NationStates Jolt Archive

The US house of representatives has voted to allow preschool providers taking government funds under the Head Start program to discriminate based on religion when hiring. Remember when there was a separation of church and state and this kind of thing didn't happen? Those were the days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050923/ap_on_go_co/head_start

ACK!

Another reason I won't be job searching in the US!

There's also some question if this will allow these faith based organizations to discriminate against homosexual education providers, thus sometimes circumventing state anti-discrimination laws.

And who said Republicans supported states rights?

Already fired off a message to the honorable senators Biden and Carper about this :D.

ACK!

Another reason I won't be job searching in the US!

Another reason why (although I live in the US) I am job searching outside the US.

Good thing I'm not Catholic...oh wait. Damn.

*doing a jaunty dance*

sung:
my kids!
will never go!
to those schools!
because i live!
in a country!
that still seperates!
church and state!
cha!!!

*here endeth the dance*

AND PEOPLE SAY THAT REPUBLICS ARE NOT "MOB-RULE?!"

My point about direct democracies' and republics' equal chance for mob-rule is slapping you all in the face.

It does not take a six-figure salary and law school to know that religious discrimination is wrong.

Once again, our decadent republic has failed.

God thats stupid, surley there must be some clause in your constution that allows you to revoke this law?

God thats stupid, surley there must be some clause in your constution that allows you to revoke this law?
First amendment. God have mercy upon us with this new roberts court though.

God thats stupid, surley there must be some clause in your constution that allows you to revoke this law?
Maybe the establishment clause in the first ammendment. Maybe that equal protection thing. I dunno, but I suspect it's unconstitutional.

They can't be serious....

They can't be serious....
It's the US house of representatives. Of course they're serious. Fuckin' religious right.

to discriminate against homosexual education providers, thus sometimes circumventing state anti-discrimination laws

*wants it to be understood that US anti-discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation. neither do hate-crime laws, incidentally. very widespread misconception, though.

[/thread hijack.]

They better finish stacking the Supreme Cout before some one calls them on this.

Well ... while I detest the receiving of federal monies to such things, Head Start is voluntary and a paid service and not part of the compulsory US school system.

*wants it to be understood that US anti-discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation. neither do hate-crime laws, incidentally. very widespread misconception, though.

[/thread hijack.]

Hi, you're wrong.

California prohibts discrimination based on sexual orientation for public and private employment and public accomidations. Colorado prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation for public employment. Connecticut prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation for public and private employment, housing, credit, union practices and housing. Want me to go on?

It's a clear attack on state's rights.

Well ... while I detest the receiving of federal monies to such things, Head Start is voluntary and a paid service and not part of the compulsory US school system.
It's got to be illegal to use federal funds to pay for discrimination.

For nearly a century the liberals in the USA have allowed the Constitution to be interpreted any way they wished. They've gutted the 2nd Amendment. The Religious Right have taken a page out of their playbook and used it against them. The Consitution is now up for interpretation by whomever is n power at the time

Payback is a bitch. Should have left the Constitution alone in the first place.

For nearly a century the liberals in the USA have allowed the Constitution to be interpreted any way they wished. They've gutted the 2nd Amendment. The Religious Right have taken a page out of their playbook and used it against them. The Consitution is now up for interpretation by whomever is n power at the time

Payback is a bitch. Should have left the Constitution alone in the first place.
Yes, because the Rehnquist court was so packed to the gills with liberals :rolleyes:

For nearly a century the liberals in the USA have allowed the Constitution to be interpreted any way they wished. They've gutted the 2nd Amendment. The Religious Right have taken a page out of their playbook and used it against them. The Consitution is now up for interpretation by whomever is n power at the time

Payback is a bitch. Should have left the Constitution alone in the first place.
Gutted the Second Amendment? I still see guns everywhere.

It's got to be illegal to use federal funds to pay for discrimination.

It is unconstitutional, and I imagine it won't be very long before the ACLU steps up and puts a stop to this one.

Payback is a bitch. Should have left the Constitution alone in the first place.

http://www.wibbler.com/files/pictures/iraq.jpg

For nearly a century the liberals in the USA have allowed the Constitution to be interpreted any way they wished. They've gutted the 2nd Amendment. The Religious Right have taken a page out of their playbook and used it against them. The Consitution is now up for interpretation by whomever is n power at the time

Payback is a bitch. Should have left the Constitution alone in the first place.

Are you kidding me?

So "gutting" means imposing a couple of days wait period on buying hollow point bullets that can shoot through walls and an automatic rifle? Mind you, that wait period still isn't even in place, so I'm not sure exactly where you get "gutted" from. Guns can still be bought and sold easier than someone can get a driver's liscence, so perhaps you'll want to provide a definition of "gutted".

The Religious Right have yet again proven that they're willing to profit off of the same systems they claim to despise when others are profiting off them, showing themselves to be not only hypocritical, but with the moral compass of your average garden snake. This, however, goes beyond their individual faults and strikes at the supposed foundations of the Republican party by offering yet another rubber-gloved fist fuck of state's rights, even though the whole damn point of the stupid party is smaller, less intrusive, federal government.

The Constitution has ALWAYS been up for interpretation. That's why it lasts. The problem is when it is deliberately misinterpreted in order to allow a mad power grab by those who would seek to undermine its very foundation and the foundation of this entire contry. It's a document who's character is only as ever as strong as those in power and, right now, that means it has all the strength of a plate of cold spaghetti.

Payback is a bitch. BushCo is beginning to learn that and hopefully the lesson will continue on into the elections and it will be a good long time before the madness that is the Republican Christian Right Wing, Inc., will be allowed anywhere near Washington, let alone into seats of power.

*wants it to be understood that US anti-discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation. neither do hate-crime laws, incidentally. very widespread misconception, though.

[/thread hijack.]

Actually, hate-crime laws often do. Most specifically list "perceived sexual orientation."

Anti-discrimination also covers it, as the courts have held that sexual orientation falls under "gender", something on which you cannot discriminate.

Meanwhie, I swear the first thing to pop into my head when I saw the title and poster for the thread was, "Did Jesussaves start a new school?"

Are you kidding me?

So "gutting" means imposing a couple of days wait period on buying hollow point bullets that can shoot through walls and an automatic rifle? Mind you, that wait period still isn't even in place, so I'm not sure exactly where you get "gutted" from. Guns can still be bought and sold easier than someone can get a driver's liscence, so perhaps you'll want to provide a definition of "gutted".

