Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slippery slope? Nope, it's a bobsled ride.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

    I'm not arguing they are being sneaky here in their motivations for how they will use the playground, I'm saying in some court cases they ask us to be compelled by where their religious rights extend for the purposes of being protected and now they are expecting us to ignore those same arguments and just consider this another playground that happens to be run by a Church. They can't have it both ways even if in this particular instance I have no problem with them wanting to have a safe playground. Maybe they can get funds elsewhere the same way they argue Planned Parenthood should.
    So, you are for not funding PP now?
    Good to know.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
      So, you are for not funding PP now?
      Good to know.
      I'm for funding both. But if we're supposed to be in the business of micro-managing where every tax dollar goes then I fail to see how religious people could be mad about being held to their own standards. Its always interesting the times you pick and choose when to be concerned about double standards and when not to be. Lulz.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

        I'm not arguing they are being sneaky here in their motivations for how they will use the playground, I'm saying in some court cases they ask us to be compelled by where their religious rights extend for the purposes of being protected and now they are expecting us to ignore those same arguments and just consider this another playground that happens to be run by a Church. They can't have it both ways even if in this particular instance I have no problem with them wanting to have a safe playground. Maybe they can get funds elsewhere the same way they argue Planned Parenthood should.
        No, they aren't. They are arguing the state cannot discriminate against them because they are a religious organisation. It's not the same thing at all as arguing they have a positive right because they are a religious organisation. They can't be favoured by the state and they can't be discriminated against by the state. That isn't using the same argument in opposite ways, it's making two valid and distinct arguments.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

          I'm for funding both. But if we're supposed to be in the business of micro-managing where every tax dollar goes then I fail to see how religious people could be mad about being held to their own standards. Its always interesting the times you pick and choose when to be concerned about double standards and when not to be. Lulz.
          Oh, now you are OK with the "slippery slope"?
          Nasty Christians getting tax dollars that should go to good, liberal approved non-profits?
          Good to know.

          Comment


          • #50
            I'm a reasonable person that can be compelled in these types of instances to say hey...let's fund the playground even if it is run by a Church. I didn't create the standard in the first place. But I'm just not dumb enough to pretend that affording the religiosos that type of consideration in this instance will have them reconsidering any of their nonsense down they line when they are arguing the opposite to discriminate against other groups they don't approve of. Like I said, I've seen this movie play many times.

            Comment


            • #51
              So you'd be worried that, for example, next they'll demand state scholarships can be used to fund religious ministry studies?

              Comment


              • #52

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post
                  I'm a reasonable person that can be compelled in these types of instances to say hey...let's fund the playground even if it is run by a Church. I didn't create the standard in the first place. But I'm just not dumb enough to pretend that affording the religiosos that type of consideration in this instance will have them reconsidering any of their nonsense down they line when they are arguing the opposite to discriminate against other groups they don't approve of. Like I said, I've seen this movie play many times.
                  Seems like you dicriminate against those you don't approve of.
                  You can see the movie a hundred times, but not understand what it is about.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
                    Seems like you dicriminate against those you don't approve of.
                    You can see the movie a hundred times, but not understand what it is about.
                    Make sure to highlight what part of I don't care about funding a playground I'm just not dumb enough to pretend the religiosos will be doling out the same form of reasonability down the line is discriminatory. TIA.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
                      Seems like you dicriminate against those you don't approve of.
                      You can see the movie a hundred times, but not understand what it is about.
                      Insisting the state and church remain separate does not imply disapproval. Churches should be proud they function outside the state.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

                        Make sure to highlight what part of I don't care about funding a playground I'm just not dumb enough to pretend the religiosos will be doling out the same form of reasonability down the line is discriminatory. TIA.
                        Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post
                        If we lived in a society where these types of benign benefits of the doubt were being afforded on a regular basis, then I could certainly get on board with the nature of your argument. But since I've seen how people react when other religious groups are involved or other groups they don't approve of are involved then I've lost my sympathy. I'm not gonna lead the protest to keep money from the kids playground, but I'm just not naive enough to assume that we are all adult enough to pick and choose the right instances where tax dollars should go to enhance religious facilities and when they aren't. Even when the precious chirruns are involved.
                        You might not lead the protest, but you certainly don't want them getting the money because they are nasty Christians.

                        Intolerance is thy name.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by posthuman View Post

                          Insisting the state and church remain separate does not imply disapproval. Churches should be proud they function outside the state.
                          Your idea of separation is unconstitutional.
                          I know you will never understand why.


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I sent my son to a Lutheran pre-school and we aren't religious. We weren't required to belong to their church or any church. It was open to the public. It was on the church grounds.
                            I see no reason that they should be singled out as being any different than any other pre-school. However, if I were running the pre-school, I would say ok and then use that as a reason to keep the government from defining all other aspects of running the school such as lunch standards, student-teacher ratio, etc.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
                              Your idea of separation is unconstitutional.
                              I know you will never understand why.

                              It's perfectly Constitutional, in fact it's where the Constitution came from.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Par10 View Post
                                I sent my son to a Lutheran pre-school and we aren't religious. We weren't required to belong to their church or any church. It was open to the public. It was on the church grounds.
                                I see no reason that they should be singled out as being any different than any other pre-school. However, if I were running the pre-school, I would say ok and then use that as a reason to keep the government from defining all other aspects of running the school such as lunch standards, student-teacher ratio, etc.
                                Isn't that exactly why there is private, church based education and pre schools? If your church run school has one problem it's accreditation and transfer of credits. If you really want to avoid all definitions of education , your students will have limited options with what they can do with their "diploma". But as long as your church has a secondary education, that shouldn't be a problem, and there's tons of private colleges out there whose standards you can work to meet w/out meeting gov't standards. Stupid government anyway amirite?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X