Church and State

[KetsuekiR]

Pence? Ahh. Private religious school vs public school.
Religious, private schools have a right to set their standards. The public is not paying for that school. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

If they can't move, how can they pay the tuition at the private school?

That's tricky. The US Constitution does not list education as a fundamental right while Freedom of Religion is the very first one. Unfortunately for the kid, you can not force a private and religious school to admit someone who violates core tenants of their beliefs.

Again, forcing the kid to move to get the same opportunities directly violates the right to equal opportunity (which absolutely is something the government should be protecting).

As for private vs. public - it doesn't matter. If there are only two schools in the area, protecting the kid and their future should be more important.

This is also where the case of the baker differs from the example. The baker offered already made cakes, there were plenty of other bakeries, and a good cake is nowhere near as important as a good education. So, no, anti-discrimination laws should not be blanket ones where no religious belief can prevail, but should be carefully used to protect what's important.

While I hate government forcing the hands of private businesses, there are some sectors where anti-discriminatory laws should exist. Education is one (whether it's high school or college) because I'm a filthy capitalist, and for that system to be at it's best, all its constituents need to have equal opportunity to move up.

 

[LDSman]

Likewise, the claim that nobody except Christians should talk about female clergy is almost as insane as saying straight, cisgender people can't talk about LGBT issues.

There's a difference between discussing LGBT issues and demanding the LGBT leadership have more straight or non trans people.

On the topic of your sources, try to use better sources besides religous news sites and Fox when researching said issues, since people can twist things to fit their narrative (shocking, I know).

I provided proof that the events listed did in fact happen. A religious news site will, shockingly enough, discuss events related to religion. Can you show anything that supports the story being "twisted"?

Again, forcing the kid to move to get the same opportunities directly violates the right to equal opportunity (which absolutely is something the government should be protecting).

But now you get into forcing a religious institute to violate their belief system. And they don't have to move. They can home school or take online classes or supplement their education in some other manner. The equal opportunity argument can be used to justify pretty much anything. The gov't should take half the food out of your fridge because hungry children don't do as well as non-hungry children. Can't complain because equal opportunity!

As for private vs. public - it doesn't matter. If there are only two schools in the area, protecting the kid and their future should be more important.

I disagree. Once you start done the road of "think of the children" where does it end?

So, no, anti-discrimination laws should not be blanket ones where no religious belief can prevail, but should be carefully used to protect what's important.

And what's important will vary by person.

While I hate government forcing the hands of private businesses, there are some sectors where anti-discriminatory laws should exist. Education is one (whether it's high school or college) because I'm a filthy capitalist, and for that system to be at it's best, all its constituents need to have equal opportunity to move up.

I don't think it's capitalistic to force a private business, like religious private schools, to take on customers they don't want.

 

[Miss Wendighost]

There's a difference between discussing LGBT issues and demanding the LGBT leadership have more straight or non trans people.


I provided proof that the events listed did in fact happen. A religious news site will, shockingly enough, discuss events related to religion. Can you show anything that supports the story being "twisted"?

But now you get into forcing a religious institute to violate their belief system. And they don't have to move. They can home school or take online classes or supplement their education in some other manner. The equal opportunity argument can be used to justify pretty much anything. The gov't should take half the food out of your fridge because hungry children don't do as well as non-hungry children. Can't complain because equal opportunity!

I disagree. Once you start done the road of "think of the children" where does it end?

And what's important will vary by person.

I don't think it's capitalistic to force a private business, like religious private schools, to take on customers they don't want.

I didn't say anything about demanding LGBT leadership in religous insitutions (which wouldn't bother me at all), all I said is that someone who doesn't follow Christianity 100% can have an opinon on female clergy. Also, it seems that you think that if a kid transfers to a private school and is bullied for not believing what everyone else does, the kid should just shut up and put up with it, which is kind of disgusting. Likewise, Fox News was known to blow things out of proportion, which is a similar case with news sights with a certain religious demographic in mind. I recommend using things like Snopes instead.

 

[LDSman]

I didn't say anything about demanding LGBT leadership in religous insitutions (which wouldn't bother me at all),

That's not what I said.
The issue isn't people talking about it but rather about people demanding this change be made.
You brought up straight people "talking" about LGBT issues. A better comparison is people demanding that LGBT groups have straight leaders. I never said anything about demanding LGBT leadership in religions. Heck, I can probably find someone demanding that as well.

all I said is that someone who doesn't follow Christianity 100% can have an opinon on female clergy.