The Religious Right have yet again proven that they're willing to profit off of the same systems they claim to despise when others are profiting off them, showing themselves to be not only hypocritical, but with the moral compass of your average garden snake. This, however, goes beyond their individual faults and strikes at the supposed foundations of the Republican party by offering yet another rubber-gloved fist fuck of state's rights, even though the whole damn point of the stupid party is smaller, less intrusive, federal government.

The Constitution has ALWAYS been up for interpretation. That's why it lasts. The problem is when it is deliberately misinterpreted in order to allow a mad power grab by those who would seek to undermine its very foundation and the foundation of this entire contry. It's a document who's character is only as ever as strong as those in power and, right now, that means it has all the strength of a plate of cold spaghetti.

Payback is a bitch. BushCo is beginning to learn that and hopefully the lesson will continue on into the elections and it will be a good long time before the madness that is the Republican Christian Right Wing, Inc., will be allowed anywhere near Washington, let alone into seats of power.
Actually hollowpoints don't go through walls very well. If I'm standing behind a wall and someone's shooting at me I hope he's got hollowpoints because they'll come through slower and not penetrate as deep into me.

Also you need a special type of FFL to get fully automatic weapons.

It does not take a six-figure salary and law school to know that religious discrimination is wrong.

Umm, since when would a catholic school hire atheists, and why would a catholic school refusing to hire atheists be wrong in doing so? Certainly, if I were a catholic superintendent, I wouldn't want the teachers I hired going, "Hail mary, it's all bullsh*t." I am against religious discrimination in general business opportunities, but I hardly think it my place to tell any religious organization that it's compelled to hire outide its faith, except in general administrative positions that have nothing to do with religious indoctrination.

As a Protestant, the test I would use is, would I feel comfortable with allowing a, say, Islamic or Bhuddist school recieving federal grants for teaching of poor kids. I really don't know. How would you prevent the grants themselves from being discriminatory. The court has ruled in favor of state vouchers on the basis that there is a compelling interest in educating poor kids. Honestly, I like the voucher system better, because it is based on parental choice, rather than the government issuing a bloc grant to some religious school. I think it was a close vote, and I doubt that it would hold up this time, regardless of how conservative either Roberts or O'connor's replacement is.

Umm, since when would a catholic school hire atheists, and why would a catholic school refusing to hire atheists be wrong in doing so? Certainly, if I were a catholic superintendent, I wouldn't want the teachers I hired going, "Hail mary, it's all bullsh*t." I am against religious discrimination in general business opportunities, but I hardly think it my place to tell any religious organization that it's compelled to hire outide its faith, except in general administrative positions that have nothing to do with religious indoctrination.

A religious organization is allowed to only hire within its religion. It simply cannot then accept government funds.

This law would circumvent that and make me (and you, if you pay taxes in the US) pay for Catholic/Islamic/Jewish/etc. indoctrination - something I would flat out refuse to pay for.

Relax, it could still die in the Senate. :)

Umm, since when would a catholic school hire atheists, and why would a catholic school refusing to hire atheists be wrong in doing so? Certainly, if I were a catholic superintendent, I wouldn't want the teachers I hired going, "Hail mary, it's all bullsh*t." I am against religious discrimination in general business opportunities, but I hardly think it my place to tell any religious organization that it's compelled to hire outide its faith, except in general administrative positions that have nothing to do with religious indoctrination.

As a Protestant, the test I would use is, would I feel comfortable with allowing a, say, Islamic or Bhuddist school recieving federal grants for teaching of poor kids. I really don't know. How would you prevent the grants themselves from being discriminatory. The court has ruled in favor of state vouchers on the basis that there is a compelling interest in educating poor kids. Honestly, I like the voucher system better, because it is based on parental choice, rather than the government issuing a bloc grant to some religious school. I think it was a close vote, and I doubt that it would hold up this time, regardless of how conservative either Roberts or O'connor's replacement is.

the point is they are giving federal funds to discriminators. They simply shouldnt be getting them if they are going to discriminate against people.

Gutted the Second Amendment? I still see guns everywhere.


Been to New York City lately? How about Washington DC? Most of california as well. Incrementalism. Same thing is being done with the teachers in this story. A little crack here, and a little crack there. Start out small. They've got all the time in the world. It's only taken 70 years to change the 2nd Amendment from no regulation to mega regulation, and the noose is tightening.

Don't take my word for it. Sit back and watch.

Yes, because the Rehnquist court was so packed to the gills with liberals

Jeez you're one dimensional. Arguing with you would be pointless. Blame the Conservatives for the gun laws. Makes no difference to me. No skin off my back what they do to the liberals. They've been asking for it. And now they're going ot get it. :(

This law would circumvent that and make me (and you, if you pay taxes in the US) pay for Catholic/Islamic/Jewish/etc. indoctrination - something I would flat out refuse to pay for.

You already pay for Public Schools. Do you use them? You can't get a credit if you send your kids to private schools, you know.

Actually hollowpoints don't go through walls very well. If I'm standing behind a wall and someone's shooting at me I hope he's got hollowpoints because they'll come through slower and not penetrate as deep into me.

Also you need a special type of FFL to get fully automatic weapons.

Meh, I was exagerating for a point. The point still stands, though, that so long as you can get a gun in this county easier than you can get an education, it is laughably incorrect to claim anyone has "gutted" the Second Amendment.

You already pay for Public Schools. Do you use them? You can't get a credit if you send your kids to private schools, you know.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said.

As for whether or not I use public schools - I might, when I have kids, if the schools are good. But I have no problem paying for public schools - they are not indoctrinating children into any religion. They are teaching children. If they are misusing funds, I have a say in that.

We aren't talking about just teaching, we are talking about indoctrination into a given religion, something I will not, under any circumstances, pay for, any more than I would pay for public beatings of children.

http://www.wibbler.com/files/pictures/iraq.jpg

Keruvalia,

FYI, the words were written after the pic was taken. There are several versions of this picture doing the rounds.

Meh, I was exagerating for a point. The point still stands, though, that so long as you can get a gun in this county easier than you can get an education, it is laughably incorrect to claim anyone has "gutted" the Second Amendment.
I live in NJ. If I get caught with hollowpoints I can go to prison. If I want a rifle or shotgun I've got to fill out a big pack of paperwork and provide references. That's just for a firearms ID card for rifles and shotguns. Pistol permits are even more red tape and expense. Then you don't get a carry permit, so you can legally own a pistol, and get locked up for having it in your possesion while you take a walk. I'd say the second ammendment's been pretty badly weakened where I live. Still doesn't stop me from owning guns though.

