quote:Schools whose policies allow community groups/clubs to use their facilities also allow churches to use their facilities, on the same basis and under the same rules. Schools that don?t allow outside groups to use their facilities don?t.
Consistency is generally a useful approach. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Will churches be able to use publicly funded buildings like schools?
I for awhile attended a church which met in a school building (church building not built yet). We PAID for facility -- regular lease like any other non-profit organization would wanting to use school facilities.
Schools often lease to churches on weekends -- they have gyms and all that -- it helps the funding of the local district AND helps the church provide things they might otherwise not be able to.
posted
It's the question of whether schools - state-owned and operated institutions - should be part of the communities larger or life or if it should stick to simply teaching.
If it is to be a part of a community's larger life, that includes things like churches and also whatever clubs kids find in themselves a need to belong to. If it means that it accomodates only the elements of a community's larger life that other elements don't object to supporting, that would severely restrict the list. Part of the point of clubs and things for teenagers is to find people who share their experiences so they don't feel so alone. If the answer is to find that shared experience all you want, but not on my dime, then that has to work for all the groups - not selecting out the religious ones to object to.
What would I say? Everything non-academic related is not supported on school property.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the answer is to find that shared experience all you want, but not on my dime, then that has to work for all the groups - not selecting out the religious ones to object to.
What would I say? Everything non-academic related is not supported on school property.
What about "not on my dime" meaning (as Farmgirl alludes) "not unless you are either academic-related or are paying to rent the space?" Is that amenable, or is it outrageous, or somewhere in between?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
The problem is that I am willing to bet that the 'basis' and the 'rules' that schools normally used are really not open to any group that wants to stop by the school. In liberal districts, I bet 'liberal' causes are given preference, and vice versa in conservative ones.
For instance, one of the high schools I went to in BFE, GA. had a couple preachers come in to talk about abstinence and the like, but no visits from the WWF. Perhaps this is just a result of the community I was in, but that raises another question.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I mean, that's really big. Big as in no even pretense of a "level playing field" big, and no pretense of "land of opportunity" big.
Wow.
I'm sorry, I think I didn't communicate very well. Parents will be given money to hire teachers and to send their children to school. If they want to home school, they home school. Want to send your kids to the Sudbury school, go for it. Want to send your kids to a Christian academy, go for it. It's the best solution I have been able to think of to allow parents opportunity for their children, while at the same time avoiding the trap of the state overseeing the education.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What about "not on my dime" meaning (as Farmgirl alludes) "not unless you are either academic-related or are paying to rent the space?" Is that amenable, or is it outrageous, or somewhere in between?
That would work. So, what's the definition of academic?
For example...Drugs Used Through the Ages? Generic Bible study? Sappho and Her Daughters?
Would those be academic?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:aspectre said: A special exemption protecting religious organizations receiving federal funds from auditing was added by the House to the 'faith-based initiative' enabling legislation, then jammed through the House-Senate Leadership Conference.
posted
Not sure what you're asking. I think people should be educated in whatever direction they want to be educated. Am I coming across as being a proponent for or against traditional education?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
WARNING: This thread is about to be returned to its original topic.
I agree with those who say they are opposed to the government forcing religions to perform a particular ceremony. However, if recent history has anything to do with it, my opinion doesn't count. The only ones that do count are those of a few former lawyers who wear black robes. This is the real issue at hand.
Mr. Squicky said:
quote: I reasonably sure that at least half the people I know who support gay marriage would fight against anything like what you're suggesting Geoff. I know I would.
The problem is that the black-robe-wearers don't care whether Mr. Squicky, and half of those like him, support government interfering with religion or not. It's becoming increasingly clear that under our current system, individual opinions don't count.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats a good question. I suppose it seems more germaine to the topic to me because Geoff's question directly addresses whether or not there is a possibility of the government denying tax-exempt status (and other benefits) to religious organizations that refuse to ordain gay marriages. My opinion is that there definitely IS such a possibility under our current system, and my post related that position.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian, can you cite one instance where a religious body was ordered by the courts to perform a religious ceremony?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could decide tomorrow that I will only officiate at a wedding if the bride is at least five years older than the groom and the government couldn’t stop me.
So, are we talking mental age or physical?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, and I doubt that there is such an instance, nor will there be in the next several years. My point is that the possibility does exist. The legal system today allows for great power to be given to unelected judges, who, by virtue of being appointed for life, have no accountability for their actions. My fear is that if the system continues unchecked, the balance of power will tip more and more towards the judiciary. Geoff's post talked about what may happen at "some point in the future." So that is what I've addressed.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Supreme Court cannot make law, it can only rule on the constitutionality of the law that exists.
It cannot enforce its rullings. Only members of the executive branch can do that.
It cannot decide what laws to rule on, just what arguments it won't rule on.
The Terms "In God We Trust" on our money may cross the line between Church and State, yet nobody has taken this argument to the Supreme Court, so they have not ruled on it.
There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to rule on your religion.
So basically, you are worried over something that is very unlikely to ever occur.
On the other hand, any changes that I've ever heard suggested to be made to the Supreme Court are much more likely to hurt us all.
Having them elected opens them up to the same political intrigues and games that our Senators and Presidents must endure. Changing them with each new administration makes them totally ineffective in supporting the rights of the minority.
Right now we have Republicans in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. If the Judicial was all elected, what would stop a bill illegalizing Democrats from getting passed and upheld?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