Again, you can have an opinion, you can't demand the group leadership be changed to fit your opinion especially if you aren't a part of that group.

Also, it seems that you think that if a kid transfers to a private school and is bullied for not believing what everyone else does, the kid should just shut up and put up with it, which is kind of disgusting.

Don't put words in my mouth. I dislike bullies. I dislike bullies who target those that are different and i dislike bullies that target others so that the bully can then try and look like a victim. Cry-bullies is the term I think. If you intentionally transfer into a school that says "x" behavior is sinful and then complain that you feel "targeted" and "want changes or else!" then you may be a cry bully.

Likewise, Fox News was known to blow things out of proportion, which is a similar case with news sights with a certain religious demographic in mind. I recommend using things like Snopes instead.

Again do you have anything that says these events aren't as described in the provided links?

 

[Nah]

But now you get into forcing a religious institute to violate their belief system. And they don't have to move. They can home school or take online classes or supplement their education in some other manner. The equal opportunity argument can be used to justify pretty much anything. The gov't should take half the food out of your fridge because hungry children don't do as well as non-hungry children. Can't complain because equal opportunity!

I disagree. Once you start done the road of "think of the children" where does it end?

And what's important will vary by person.

Basically the way to view it is in what causes more harm than the other. One of these things very obviously causes more harm than the other, or more specifically, one of these things causes zero harm while the other does. It's not always going to be so clear cut, and so things generally must be taken case by case, but in this scenario, it's pretty clear what the objectively better thing to do is. Nevermind that "forcing a religious institute to violate their belief system" in the case amounts to telling them "hey being anti-LGBTQ is objectively wrong, accept this kid if they meet the other qualifications".

Home schooling and online courses (is the latter even a thing for pre-college education?) are not equal substitutes for a proper education. The ideal thing would be for our garbage education system to be fixed so that all schools are quality ones and so we don't have to entertain this scenario at all, but that's not the reality we live in and it likely will not be anytime soon, so in the meantime we at the very least have to not deny people from pursuing better avenues solely because of nonsense reasons.

 

[Miss Wendighost]

That's not what I said.
The issue isn't people talking about it but rather about people demanding this change be made.
You brought up straight people "talking" about LGBT issues. A better comparison is people demanding that LGBT groups have straight leaders. I never said anything about demanding LGBT leadership in religions. Heck, I can probably find someone demanding that as well.


Again, you can have an opinion, you can't demand the group leadership be changed to fit your opinion especially if you aren't a part of that group.

Don't put words in my mouth. I dislike bullies. I dislike bullies who target those that are different and i dislike bullies that target others so that the bully can then try and look like a victim. Cry-bullies is the term I think. If you intentionally transfer into a school that says "x" behavior is sinful and then complain that you feel "targeted" and "want changes or else!" then you may be a cry bully.

Again do you have anything that says these events aren't as described in the provided links?

I'm not even going to try because, even if I find something that says that all the stories provided did not happen, you would ultimately call it false and scream persecution to high heaven. Also, would you want religion to get away with everything? If so, that is a pretty scary standard to set regarding law.

 

[LDSman]

Basically the way to view it is in what causes more harm than the other. One of these things very obviously causes more harm than the other, or more specifically, one of these things causes zero harm while the other does. It's not always going to be so clear cut, and so things generally must be taken case by case, but in this scenario, it's pretty clear what the objectively better thing to do is. Nevermind that "forcing a religious institute to violate their belief system" in the case amounts to telling them "hey being anti-LGBTQ is objectively wrong, accept this kid if they meet the other qualifications".

Debatable re harm. I think giving the gov't more ability to control religions would cause more long term harm.

Home schooling and online courses (is the latter even a thing for pre-college education?) are not equal substitutes for a proper education. The ideal thing would be for our garbage education system to be fixed so that all schools are quality ones and so we don't have to entertain this scenario at all, but that's not the reality we live in and it likely will not be anytime soon, so in the meantime we at the very least have to not deny people from pursuing better avenues solely because of nonsense reasons.

Any number of people and organizations would object to the claim that home school is not a "proper education." Making all schools quality ones is almost impossible. There are only so many quality instructors out there. Home schooling at least provides a better chance than the hypothetical crap school. And at least home school means you won't be forced to attend religious classes like the ones held by religious private schools.