Anyhow, this is OT and I'll shut up now.

Hi, you're wrong.

California prohibts discrimination based on sexual orientation for public and private employment and public accomidations. Colorado prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation for public employment. Connecticut prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation for public and private employment, housing, credit, union practices and housing. Want me to go on?

It's a clear attack on state's rights.

forgot to mention that. a total of 14 states (want me to go into detail? ;) ) added the sexual orientation thing to their workplace discrimination laws. it's not that way in the others or on fed level.

similar goes for hate-crime.

[man, posting nearlythe exact same thing on 2 different threads. gotta stop :) ]

Also you need a special type of FFL to get fully automatic weapons.

Depends on what you mean. As an FFL 1 holder I can get them, but only sell them to Law Enforcment or the Military. I can't own one (*). As an FFL 2 I could manufacture them, but I couldn't own one.

(*)Automatic weapons are goverend by a sperate set of laws. ANYONE can own one that can own a firearm. But a private citizen can only own one that was made before 1986. The supply is limited and private citizens can only own one of them. The prices have skyrocketed.

Please don't comment on laws that you don't know about. ;)

Depends on what you mean. As an FFL 1 holder I can get them, but only sell them to Law Enforcment or the Military. I can't own one (*). As an FFL 2 I could manufacture them, but I couldn't own one.

(*)Automatic weapons are goverend by a sperate set of laws. ANYONE can own one that can own a firearm. But a private citizen can only own one that was made before 1986. The supply is limited and private citizens can only own one of them. The prices have skyrocketed.

Please don't comment on laws that you don't know about. ;)
Sorry, I thought you needed a different FFL than my local gunshop owner to get one. Live and learn.

Umm, since when would a catholic school hire atheists, and why would a catholic school refusing to hire atheists be wrong in doing so? Certainly, if I were a catholic superintendent, I wouldn't want the teachers I hired going, "Hail mary, it's all bullsh*t." I am against religious discrimination in general business opportunities, but I hardly think it my place to tell any religious organization that it's compelled to hire outide its faith, except in general administrative positions that have nothing to do with religious indoctrination.

As a Protestant, the test I would use is, would I feel comfortable with allowing a, say, Islamic or Bhuddist school recieving federal grants for teaching of poor kids. I really don't know. How would you prevent the grants themselves from being discriminatory. The court has ruled in favor of state vouchers on the basis that there is a compelling interest in educating poor kids. Honestly, I like the voucher system better, because it is based on parental choice, rather than the government issuing a bloc grant to some religious school. I think it was a close vote, and I doubt that it would hold up this time, regardless of how conservative either Roberts or O'connor's replacement is.

So do you think we should be able to make atheist schools which specifically discriminate against anyone religous wanting to become a teacher there?

forgot to mention that. a total of 14 states (want me to go into detail? ;) ) added the sexual orientation thing to their workplace discrimination laws. it's not that way in the others or on fed level.

similar goes for hate-crime.

[man, posting nearlythe exact same thing on 2 different threads. gotta stop :) ]

And that's 14 states who's rights would be abridged by this law. What's your point? Furthermore, many cities across the country include sexual discrimination in their anti-discrimination codes. This would also overrule those codes, should it ever come to pass.

It's a fair idea turned into a bad idea by a Republican Congress trying to draw attention from an abyssmal response to a national disaster.

So do you think we should be able to make atheist schools which specifically discriminate against anyone religous wanting to become a teacher there?

Public schools already discriminate against the religious. So no change there.

And why should a religious school be forced to hire anyone who would come to work and ridicule their beliefs all day?

What we need is more freedom, not less.

And how come its OK for colleges to have dormitories divided by race? They (liberal administrators) say that it is because people are more comfortable around their own kind.

I live in NJ. If I get caught with hollowpoints I can go to prison.

Good. The second amendment never gave the right to own ammunition that expands inside the target to make a bigger hole going out than it did going in.


If I want a rifle or shotgun I've got to fill out a big pack of paperwork and provide references.

Again, good. You have to fill out paperwork for a driver's liscence and take a test, even. Why shouldn't you have to do at least the same for permission to show you are responsible enough to own an instrument who's purpose is death?


That's just for a firearms ID card for rifles and shotguns. Pistol permits are even more red tape and expense. Then you don't get a carry permit, so you can legally own a pistol, and get locked up for having it in your possesion while you take a walk. I'd say the second ammendment's been pretty badly weakened where I live.

Since when was regulation equated to weakening? Does our country have weaker roads because we require drivers to carry a liscence? Sorry to keep throwing out that example, but it works and I've got a headache.

I have not now nor have I ever been a champion for making gun ownership illegal. The Second Amendment is very clear in that people have a right to own guns and while I don't, if someone wants to then that is their right. But it is the height of irresponsibility to make them as easy to get as a pack of gum. This is not "gutting" anything, but trying to make sure jackasses don't blow their own heads off or, more importantly, someone else's.


Still doesn't stop me from owning guns though.

Exactly. You've still got them. The second amendment never said you should be able to run down to your corner drug and buy Pepto Bismol, shampoo, and a derringer. Gun ownership is both a right and a responsibility.

Public schools already discriminate against the religious. So no change there.

And why should a religious school be forced to hire anyone who would come to work and ridicule their beliefs all day?

What we need is more freedom, not less.

They do? How so. Please show me how public schools discriminate against the religious.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445751

Been to New York City lately? How about Washington DC? Most of california as well. Incrementalism. Same thing is being done with the teachers in this story. A little crack here, and a little crack there. Start out small. They've got all the time in the world. It's only taken 70 years to change the 2nd Amendment from no regulation to mega regulation, and the noose is tightening.
As long as you can still viably buy guns, there is no gutting of the Second Ammendment, because the most and least it allows for is possession of firearms.

So do you think we should be able to make atheist schools which specifically discriminate against anyone religous wanting to become a teacher there?

They would consider that real discrimination.

Regards

Public schools already discriminate against the religious. So no change there.


I come from the UK so I dont know how much truth there is in that statement but is obviously isnt the case when talking about the school mentioned in the first post. Besides, in my first post by discriminate I meant ban, and i dont think any public schools ban religous people from teaching in them do they?

Good. The second amendment never gave the right to own ammunition that expands inside the target to make a bigger hole going out than it did going in.



