Student Religious Group That Discriminates Should Not Get Public Funding
 

To this day I am so completely confused as to why the religious in the US refuse to comply with separation of Church and State.
It is in their best interest... they need to see that.
If breached, that influence will go both ways... and not in the Church's best interest in the long run.
Regardless of that... this nation was never a religious one, was never meant to be and should never be.
We should honor the First, and keep all religions separate from all State functions and funding.
It needs to be off of our money, out of our schools in all forms (I don't mind unfunded student groups after hours), out of the courts in all ways, just OUT.

Agreed. They have every right to discriminate but they shouldn't recieve any funding for it.

A few years back I posted a thread proving that although the founding fathers of teh US were not necessarily Christian, they were at the least, diests that belived in a Creator god and a power and authority that came from that god.

The phrase regarding the separation between church and state is not in any legal documentation by the founding fathers, only in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, reassuring them that the US will never force it's citizens to comply with a governmental (state) religion, due to the constitutional freedoms afforded to them.

That being said, (you can search for and review that trhead at your leisure, I won't repost here, way too long) I think that if this religous group is discriminating against homosexuals or people of other religious affiliations, they shouldn't receive school funding.

However, all "men's" organizations (fraternities) or "women's" organizations (sororities) therefore shouldn't receive school funding, either. Nor should "black clubs" (NAACP) or "asian clubs" or any other ethnic club that excludes people of other races.


Fair is fair.

Amen, OC.

Not true, this has always been a religious Nation. It was settled and populated by religious people. The settlements were mostly single religious groups with the non-religious individuals, going through the motions or keeping a low profile and certainly not voicing objections.

The "Founding Fathers" gathered in Philadelphia to form a more perfect union, didn't want to get into the problems of Europe with having a State Church ....an official religion. Plus most of the people that had settled in the previous 150 years were pretty set in their ways. They didn't want, and would not support, any government that was going to mess with their beliefs.

That said, they were religious people. They elected religious people. They past laws to support and protect their religion and way of life. Religion was part of their everyday life and incorporated into public functions. They were also mostly Christian but tolerant, at least in public, of others...as long as they didn't try to run for office or seek power in any way.

There was friction, especially during the influx of Catholics just before the Civil War. But everybody got along pretty well until the New Deal started pushing federal money into every corner of our lives and seeking input in return.

It wasn't until the 60s that this became much of an issue. "Under God" was just added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50s. The idea that this was not a religious country from the git-go is a myth.

btw, I agree that this group should not be funded. I also agree with OC about all those groups that are excluding people shouldn't be funded either.:thumb:

I'm in, it makes sense to me also.

I disagree with not funding frats and sororities. They have a house for both males and females so it isn't discriminating. It is just like saying we shouldn't fund boy's basketball because girls can't join even though there is a girl's basketball team.

The NAACP does not disciminate against Whites being members.

If a fraternity states that women cannot be in their group, it's discrimination, regardless of what else is available.

Using your logic, this religious club should be funded as long as there is a Jewish club for Jews.

If a certain "club" discriminates, PERIOD, it shouldn't be publicly funded.

I was using that as an example, I don't know anything about the NAACP, but I think my point made it across. Apologies to the NAACP.

There is currently a row in the UK with the Catholic church asking that the full equality laws are not applied to Catholic adoption agencies, leaving them free to refuse adoption to gay couples. They are threatening to close 7 adoption agencies if the laws are enforced.

I am disappointed by this. To me the biblical instructions regarding homosexuality are as tenuous as those supporting slavery and certainly far less than those denying equal rights to women. Catholics live in this country and should be subject to the laws of this country, in the same way that Muslims are. Where faith conflicts with the law, the law must come first - if you won't compromise then change your faith or change your country.

And what sort of Christian big picture is supported by closing adoption agencies anyway?

Link to one of the stories reporting the above.

Let me counter with this, SG:

If any govt funded adoption agency was letting sex offenders adopt a child, would you be upset by that? Would you ask that the govt pull their funding, and in fact close them down?

Of course you would.

In the eyes of the Catholic church, homosexuals are sex offenders. Of course they don't want to let them adopt children. In their eyes, it's morally and ethically wrong.

The article you linked doesn't specify if the Catholic Agencies are receiving govt funding. If they are, I think what needs to happen is that they become a privately funded organization. This should allow them to discriminate as they see fit, according to their beliefs, because it's being done through the Caothlic Church, and not the govt.

If the Catholic Agencies are already private, I don't see why they can't choose who they see fit and turn away those that they don't believe will raise a child properly. And if the govt has a problem with that, it needs to open and fund their own Adoption Agencies that won't discriminate against homosexuals.

Problem solved.

I wouldn't be allowed to refuse to sell my flat to an Asian person. It's my flat, my personal property and I might be a card-carrying member of the BNP (right wing British National Party known for their racist views) but I would not be allowed to openly discriminate.

It's the law.

It is also the case that in this country, being gay does not make you a sex offender according to the law. The Catholic church cannot decide which laws it wants to adhere to and which ones it doesn't.

Private companies have to adhere to labour laws for example, including equality/ discrimination laws. No-one can force a homophobic boss to hire a gay person, or a racist to hire a black person, but they are not legally permitted to include restrictions when advertising the position.

I think it's a dangerous precedent to be able to disregard the law of the land without penalty "because God told me to".

Then all the college dorms shouldn't be funded because I can't room in a girl's wing. All schools should be funded because I can't go into a girl's bathroom. All guy's basketball should be cut of funding because girl's can't play even though they have their own league. Don't mix sex with religion or race because they have no comparasion.

