"Religious liberty" is not the answer: Exhibit A (health care, insurance)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what this state bill allows. But the OP wants only Christianity to be allowed if the school/town chooses.
Personally I'm ok with all religions or none. They don't get to pick and choose. Which is why this bill is backfiring on the writers.
Well, unfortunately, when some people in this country refer to "Freedom of Religion," what they really mean is "Freedom of my religion and to heck with all the others."
I'm OK with all religions being allowed in schools, so long as the State does not favor one particular one over the others.
No one gives up their rights. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If a business owner wishes to paint a cross, or a pentagram, or even a swastika on the front of their business, they are free to do so. They are also free to experience the drop in business from pissing off their soon-to-be former customers, who have the right to take their business elsewhere. That's in a sole proprietorship or single-owner LLC anyway.
The owners of an incorporated business are not the people running day-to-day operations. Shareholders in an incorporated business come together to vote in a Chairman and a Board, who then proceed to hire a CEO. Those individuals (specifically the CEO, but sometimes the Chairman also) are the ones running day-to-day operations of a corporation. It is their religious beliefs that would be placed into effect, not the beliefs of the various shareholder owners.
Remember, the CEO of a corporation may have his own religious beliefs, but he also has a responsibility to the owners (shareholders) of a corporation to operate that business in such a way as to generate growth and/or profit for them. Intentionally not doing so makes that CEO personally liable to the shareholders for damages for not fulfilling his end of the bargain. If his religion prevents him from doing so then he shouldn't take the job in the first place, knowingly entering into an agreement where he can't hold up his end is also illegal...and isn't it also sinful? Anyway, that's an additional consequence a CEO might face for deciding that the corporation he is running will reflect his own personal beliefs above all else, even prioritizing it over the fiscal success of the company.
The second amendment was never about favoritism. It was about----Tax dollar funding of the people and their ability to tithe, to whatever church of their choice and the government making no laws that would establish said funding and make that choice for the people.
You know when I know a person doesn't understand the constitution. When they take the choice of personal preferences out of the interpretation of it and they impose a will that is not of a free choice.
The second amendment was never about favoritism. It was about----Tax dollar funding of the people and their ability to tithe, to whatever church of their choice and the government making no laws that would establish said funding and make that choice for the people.
You know when I know a person doesn't understand the constitution. When they take the choice of personal preferences out of the interpretation of it and they impose a will that is not of a free choice.
Wrong amendment. Laws don't exist in a vacuum you know. The FIRST amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, it does NOT read "You will be absolved from all consequences of exercising your religion if you happen to **** someone off." The amendment grants you freedom to be religions. It does not take away someone else's right to stop associating with you.
The second amendment was never about favoritism. It was about----Tax dollar funding of the people and their ability to tithe, to whatever church of their choice and the government making no laws that would establish said funding and make that choice for the people.
You know when I know a person doesn't understand the constitution. When they take the choice of personal preferences out of the interpretation of it and they impose a will that is not of a free choice.
What does the right to own guns have to do with religion?
A public school is paid for with tax dollars. Turning it into a platform for one particular religion would be tax dollar funding for one particular religion.
It's either all religions can speak in schools (even the ones you don't like) or none of them do.
This bill says that ALL can. Even the Satanist temple.
That's what this state bill allows. But the OP wants only Christianity to be allowed if the school/town chooses.
Personally I'm ok with all religions or none. They don't get to pick and choose. Which is why this bill is backfiring on the writers.
There's no backfiring. Where do you see backfiring?
I see social evolution where evil inhabits this land for the 1,000 years as prophesied in Revelations, before the coming of Christ. At the stroke of a pen, we're moving forward. Imagine that.
There's no backfiring. Where do you see backfiring?
I see social evolution where evil inhabits this land for the 1,000 years as prophesied in Revelations, before the coming of Christ. At the stroke of a pen, we're moving forward. Imagine that.
Have you not seen the ops posts? He is outraged that the Satanists can use the school events to spread their word.
There are people in Florida that are just as outraged.
What does the right to own guns have to do with religion?
A public school is paid for with tax dollars. Turning it into a platform for one particular religion would be tax dollar funding for one particular religion.
It's either all religions can speak in schools (even the ones you don't like) or none of them do.
This bill says that ALL can. Even the Satanist temple.
Actually I don't think guns have anything to do with religion. Some people might worship their guns like many people worship their money, dunno.
That goes more to the Founding Fathers insight as to one day, the people may need to go up against their government with force. Just like they did. Smart, knowing history would repeat.
I agree with your next statement. So don't be going they're doing it again, when the Christian, loud and obnoxious as they are, find their voice in the public schools again. It's all that ---go forth and spread the message---thing, ya know.
Have you not seen the ops posts? He is outraged that the Satanists can use the school events to spread their word.
There are people in Florida that are just as outraged.
Yes, I've read the OP and the article. Yes, I know he is outraged the Satanists are being given a platform.
There's a positive to every negative. More than fact, it's science.
Wrong amendment. Laws don't exist in a vacuum you know. The FIRST amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, it does NOT read "You will be absolved from all consequences of exercising your religion if you happen to **** someone off." The amendment grants you freedom to be religions. It does not take away someone else's right to stop associating with you.
And where do I say that it does?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