Again, good. You have to fill out paperwork for a driver's liscence and take a test, even. Why shouldn't you have to do at least the same for permission to show you are responsible enough to own an instrument who's purpose is death?



Since when was regulation equated to weakening? Does our country have weaker roads because we require drivers to carry a liscence? Sorry to keep throwing out that example, but it works and I've got a headache.

I have not now nor have I ever been a champion for making gun ownership illegal. The Second Amendment is very clear in that people have a right to own guns and while I don't, if someone wants to then that is their right. But it is the height of irresponsibility to make them as easy to get as a pack of gum. This is not "gutting" anything, but trying to make sure jackasses don't blow their own heads off or, more importantly, someone else's.



Exactly. You've still got them. The second amendment never said you should be able to run down to your corner drug and buy Pepto Bismol, shampoo, and a derringer. Gun ownership is both a right and a responsibility.

It makes me sick to have to explain this to an American citizen. The 2nd Amendment give NOTHING. It does NOT GIVE the right to ANYTHING.

The right to firearms ownership is a Natural Right. The 2nd Amendment says the govt CAN'T infringe that right. READ THE DAMN CONSTITUTION before you post anything.

Thats' the bastardization that the liberals have been pushing for nearly a century. just as the 1st Amendment DOES NOT grant you the right to free speech. You already have that right. The 1st Amendment only says the govt can't abridge that right.

If either of those mean anything else, such as they actually grant that right then they can be taken away. READ what the Founding Fathers actually said.

a)A religious organization is allowed to only hire within its religion. b)It simply cannot then accept government funds.

This law would circumvent that c)and make me (and you, if you pay taxes in the US) pay for Catholic/Islamic/Jewish/etc. indoctrination - d)something I would flat out refuse to pay for

a) not sure
b)wrong. they do.
c)that's the thing. that's what i'm trying to raise awareness of
d)well, do so. or at least try to make that opinion heard. good luck.

You know I remember a time when there was something known as Checks and Balances to prevent inane laws like this from being past, oh well, Another point proving that this country is a republican controlled Dictatorship until at least 2006.

As long as you can still viably buy guns, there is no gutting of the Second Ammendment, because the most and least it allows for is possession of firearms.

So if the govt says you can talk about anything but you can't critize them, does that mean the 1st Amendment hasn't been abridged?

Or mayeb you can't critize Christianity anymore? or any other religion you want. This is the incrementalism I'm talking about. And it's already started on the 1st Amendment.

If I can't own any type of firearm I want, it's been abridged. If I can't own a firearm now that I could 25 years ago, it's been abridged.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give the govt latitude in deciding what I can own.

Thats' the bastardization that the liberals have been pushing for nearly a century. just as the 1st Amendment DOES NOT grant you the right to free speech. You already have that right. The 1st Amendment only says the govt can't abridge that right.
I am getting tired of your close-minded, blanket generalizations.

So if the govt says you can talk about anything but you can't critize them, does that mean the 1st Amendment hasn't been abridged?
The First Amendment does have limits, especially on the right to freedom of speech.

Your obsession with the Second Amendment is ridiculous and way overblown.

Public schools already discriminate against the religious. So no change there.

Funny. I had plenty of religious teachers in public schools. Pray tell how they are discriminated against? And remember that the vast majority of people in this country (including teachers) are religions.

And why should a religious school be forced to hire anyone who would come to work and ridicule their beliefs all day?

No one is saying that they should. We are simply saying that, if they are not willing to follow government anti-discrimination laws, they should not get government money.

And how come its OK for colleges to have dormitories divided by race? They (liberal administrators) say that it is because people are more comfortable around their own kind.

I've never heard of anything like this.

a) not sure

Legally, it has been found time and time again that a religious organization can choose to hire from only within their religion or according to their religious doctrines.

b)wrong. they do.

And it is uncsontitutional for them to do so. Laws have been passed banning free speech before too (Alien and Sedition Acts, anyone?), but that didn't make them constitutional and therefore enforceable.

The US house of representatives has voted to allow preschool providers taking government funds under the Head Start program to discriminate based on religion when hiring. Remember when there was a separation of church and state and this kind of thing didn't happen? Those were the days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050923/ap_on_go_co/head_start
Good to know we've finally gotten rid of that pesky Constitution.

Seriously though, there is going to come a day when there are more Scientologists in America than there are Christians, and all these policies the Christians have pushed through will backfire...suddenly, the majority religion won't be their religion, and they're going to have to watch their kids getting taught about homicidal aliens and volcano bombings just like we've had to watch our kids get taught about magical zombies, crimson-clad elderly gift distributers, and talking snakes. On that day, the evangelists will miraculously re-discover how much they love the seperation of church and state, and will suddenly start kissing the ACLU's ass in the hopes that the aftermath of their selfish stupidity can be mopped up by the people who have known religious government was a bad idea all along.

On that day, I hope to have the name of a very good plastic surgeon, because I intend to laugh my ass completely off.

Keruvalia,

FYI, the words were written after the pic was taken. There are several versions of this picture doing the rounds.
Check Snopes. That's the original writing on the sign. It was the army guy's idea of a joke. I think he lost his job over it.

So if the govt says you can talk about anything but you can't critize them, does that mean the 1st Amendment hasn't been abridged?

No, but if they say, "You can't publish anything about how to build a nuclear weapon except in this capacity," it has not been abridged. It has been regulated, with the government being able to show a compelling interest for adding the regulation.

If I can't own any type of firearm I want, it's been abridged.

Wrong. So long as the government can show a compelling interest in the particular regulation added, your rights have not been abridged. They have been regulated.

Good to know we've finally gotten rid of that pesky Constitution.

Seriously though, there is going to come a day when there are more Scientologists in America than there are Christians, and all these policies the Christians have pushed through will backfire...suddenly, the majority religion won't be their religion, and they're going to have to watch their kids getting taught about homicidal aliens and volcano bombings just like we've had to watch our kids get taught about magical zombies, crimson-clad elderly gift distributers, and talking snakes. On that day, the evangelists will miraculously re-discover how much they love the seperation of church and state, and will suddenly start kissing the ACLU's ass in the hopes that the aftermath of their selfish stupidity can be mopped up by the people who have known religious government was a bad idea all along.

On that day, I hope to have the name of a very good plastic surgeon, because I intend to laugh my ass completely off.

well said as you remain my hero!

the point is they are giving federal funds to discriminators. They simply shouldnt be getting them if they are going to discriminate against people.