List of famous homeschooled people.

https://www.successful-homeschooling.com/famous-homeschoolers.html

Online courses- https://www.k12.com/

I'm not even going to try because, even if I find something that says that all the stories provided did not happen, you would ultimately call it false and scream persecution to high heaven.

I don't do that.

Also, would you want religion to get away with everything? If so, that is a pretty scary standard to set regarding law.

Never said that. I just won't force a religious school, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc to accept people that are either not of that faith or not practicing what that faith considers important.

 

[Nah]

Debatable re harm. I think giving the gov't more ability to control religions would cause more long term harm.

I really kind of doubt that, but ok, why would it?

 

[Miss Wendighost]

Debatable re harm. I think giving the gov't more ability to control religions would cause more long term harm.

Any number of people and organizations would object to the claim that home school is not a "proper education." Making all schools quality ones is almost impossible. There are only so many quality instructors out there. Home schooling at least provides a better chance than the hypothetical crap school. And at least home school means you won't be forced to attend religious classes like the ones held by religious private schools.

List of famous homeschooled people.

https://www.successful-homeschooling.com/famous-homeschoolers.html

Online courses- https://www.k12.com/



I don't do that.

Never said that. I just won't force a religious school, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc to accept people that are either not of that faith or not practicing what that faith considers important.

That's because I put up with you long enough to know that there is no way that I can convince you to think about what I am saying. I could show you a study from the most prestigious university on planet Earth, and you would still debunk it and call it secular propaganda (without even using the definition of secular) or something like that. Have a nice day.

 

[LDSman]

I really kind of doubt that, but ok, why would it?

So you've given the govt the ability to control a religious institution. Today it's a school. They have to accept someone who blatantly goes against what the school considers an important item. How much harm would it cause if the one good school then shuts down? Or if they just ignored that student? Tomorrow, some politician like AOC decides that a church isn't properly handling the charitable work that church does. They think the work should benefit this other group or area instead. So they try to force the church to hand over the funds. Church refuses and cops get sent in. How much harm is there at this point?

That's because I put up with you long enough to know that there is no way that I can convince you to think about what I am saying. I could show you a study from the most prestigious university on planet Earth, and you would still debunk it and call it secular propaganda (without even using the definition of secular) or something like that. Have a nice day.

I think about everything I read. Please share anything showing that what I posted didn't happen. Frankly I think you want to try for least effort debating. "I won't post proof because you won't believe it" is not debating.

 

[Miss Wendighost]

So you've given the govt the ability to control a religious institution. Today it's a school. They have to accept someone who blatantly goes against what the school considers an important item. How much harm would it cause if the one good school then shuts down? Or if they just ignored that student? Tomorrow, some politician like AOC decides that a church isn't properly handling the charitable work that church does. They think the work should benefit this other group or area instead. So they try to force the church to hand over the funds. Church refuses and cops get sent in. How much harm is there at this point?



I think about everything I read. Please share anything showing that what I posted didn't happen. Frankly I think you want to try for least effort debating. "I won't post proof because you won't believe it" is not debating.

That's what I tried to do. But you didn't even try to find any kind of reply other than simply saying how Christians are persecuted in America. If you would like to have people debate you, try to at least use something else to respond to a religious debate other than the Christian Persecution card.

 

[LDSman]

That's what I tried to do.

. You haven't posted anything supporting your claim.

But you didn't even try to find any kind of reply other than simply saying how Christians are persecuted in America. If you would like to have people debate you, try to at least use something else to respond to a religious debate other than the Christian Persecution card.

So you want me to do all the work and argue both sides? Pass on that.

The original topic was re the influence the majority religion in the US has on the govt. the majority religion is Christianity hands down. 75-80% of Americans are some flavor of Christian.
The events I brought up, the ones you want to ignore, would suggest that Christianity has less influence that some people think.

 

[Miss Wendighost]

. You haven't posted anything supporting your claim.


So you want me to do all the work and argue both sides? Pass on that.

The original topic was re the influence the majority religion in the US has on the govt. the majority religion is Christianity hands down. 75-80% of Americans are some flavor of Christian.
The events I brought up, the ones you want to ignore, would suggest that Christianity has less influence that some people think.

What I mean is to actually know what you are talking about before you go into a debate instead of spewing some kind of nonsense. I'm not denying that any of the events you listed happened, I'm just saying that they are not as dire as some people make them out to be. Also, so what if religion has less influence in the US? Sometimes, less religious influence is better, espically in the cases of education.