SO if separate but equal is ok to apply to dorms and sports, and it's fine to fund those, then it's ok to fund a baptist club if there's a jew club, and if there's a muslim club, and a satanist club. Separate but equal? So a blacks only club is ok if there's a whites only club, and an asian only club and a native american club ...

If we're talking fair is fair, then it HAS to be applied to religion, race, sex, orientation, age.... across the board.

There IS a comparison, otherwise we wouldn't have Equal Opportunity Laws that included the sex of the individual.

That is because sex is different from race and religion.

I don't think there should be funding for some "girls club" or a "boys" club but sports and living is different.

Even though I'm pro-unification-of-gender, I have no problem with separate living quarters and bathrooms for different sexes because it solves a lot of sexual harassment and assault problems that would be there otherwise. But any discrimination of any other sort based on inherent qualities (race, sex, age, etc) or religion should be completely NOT okay.

However... Having a christian club is one thing. Having a christian club that discriminates against non-christians is another. You can have a christian club, fine. But if ONLY christians can be in it, or only people that fit certain christian values, then it is NOT okay and should recieve no funding.

Gee... being a white male (a minority and a color) I wonder how much jack I can get from them for a scholarship? Like the one I was passed over because of being white for someone with less of a GPA and no extracarricular...:rolleyes:

As always:

Course not. White liberal guilt is responsible for most of their funding.

Anybody here seen a Black Student Union with White Members?

Nope. Where is my White Student Union? Where is my Irish History Month? Where is my Dayton Alliance of White Business Owners? Hey, if you wanna be equal and all, drop the Special Pleading shite and join the rest of us nobodies.

:bitching:

When the Irish get oppressed for over 400 years then you can start an "Irish History Month" ;)

You applied to the NAACP for a scholarship? :confused:

Technically, it's in March.

We were sold as slaves right along with the blacks on the Ivory coast and in the Caribbean, as well as being treated just as poorly in much of the US, thank you very much.

No bruce, I was passed over for a school scholarship because of the quota system. They had to lower their standards to allow enough of the "right" minorities into the school under the scholarship due to a lack of qualified applicants with that "special" criteria.
Very recently after this Texas Law School was correctly sued and lost for doing the same thing.

And England fiddled while we starved. A little thing called the Potato Famine.

When the Irish came to America we were invited to not apply for jobs (No Irish Need Apply)

People on the street would say, "I can spot an Irish person right away."

Anyway, since we have an Irish hx month (thanks, Clobfobble!) I want it taught in the schools. And I want various Irish-American celebs to make "The More You Know" spots for the entire month. :D

True to form, Bush strikes again. :lol:

Honestly, my wish is to have none of it.
Race is just how much melanin we have and that is it. What happened to distant relatives six generations past has nothing to do with me or you. Time to get a LIFE.
Looking for what makes us different is just a tactic of the ignorant, as it the martyr's game.

Ours does. Of course it's only K-8, they are young yet...

There is actually a good amount of gentic diversity other than skin color but they are physical. No one race is better than another.

That was really my point, I was pushing it to make it.

rkz, you need to LIGHTEN UP. :chill: i was being facetious. You're awful high and mighty with the proclomations, you're all the time pronouncing that this person is *this* and that person is *that*. You're the most judgemental person here. I am far from ignorant and I take great offense at your left handed jab at me.

I did not mean that to be directed at you specifically, it was a general statement. Mostly to quantify my earlier post.
You may want to take that pill yourself.

The second President (or tenth if you consider John Hanson the first) wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

However, Adams is often quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" However, here's the complete quote in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

During Adam's administration the Senate ratified the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." Some view this as "a smoking gun" that America was not founded as a Christian nation, while others argue that it was simply a concession to the Muslim nation (when the treaty was renegotiated eight years later, Article XI was dropped).

One person making a statement, even if it Washington, Adams or Jefferson may express their intentions or not, but that doesn't make it reality. Even if the entire continental congress wanted something to happen, if we the people had a different vision of what the new nation should be, that's what it would be.

Remember the main difficulty of designing a new nation was to present something the people would accept with enough fervor to tell the Brits to take a hike. It was a time when the government feared the people and what grew out of the revolution was what the people wanted to make it.

That's why Delaware passed all those laws saying you couldn't hold office unless you were a good Christian and a hundred others like it. Each part of the new nation grew under laws and customs that reflected their faith and ideals. Anyone that disagreed was arrested or driven out, except in the largest cities. But even there, dissenters might have to change neighborhoods.

Not exactly the picture you got in American history class in High School, but that's the way it really was. The Civil War is pictured as the Federal government vs the Confederacy, but in truth it was the northern states vs the southern states. The states controlled the money and the militias.

It wasn't until the 20th century that the Feds figured out how to extract enough money from the states(people) to gain power by threatening to cut off funding(reimbursements) to the states. What a slippery slope that was. :haha:

I agree.

The point of those last two posts was more of a redirection of rzkenrage's quotes.

As with most things, (evolution, abortion, politics) every point has a counter point, and for every quote about one thing, another can be found by the same person with the other viewpoint. It's the distortion that bothers me most. Like when people pull one verse out about "A thousand years is as a day" to God, they jump up and down and scream "see? see?" but that isn't what that verse was talking about.

Same thing here.

One cannot say that you must be literal about one section of the Bible but not another... either it is to be taken literally or not.
Hypocrisy is an illness & usually a lot more than what they play it off as, a tactic.
Separation of church and state is an absolute and should not be compromised on under any circumstances.