Anti-discrimination laws are not a part of our constitution. But you might have a point under the establishment clause. I would have to know a lot more about the law before I made any kind of decision on it. I thunk vouchers are OK, because it is simply the government saying to an individual "here's some money, now go out and educate your kid."

So do you think we should be able to make atheist schools which specifically discriminate against anyone religous wanting to become a teacher there?

It sort of depends. If you are teaching that all religion is evil you are making religious points, and in that case, sure.

I don't think you can make a blanketed statement "Discrimination is wrong" without running into all sorts of exceptions. A topless bar, for example, is obviously allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender. It's all on a "what is the point" basis.

And the idea that this law is somehow subverting states rights is just silly. Most states have religious exceptions to discrimination laws (and would probably be forced by the Supreme Court into them even if they didn't) Federal funding of these institutions is completely different.

You have to be kidding me. I hope you are kidding me...Notice it says: "Churches and other religious groups are allowed to receive federal money to provide preschool to poor children." That is who we are talking about here, am I not right? Why SHOULDN'T a church be able to discriminate on religion? Its a church, not a public school. Come on guys, come on. Also, why does it matter honestly? This is a mostly white Christian nation. I'm Jewish, and in Texas I might add, and I still don't care about these crazy ass religious issues. They are completely nonsensical in the end.

You have to be kidding me. I hope you are kidding me...Notice it says: "Churches and other religious groups are allowed to receive federal money to provide preschool to poor children." That is who we are talking about here, am I not right? Why SHOULDN'T a church be able to discriminate on religion? Its a church, not a public school. Come on guys, come on. Also, why does it matter honestly? This is a mostly white Christian nation. I'm Jewish, and in Texas I might add, and I still don't care about these crazy ass religious issues. They are completely nonsensical in the end.
BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING FEDERAL MONEY.

Sweet Jebus, are people really this clueless?!

A Church most certainly can discriminate for religious reasons, and I defend their right to do so as a private institution, but THE MINUTE YOU TAKE PUBLIC, FEDERAL MONEY YOU MUST ABIDE BY THE RULES OF OUR GOVERNMENT. If discriminating on religious grounds is so important, all you have to do is quit taking taxpayer dollars. Pay for your bigotry with your own money, and stop expecting other people to foot the bill.

Good to know we've finally gotten rid of that pesky Constitution.

Seriously though, there is going to come a day when there are more Scientologists in America than there are Christians, and all these policies the Christians have pushed through will backfire...suddenly, the majority religion won't be their religion, and they're going to have to watch their kids getting taught about homicidal aliens and volcano bombings just like we've had to watch our kids get taught about magical zombies, crimson-clad elderly gift distributers, and talking snakes. On that day, the evangelists will miraculously re-discover how much they love the seperation of church and state, and will suddenly start kissing the ACLU's ass in the hopes that the aftermath of their selfish stupidity can be mopped up by the people who have known religious government was a bad idea all along.


Don't expect them to give up so easy. They've gotten stronger every year. And you can bet the next election they'll win too. How many people raised a stink about the voting in Ohio? Exactly.

No, but if they say, "You can't publish anything about how to build a nuclear weapon except in this capacity," it has not been abridged. It has been regulated, with the government being able to show a compelling interest for adding the regulation.

Wrong. So long as the government can show a compelling interest in the particular regulation added, your rights have not been abridged. They have been regulated.

And who decides that compelling interest? The Federal courts that the Republicans are packing? And who watches over them? The Supreme Court that the Republicans now control too? ;)

It makes me sick to have to explain this to an American citizen. The 2nd Amendment give NOTHING. It does NOT GIVE the right to ANYTHING.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to make you sick, so feel free to ignore me and I shall return the favor.

Furthermore, I don't argue semantics. You wanna play in the sophistry sandbox, you go right ahead, but you'll just be playing with yourself.

Furthermore, I don't argue semantics. You wanna play in the sophistry sandbox, you go right ahead, but you'll just be playing with yourself.

The entire 2nd Amendment debate is one on semantics.

Seriously though, there is going to come a day when there are more Scientologists in America than there are Christians, and all these policies the Christians have pushed through will backfire...suddenly, the majority religion won't be their religion, and they're going to have to watch their kids getting taught about homicidal aliens and volcano bombings just like we've had to watch our kids get taught about magical zombies, crimson-clad elderly gift distributers, and talking snakes. On that day, the evangelists will miraculously re-discover how much they love the seperation of church and state, and will suddenly start kissing the ACLU's ass in the hopes that the aftermath of their selfish stupidity can be mopped up by the people who have known religious government was a bad idea all along.

Som christians consider crimson-clad elderly gift distributers evil. And since when have you been made to wach your kids get taught any religious docrine at all? They don't allow that in the public schools...

...oh forget it. I'm sick of all this atheist paranoia. What atheist and religious people BOTH need to do is simply stop being so dang afraid of each other. All this hate (and, yes, it is hate) is just getting to me.

Don't expect them to give up so easy. They've gotten stronger every year.

Depends on how you define it. Christianity is the fastest-declining religious orientation in America, and secular/atheist/agnostic is the fastest growing group. Sure, the Christians are raising a stink lately, but they've been showing their arses ever since this country was founded. I think they're just bitter that America's future lies with shit they can't understand, like biotechnology, so now they're trying to make sure our next generation grows up nice and non-threateningly stupid. Problem is, American children are far more intelligent and resourceful than American Jeebusites (not to be confused with Christians in general!), so they're not going to manage it any more than the grown-ups managed to stop sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll.

And you can bet the next election they'll win too.

Whether or not they get their people into office, they will have lost. See, while they focus on pushing theocrats into office, the educated secularists of America are hard at work on a device that will excise the Bible Belt from North America and push it out to sea, where it can become a floating diorama of the Dark Ages.

How many people raised a stink about the voting in Ohio?

Um, a whole shitload? Or do you not read papers other than the WSJ? :)

Sure, they got away with voter fraud. Sure, they have made corruption a way of life in American politics. But these are methods that any idiot can use...you see, honorable politics takes skill, patience, intelligence, and character, while being a dirty cheat just takes a petty personality and a strong gag reflex. As soon as the honorable side gets fed up with being chumped by cheaters, they can turn right around and use the exact same dirty tricks.

The entire 2nd Amendment debate is one on semantics.

No, the 2nd Amendment debate is about the right of the individual to own a firearm and if the government has any responsibility to the good of the people to limit that. The semantics creeps in when people try to warp it to ignore the ideas behind it so they can buy a six-pack of Saturday Night Specials from Wal-Mart.

The entire 2nd Amendment debate is one on semantics.
exactly, those that oppose the regulation of firearms look at the part saying that "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged" while those that support it look at the " A well REGULATED milita being necessary" part.

Um, a whole shitload? Or do you not read papers other than the WSJ? :)

Sure, they got away with voter fraud. Sure, they have made corruption a way of life in American politics.

They stole the election, and you shrug it off so easily?

I dont' read the WSJ by the way. At least not that often. And by often, I mean not every day.

Som christians consider crimson-clad elderly gift distributers evil. And since when have you been made to wach your kids get taught any religious docrine at all? They don't allow that in the public schools...

Have you ever been to public school in America? I had a "world religions" unit ever year from 8th grade on. But that's not something I object to...as long as all myths and doctrines are taught equally, that's fine by me.

What I object to is the number of jackarses currently bitching because our schools want to teach that babies come from sperm, eggs, and genital-smooshing, rather than teaching that angels give Mommy a special kiss on the tummy and then a baby appears in a shower of rose petals. I object to the people screaming and hollering because their kids aren't allowed to disrupt school by praying during class hours. I object to the people who want to force other people's kids to recite a pledge that worships the Christian God (and don't pretend like "under God" refers to any of that pluralistic crap, because we all know it doesn't). I object to people insisting that their creation myths be taught in science classes. That's the shit that bothers me.

I think kids SHOULD learn about religion in school. Preferably in history class.


...oh forget it. I'm sick of all this atheist paranoia. What atheist and religious people BOTH need to do is simply stop being so dang afraid of each other. All this hate (and, yes, it is hate) is just getting to me.
Hey, guess what? I'm not an atheist. For somebody who wants the "hate" to stop, you sure don't show much respect for other people's beliefs. You sure jump to a lot of hostile conclusions. Heck, you don't even bother to find out what somebody else believes before you try to insult it!

Be the change you want to see in the world. If you want religious and non-religious persons to be able to coexist with respect, then start the process by taking a good long look at yourself. Don't expect other people to change if you don't have the character to change yourself.

exactly, those that oppose the regulation of firearms look at the part saying that "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged" while those that support it look at the " A well REGULATED milita being necessary" part.

The first part is a prefatory statement.

Example. A well educated electorate being neccessary to a free republic, the right to read shall not be infringed.

The liberals would define that as only books about voting could be read. Anything else can be banned. Others would say that any book can be read. I guess you're the first kind?

The way I read the article, it seems to me that schools that receive federal funds for their head start programs cannot be disqualified based on their hiring practices if that includes hiring by religious affiliation. I think this concession was made because there is a great need for these programs and parochial schools do a great job with providing a quality education for children. If a parent chooses to participate in a program held by a Catholic Church or other demonination, they certainly should have the sources to do so. I know my Catholic school has two teachers that are of the Jewish faith and several dozen non-Cattholic students. So, there might be an over-reaction on what this is actually trying to do.

They stole the election, and you shrug it off so easily?

Well, let's just say I try to keep perspective. I don't believe there was ever any chance at a fair election in that particular case, and I have long since resigned myself to that fact. You can only stay enraged for so long, you know?

I dont' read the WSJ by the way. At least not that often. And by often, I mean not every day.
I was (mostly) joking. I think many people were given the impression that the Ohio voter fraud was "no big deal" because MSM's played it that way, despite a HUGE outcry at the time. It's kind of like how lots of people got the impression that a war vet was more of a coward than a spoiled rich boy who snorted coke rather than fighting. The spin is the thing...

The liberals would define that as only books about voting could be read. Anything else can be banned. Others would say that any book can be read. I guess you're the first kind?
Be careful...I am an ACTUAL liberal, and I support the right to bear arms. "Liberal" is becoming a bad word in America, despite the fact that the Founders largely embodied classic liberalism (though they had a few pesky blind spots like slavery, women's nonrights, and some entrenched classism).

The first part is a prefatory statement.

Example. A well educated electorate being neccessary to a free republic, the right to read shall not be infringed.

The liberals would define that as only books about voting could be read. Anything else can be banned. Others would say that any book can be read. I guess you're the first kind?
Not all liberals want guns to be regulated. Stop your inaccurate generalizations.

Original post: That's appalling. The government can't fund discrimination, that's... that's.... :headbang:

2nd amendment argument: "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." I don't see how this is in the least unclear. :headbang:

The first part is a prefatory statement.

Example. A well educated electorate being neccessary to a free republic, the right to read shall not be infringed.

The liberals would define that as only books about voting could be read. Anything else can be banned. Others would say that any book can be read. I guess you're the first kind?
Eccept that ain't in the constitution now is it? This is and it indecates the founders reasoning behind not allowing guns to be banned. It wasn't so that any one could go out and pick up a dozen handguns when ever they wanted, but so that the citizenry would be abble to raise millitas to defend themselves when necescary. Liberals aren't even being this strict about it they only want to make sure that basic checks are run so that A. the gun isn't sold to someone with a known criminal record. B. can't be bought on the spur of the momment C. in some cases that tests are required to makesure that the purchaser has enough of an understanding on the proper use of that gun that they don't pose a risk of accidently killing themselves or more importantly another person.

Keruvalia,

FYI, the words were written after the pic was taken. There are several versions of this picture doing the rounds.

I know ... but that version seemed somehow ... appropriate.

Original post: That's appalling. The government can't fund discrimination, that's... that's.... :headbang:

2nd amendment argument: "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." I don't see how this is in the least unclear. :headbang:
2nd amendment argument: "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." I don't see how this is in the least unclear.

Why do people always ignore the fact that it specificly refers to the people with the guns being WELL REGULATED. Its right in the bloody admendment that the founders thought the arrangment should be WELL REGULATED, not banned no rational individuals are asking for arms to be banned they are just asking that they be WELL REGULATED.

BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING FEDERAL MONEY.

Sweet Jebus, are people really this clueless?!

A Church most certainly can discriminate for religious reasons, and I defend their right to do so as a private institution, but THE MINUTE YOU TAKE PUBLIC, FEDERAL MONEY YOU MUST ABIDE BY THE RULES OF OUR GOVERNMENT. If discriminating on religious grounds is so important, all you have to do is quit taking taxpayer dollars. Pay for your bigotry with your own money, and stop expecting other people to foot the bill.
They are educating the less fortunate either way, and where was the outrage at federal funds going to a church at all? Who are you calling a bigot anyway? They are PRESCHOOLERS. All they really do there is keep the kids in a safe place and let them have fun. Not a whole lot of crazyness going on there. I HAD to go to a lot of publicly funded Christian programs for a good portion of my life because my parents worked and it did not skew my perspective one way or another. I'm sorry, but that is just how I feel.

The first part is a prefatory statement.

Example. A well educated electorate being neccessary to a free republic, the right to read shall not be infringed.

The liberals would define that as only books about voting could be read. Anything else can be banned. Others would say that any book can be read. I guess you're the first kind?

You are still ignoring the regulatory statement.

It would be a better analogy to say:

A well-regulated education being necessary to a free republic, the right to learn shall not be infringed.

If this were an amendment, it would be clear that it wished for the education to be regulated. Thus, it is clear that regulation is a part of the picture. Thus, the government could deny a person the right to learn about how to build a nuclear bomb, because it has a compelling interest in doing so.

They are educating the less fortunate either way, and where was the outrage at federal funds going to a church at all? Who are you calling a bigot anyway? They are PRESCHOOLERS. All they really do there is keep the kids in a safe place and let them have fun. Not a whole lot of crazyness going on there. I HAD to go to a lot of publicly funded Christian programs for a good portion of my life because my parents worked and it did not skew my perspective one way or another. I'm sorry, but that is just how I feel.

If you were going to publicly funded Christian programs, they either didn't have discriminatory hiring practices and didn't indoctrinate you, or they were breaking the law.

Would you want government funds going, for instance, to a school that taught young girls that they should be ashamed to show their face in public and should wear a burkha?

Would you want government funds going, for instance, to a school that refused to hire Christians on the grounds that they were "immoral" and told children that they would have no Christian teachers for that reason?

2nd amendment argument: "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." I don't see how this is in the least unclear.

Why do people always ignore the fact that it specificly refers to the people with the guns being WELL REGULATED. Its right in the bloody admendment that the founders thought the arrangment should be WELL REGULATED, not banned no rational individuals are asking for arms to be banned they are just asking that they be WELL REGULATED.
If you look at history it kinda gives you a different take on that ammendment. AFAIK there were no regulations on who could buy a gun back then, and in fact the average hunting rifle was about the same as the state of the art military weapon of the time. The militia might have been regulated, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms definately wasn't infringed upon. If the same interpretation was in place today I could buy an M 16 with a grenade launcher on it.

Crap. I said I wouldn't post on this subject in this thread. Sorry.

If you look at history it kinda gives you a different take on that ammendment. AFAIK there were no regulations on who could buy a gun back then, and in fact the average hunting rifle was about the same as the state of the art military weapon of the time. The militia might have been regulated, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms definately wasn't infringed upon. If the same interpretation was in place today I could buy an M 16 with a grenade launcher on it.

Crap. I said I wouldn't post on this subject in this thread. Sorry.
Yes but you would also more than likely train with your local milita, perhapse we should require gun owners to join the national guard it would take care of the reqruitment problems, not live in a crowded city, and would be more likely to have enough excperiancewith and have taught any kids you have enough gun safty that you wouldn't blow your own or anothers head off, which is as so often said the greatest factor in terms of gun fatalities. Personal I would be happy if we just made people pass a gun safty, maintance, storage test before leting them own fire arms.

If you look at history it kinda gives you a different take on that ammendment. AFAIK there were no regulations on who could buy a gun back then, and in fact the average hunting rifle was about the same as the state of the art military weapon of the time. The militia might have been regulated, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms definately wasn't infringed upon. If the same interpretation was in place today I could buy an M 16 with a grenade launcher on it.

Crap. I said I wouldn't post on this subject in this thread. Sorry.

Meh, it's irresistable.

Look, I really don't want to take away guns. It's clear that the Constitution provides for their ownership by private citizens and I don't like mucking about with the Constitution when it isn't absolutely necessary.

But why would you possibly need an M16 with a grenade launcher? And do you really think that sort of armament was what the founding fathers were envisioning when they outlined that amendment? It's about reasonableness and self-policing. Sure, you can have guns. You may want to collect them or have them for protection or go hunting with them and those are all great reasons. But where is the need for a grenade launcher or an automatic rifle? I mean, how many deer are you intending on taking out at once?

In a perfect world, there would be no need for governmental regulation of firearms because people would do it themselves. They would take good care of their weapons, lock them up and keep them out of hands that they don't belong in and generally act responsibly with both their purchase and their ownership. Until that world comes about, though, are waiting periods really that big an imposition?

Meh, it's irresistable.

Look, I really don't want to take away guns. It's clear that the Constitution provides for their ownership by private citizens and I don't like mucking about with the Constitution when it isn't absolutely necessary.

But why would you possibly need an M16 with a grenade launcher? And do you really think that sort of armament was what the founding fathers were envisioning when they outlined that amendment? It's about reasonableness and self-policing. Sure, you can have guns. You may want to collect them or have them for protection or go hunting with them and those are all great reasons. But where is the need for a grenade launcher or an automatic rifle? I mean, how many deer are you intending on taking out at once?

In a perfect world, there would be no need for governmental regulation of firearms because people would do it themselves. They would take good care of their weapons, lock them up and keep them out of hands that they don't belong in and generally act responsibly with both their purchase and their ownership. Until that world comes about, though, are waiting periods really that big an imposition?
I wouldn't buy an M 16 w. handy grenade launcher attatchment unless I had some money to burn and alot of land to shoot and blow up stuff on. I was just making a pointless point.

Check Snopes. That's the original writing on the sign. It was the army guy's idea of a joke. I think he lost his job over it.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/boudreaux.asp#photo01
Status: Undetermined.


All we know for sure so far is that the picture does depict Lance Cpl. Ted J. Boudreaux Jr., a reservist with Headquarters and Service Company, 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marines, a New Orleans-based infantry unit deployed in Iraq from May to September of 2003 (Boudreaux himself is no longer on active duty), and that the circumstances of the photograph have been investigated by the Marines. (They have not yet announced the results of their investigation.)

Several different versions of this picture — each with the sign altered to reflect some other humorous message (e.g., "My country got invaded and all I got was this lousy sign") — were circulated on the Internet, and that phenomenon increased tremendously after the creation of site that allowed visitors to customize the Boudreaux photograph by putting their own words onto the sign. (That site, www.ryano.net/iraq/, is no longer operational, now imparting the message "gone forever. deal with it.") Other versions of the picture displayed more positive messages (e.g., "Lcpl Boudreaux saved my dad th(en) rescued my sister!"):

The liberals would define that as only books about voting could be read. Anything else can be banned. Others would say that any book can be read. I guess you're the first kind?
Last time, stop with the close-minded, blanket generalizations.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/boudreaux.asp#photo01
Status: Undetermined.
It was the first one to appear, and the others are badly photoshopped, so I would consider it likely.

If you were going to publicly funded Christian programs, they either didn't have discriminatory hiring practices and didn't indoctrinate you, or they were breaking the law.

Would you want government funds going, for instance, to a school that taught young girls that they should be ashamed to show their face in public and should wear a burkha?

Would you want government funds going, for instance, to a school that refused to hire Christians on the grounds that they were "immoral" and told children that they would have no Christian teachers for that reason?
Would I want that? No. But, you are straying from the topic at hand, which is preschoolers. Who, by the way, dont do too much tholocical study ANYWHERE. They fingerpaint. They may make some macaroni necklaces. They learn about sharing and playing nice. Good values are encouraged by many major religions and sometimes religious teachers can actually be good. Imagine that. Honestly though, how many atheists want to teach at a Catholic preschool? How many Jews want to teach at a mosque? Not many. I feel this is a moot arguement (unless you factor in the "slippery slope" but that could go on forever...)

Would I want that? No. But, you are straying from the topic at hand, which is preschoolers. Who, by the way, dont do too much tholocical study ANYWHERE.

*Wonders what I did in Sunday School all those years.*

hey fingerpaint. They may make some macaroni necklaces. They learn about sharing and playing nice.

Are you claiming that a Christian school which would only hire Christian teachers isn['t going to say things like, "Jesus loves you." "You did a bad thing today, let's pray to Jesus so that he will forgive you." "Let's say the Lord's prayer." "Let's say grace." "When the baby Jesus was born....." "Jesus was raised from the dead and that's why we have Easter." etc.

Are you seriously suggesting that this type of school wouldn't say these things to preschoolers? I heard them even before I was a preschooler.

Honestly though, how many atheists want to teach at a Catholic preschool?

If it is a good school, there may be many. Of course, if it is a good school instead of a "We're going to indoctrinate our religion into young minds," school, it probably wouldn't have these rules in the first place.

I understand what you are saying, but here is a thought: If it is indeed a religious school, and a voluntary one at that, perhaps the children's parents want them to be in a religious environment and would want the schools to choose their employees based on their religion. There is no "indoctrination" going on here. A lot of these kids probobly already go to church and get the same religious talk from their parents at home. Religious preschools are not "NPOV" and they don't have to be fair. Just because the government gives these schools the nod to continue to do so and some cash doesn't really change anything.

I understand what you are saying, but here is a thought: If it is indeed a religious school, and a voluntary one at that, perhaps the children's parents want them to be in a religious environment and would want the schools to choose their employees based on their religion.

In which case they should, voluntarily pay for it.

There is no "indoctrination" going on here.

The parents' wishes are irrelevant to whether or not it is indoctrination. A parent can participate in indoctrination of their children as well.

A lot of these kids probobly already go to church and get the same religious talk from their parents at home.

...which would suggest that they don't need it at school, but that is another issue.

Religious preschools are not "NPOV" and they don't have to be fair.

They do if they expect government funds.

Just because the government gives these schools the nod to continue to do so and some cash doesn't really change anything.

Actually, it does. THe minute the government gives the nod to any religion, much less actual funds, it breaks the 1st Amendment by establishing that religion above others.

Your tax dollars at work supporting discrimination.

The point here is, they are doing a public service by keeping these kids in a safe envrionment of some kind. These parents don't have the money to put their children into a privately funded religious preschool. Also, if the government gives a religion tax exempt status it violates the first amendment (by those standards) as well.

The point here is, they are doing a public service by keeping these kids in a safe envrionment of some kind. These parents don't have the money to put their children into a privately funded religious preschool. Also, if the government gives a religion tax exempt status it violates the first amendment (by those standards) as well.
No, taxing churches interferes with free exercise.

The point here is, they are doing a public service by keeping these kids in a safe envrionment of some kind. These parents don't have the money to put their children into a privately funded religious preschool. Also, if the government gives a religion tax exempt status it violates the first amendment (by those standards) as well.
Keyword being private. It is out of their own pockets if they choose a private institution. At that point, it should nto be the government's job to fund it.

No, taxing churches interferes with free exercise.
But it hurts religions that cannot get recogized.

Keyword being private. It is out of their own pockets if they choose a private institution. At that point, it should nto be the government's job to fund it.
I'm very sorry can you please reword that? It did not make much sense.
Seriously, my bad, I just don't get what you said there.

But it hurts religions that cannot get recogized.
Which church is that? The Intergalatic "let's take everyone's money" church?


Woops, we've got one of those already >. >

Which church is that? The Intergalatic "let's take everyone's money" church?


Woops, we've got one of those already >. >
I see some hypocracy taking root here.

Say...Isn't there a bit in the Constitution against religous testing?

I'm very sorry can you please reword that? It did not make much sense.
Seriously, my bad, I just don't get what you said there.
I wouldn't count on my ability to make it understandable.

:rolleyes: Sigh. Been here, done that, bought the T-shirt, cleaned the bike with it, ho-hum, pass the butter, etc.

Which church is that? The Intergalatic "let's take everyone's money" church?


Woops, we've got one of those already >. >
And it's recognized. I still can't figure out how they managed that.

And it's recognized. I still can't figure out how they managed that.

Scientology has been recognized?

The point here is, they are doing a public service by keeping these kids in a safe envrionment of some kind.

There are public schools for that.

These parents don't have the money to put their children into a privately funded religious preschool.

If they don't have the money, and the kid can't get some sort of scholarship, then boohoo, they have to use public schools like the rest of us poor saps.

Also, if the government gives a religion tax exempt status it violates the first amendment (by those standards) as well.

Hardly. The government gives tax exempt status to all sorts of non-profit organizations. So long as churches remain generally non-profit, there is no reason to tax them.

Scientology has been recognized?Not where I live :D

Scientology has been recognized?

The US recognizes Scientology as a religion, as do a few other countries they use as tax shelters.

Scientology is truly the only religion I can think of which is truly totally for-profit. It really shouldn't be tax exempt. Ah well.