 

[LDSman]

What I mean is to actually know what you are talking about before you go into a debate instead of spewing some kind of nonsense.

So what am I wrong about?

I'm not denying that any of the events you listed happened, I'm just saying that they are not as dire as some people make them out to be. Also, so what if religion has less influence in the US? Sometimes, less religious influence is better, espically in the cases of education.

. It's the trend that worries people. Where does it stop?

Everything is less dire when it affects someone else. Do you want the govt to be able to tell you what to do in your belief system? A future govt might decide your beliefs are wrong.

Religion and govt is a balancing act. Can't go too far either way.

 

[Miss Wendighost]

So what am I wrong about?
. It's the trend that worries people. Where does it stop?

Everything is less dire when it affects someone else. Do you want the govt to be able to tell you what to do in your belief system? A future govt might decide your beliefs are wrong.

Religion and govt is a balancing act. Can't go too far either way.

To clarify what I meant by saying that the events were less dire than made out to be, I had meant it by the fact that these were, for the most part, small and insignificant events that were blown out of proportion. Likewise, what I had meant by less influence is that the government should adhere to the establishment claus which prohibits establishing a religion or restricting the practice of faith to a reasonable extent. Also, I didn't say that you were wrong about anything, I just said that you should have some kind of knowledge of the issue before you make a stance on it.

 

[LDSman]

To clarify what I meant by saying that the events were less dire than made out to be, I had meant it by the fact that these were, for the most part, small and insignificant events that were blown out of proportion.

. The events are only small and insignificant to you. Not to the people involved. Have you heard how you boil a frog? You turn the heat up slowly so the frog doesn't jump out right away. You add restrictions and guidelines that churches must follow and before anyone realizes you've either killed the group or created state approved religions.

Likewise, what I had meant by less influence is that the government should adhere to the establishment claus which prohibits establishing a religion or restricting the practice of faith to a reasonable extent.

Funny. I don't see "reasonable extent" written in the first. Please point out where that's written. And what's reasonable to one person isn't reasonable to someone else.

Also, I didn't say that you were wrong about anything, I just said that you should have some kind of knowledge of the issue before you make a stance on it.

Saying I need some knowledge on the issue is saying I'm wrong. Make this a real debate and tell me where and why I'm wrong.

 

[Miss Wendighost]

. The events are only small and insignificant to you. Not to the people involved. Have you heard how you boil a frog? You turn the heat up slowly so the frog doesn't jump out right away. You add restrictions and guidelines that churches must follow and before anyone realizes you've either killed the group or created state approved religions.

Funny. I don't see "reasonable extent" written in the first. Please point out where that's written. And what's reasonable to one person isn't reasonable to someone else.


Saying I need some knowledge on the issue is saying I'm wrong. Make this a real debate and tell me where and why I'm wrong.

For one, I meant to clarify that I had meant reasonable extent back in the day, but never got around to it due to school (I do have a life). Likewise, what reasonable extent would be that you are not above the law due to your beliefs (no human sacrifices). I'm telling you that you are wrong since you seem to be ill-informed of the issue at hand because you don't look into the stories. Nobody's going into your house in the middle of the night to stop praying. All I'm saying is that you need to stop being lazy in your research into the issue.

 

[LDSman]

For one, I meant to clarify that I had meant reasonable extent back in the day, but never got around to it due to school (I do have a life). Likewise, what reasonable extent would be that you are not above the law due to your beliefs (no human sacrifices).

Back in the day? What day? Human sacrifice? That's an extreme case example. Is there an active group wanting to do that?

I'm telling you that you are wrong since you seem to be ill-informed of the issue at hand because you don't look into the stories.

. I looked into the events I posted about. You keep calling me Ill informed, yet you won't state what I'm ill informed about.

Nobody's going into your house in the middle of the night to stop praying. All I'm saying is that you need to stop being lazy in your research into the issue.

. That's an interesting straw man. So as long as a person can pray at home, it's okay for the govt or other persons/group to block someone from praying in public? What was I lazy about? You just keep going in this circular claim.
"You're wrong.
How so?
You just are. That didn't happen or it's blown out of proportion. Do more research.
On what exactly?
You're just ill informed."

You repeatedly fail to answer a direct question. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[gimmepie]

This entire thread is starting to get ridiculous. Focus on debating and discussing the question at hand instead of making petty arguments with one another. Any more of this and the thread will be closed and I'll start doling out infractions.