choosing to do the service in one particular church. The school (a government entity because of where it gets it funding) arguably could be viewed as endorsing the church simply because it chose that church. (However, the endorsement argument would apply to any other church that it chose to do the ceremony).

    The only way I can see the school not violating the establishment clause is if they utilized more than one church and simultaneously broadcast the event...then its arguable that the school is not endorsing one church over another.

    IMHO
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions