Author Topic: War on religion: fighting back (Read 17574 times)

coelacanth · « **Reply #50 on:** September 01, 2015, 08:56:20 pm »

Quote from: freeman1685 on August 31, 2015, 01:37:43 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

The 1st Amendment is meant to prevent an establishment of a STATE religion. To prevent what King George had tried to do, in making The Church of England the only recognized church in the colonies. It is also to prevent the government from making a determination of what is or is not a "religion."

Sent from my Droid

I don't get what part of this is so hard to understand.

The establishment of an official religion has never been done by any entity of the federal government or any political subdivision of any state of the union. Period. End of subject. The free exercise thereof certainly applies to musical expressions of a given religion via popular music. The prohibition against this has been almost exclusively foisted upon us by one division or another of our judiciary who view any application of federal dollars as a government sanction of the activity in question. Especially in the realm of public education.

This is the same bunch of people who just ruled that money equals speech - particularly political speech - and cannot be regulated as it is an infringement of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the same amendment that also guarantees the free expression of our religious convictions. If the money the federal and state and local governments collect from us to fund our public education systems cannot be used to freely express our religious convictions then our religious freedom is being infringed. The logic is inescapable. Tax dollars fund every aspect of the public school system but the decision about how to spend those dollars has always devolved to the people the money is designated to serve and no infringement of their rights should attach to it.

If you wish to argue against the tyranny of the majority, by all means do so but bear in mind that local control of all manner of issues regarding our public schools is routinely handled by a majority vote of the people involved. Get over it. Or get elected to the local school board. Those are the people who handle all the decisions from curricala to personnel matters to all sorts of excruciating detail regarding our children's daily school experience. One person standing up and declaring that they are "offended" by another person or groups' expression of their religious convictions should be treated as the "fart in a tornado" that it actually is.

The only legitimate grievance in that case would be if a person were forced to participate in such an expression against their will. The act of simply sitting through the performance of a piece of music is not any such transgression.

WeTheArmed.com

Kaso · « **Reply #51 on:** September 01, 2015, 09:03:48 pm »

Quote from: MTK20 on September 01, 2015, 08:28:10 pm

I am almost 100% certain that Doug's comment was missing a " " and had a heaping side order of being facetious that went unseen.

No, pretty sure that's just Doug being Doug...

Kaso

MTK20 · « **Reply #52 on:** September 01, 2015, 11:31:37 pm »

Quote from: Kaso on September 01, 2015, 09:03:48 pm

No, pretty sure that's just Doug being Doug...

Kaso

Mild mannered and charming as always

.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #53 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:10:07 am »

Quote from: coelacanth on September 01, 2015, 08:56:20 pm

I don't get what part of this is so hard to understand. The establishment of an official religion has never been done by any entity of the federal government or any political subdivision of any state of the union. Period. End of subject. The free exercise thereof certainly applies to musical expressions of a given religion via popular music. The prohibition against this has been almost exclusively foisted upon us by one division or another of our judiciary who view any application of federal dollars as a government sanction of the activity in question. Especially in the realm of public education.

This is the same bunch of people who just ruled that money equals speech - particularly political speech - and cannot be regulated as it is an infringement of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the same amendment that also guarantees the free expression of our religious convictions. If the money the federal and state and local governments collect from us to fund our public education systems cannot be used to freely express our religious convictions then our religious freedom is being infringed. The logic is inescapable. Tax dollars fund every aspect of the public school system but the decision about how to spend those dollars has always devolved to the people the money is designated to serve and no infringement of their rights should attach to it.

If you wish to argue against the tyranny of the majority, by all means do so but bear in mind that local control of all manner of issues regarding our public schools is routinely handled by a majority vote of the people involved. Get over it. Or get elected to the local school board. Those are the people who handle all the decisions from curricala to personnel matters to all sorts of excruciating detail regarding our children's daily school experience. One person standing up and declaring that they are "offended" by another person or groups' expression of their religious convictions should be treated as the "fart in a tornado" that it actually is.

The only legitimate grievance in that case would be if a person were forced to participate in such an expression against their will. The act of simply sitting through the performance of a piece of music is not any such transgression.

Actually the highlighted statement is not true. When this country consisted of colonies, each colony did have an official "state" religion, and if you didn't like it, you voted with your feet.
This system did not last long when we became an independent nation and of course would not be tolerated now, but you do notice that the 1st amendment says "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion ...."; it doesn't say anything about a state doing it.

coelacanth · « **Reply #54 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:17:48 am »

I stand by the statement as written. You refer to the time before the establishment of the United States of America and the ratification of our Constitution and the subsequent ratification of statehood by the former colonies and their admission to the union.

booksmart · « **Reply #55 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:19:55 am »

I do wonder if the shoe would be on the other foot if you were the minority. Would you still be fine with the status quo? Or would you think it was worth standing up against it?

coelacanth · « **Reply #56 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:31:30 am »

What makes you think I'm not the minority ?

scarville · « **Reply #57 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:31:54 am »

Quote from: coelacanth on September 02, 2015, 12:17:48 am

I stand by the statement as written. You refer to the time before the establishment of the United States of America and the ratification of our Constitution and the subsequent ratification of statehood by the former colonies and their admission to the union.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The last established church in the United States was in Massachusetts -- Congregationalism (whatever that is) -- and was not disestablished until 1833.

booksmart · « **Reply #58 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:35:42 am »

Quote from: coelacanth on September 02, 2015, 12:31:30 am

What makes you think I'm not the minority ?

Sorry, general "you," not specifically you, C...

coelacanth · « **Reply #59 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:39:20 am »

Quote from: scarville on September 02, 2015, 12:31:54 am

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The last established church in the United States was in Massachusetts -- Congregationalism (whatever that is) -- and was not disestablished until 1833.

Congregationalism was/is by definition the exercise of religious freedom as each church congregation governed themselves and saw to their own affairs according to the wishes of the members. It was an outgrowth of the Puritan, non-conformist movement that brought the first Pilgrims to the Plymouth Rock colony in Massachusetts. It was by no means a state ordained religion.

scarville · « **Reply #60 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:44:57 am »

RetroGrouch · « **Reply #61 on:** September 02, 2015, 02:09:01 pm »

If you take this "separation of church and state" to its logical conclusion, you would have to stop teaching huge swaths of history. You couldn't teach the Declaration of Independence, play the Battle Hymn of the Republic, or cover many parts of the Civil Rights movement.

And how do you justify letting churches drive vehicles on public roadways? Even worse, you give churches tax breaks! That money they get that isn't taxed as income is essentially money from the government supporting religion.

Back to schools and music, since Heaven and Hell are Christian concepts, shouldn't any song that includes them be banned from school functions?

This is absurd. Maybe next we can go after the national anthem. Look up the full lyrics and you will find God referenced.

booksmart · « **Reply #62 on:** September 02, 2015, 02:35:25 pm »

With all due respect, bulls___.

That's like saying you can't teach about WW2 without promoting Nazism... You can teach the role religion has played in history, without promoting the religion.

My understanding of why religious organizations have tax-free status is due to the 1st Amendment, not despite of it.

freeman1685 · « **Reply #63 on:** September 02, 2015, 02:48:12 pm »

No actually, the tax exempt status stems from fact that churches are "non-profit." Just part of the tax code. Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Sent from my Droid

booksmart · « **Reply #64 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:00:01 pm »

Eh?

Huh. I can think of a few that need their books reviewed...

freeman1685 · « **Reply #65 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:10:57 pm »

Quote from: booksmart on September 02, 2015, 03:00:01 pm

Eh?

Huh. I can think of a few that need their books reviewed...

Why? Any money in a church's coffers comes from "contributions" or donations. Which would be one of the chief requirements of tax exempt status. Another being that they can not charge a fee for services rendered.

Sent from my Droid

cpaspr · « **Reply #66 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:20:57 pm »

Quote from: freeman1685 on September 02, 2015, 02:48:12 pm

No actually, the tax exempt status stems from fact that churches are "non-profit." Just part of the tax code. Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Sent from my Droid

Quote from: booksmart on September 02, 2015, 03:00:01 pm

Eh?

Huh. I can think of a few that need their books reviewed...

Non-profit (actually "not for profit") entities does not mean they don't have more income than expenses in a given year or in all years combined. It means their alleged* primary purpose for existence is not a profit motive, such as your basic Boeing or Ford or General Electric type corporation.

There are 29 categories of not for profit entities in IRC 501(c). 501(c)3 is the one most people are familiar with, since that is the one for which donations count on your tax returns. But there are 28 other categories, such as 501(c)4 or (c)7 mutual benefit organizations (gun clubs, nudist clubs, model airplane clubs, for example) that can raise money for their primary purpose and not have to pay taxes on that income. Unrelated business income (such as regularly selling timber from acreage donated to the club) is taxed just like for a normal for-profit entity, since the income is unrelated to the reason for existence of the entity.

__________________

But this is digressing from the original topic.

___________________
*read the details of a Form 990 for some non-profit organizations and you might be surprised just how little of the income raised actually is used for the stated purpose.

cpaspr · « **Reply #67 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:33:20 pm »

While the first amendment is fairly clear in its wording: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," the INTERPRETATION of the meaning of those words is where problems have come. The instigator of problems has not been Congress, but rather the judiciary. Their current mindset appears to be that if someone is offended by the free exercise of someone else's religious rights, then those rights can, and must, be infringed. This is in direct opposition to the first amendment, and is an example of the judiciary making law, rather than interpreting law.

freeman1685 · « **Reply #68 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:39:18 pm »

That argument has been going on since before there was a judiciary (see Jefferson's letter above).

Sent from my Droid

cpaspr · « **Reply #69 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:46:12 pm »

Quote from: freeman1685 on September 02, 2015, 03:39:18 pm

That argument has been going on since before there was a judiciary (see Jefferson's letter above).

Sent from my Droid

Apologies to Captain Reynolds: May be the losing side, doesn't mean it's the wrong side. (of the argument)

freeman1685 · « **Reply #70 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:54:38 pm »

Sent from my Droid

sqlbullet · « **Reply #71 on:** September 02, 2015, 04:29:14 pm »

Quote from: coelacanth on September 01, 2015, 08:56:20 pm

The only legitimate grievance in that case would be if a person were forced to participate in such an expression against their will. The act of simply sitting through the performance of a piece of music is not any such transgression.

I can't speak to this band, but at my high school if you wanted to be a band member you played the music. Participation in the government funded activity was optional only in the absolute sense. You could quit or you could play, but you couldn't sit a song out, at least not without being kicked out and having a long and protracted legal fight that ultimately wouldn't buy you back the high school experience you wanted.

See, you gotta look at this in the worst possible light, not the best, or even the average.

Quote

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. - Lyndon B. Johnson

coelacanth · « **Reply #72 on:** September 02, 2015, 04:36:02 pm »

Quote from: sqlbullet on September 02, 2015, 04:29:14 pm

I can't speak to this band, but at my high school if you wanted to be a band member you played the music. Participation in the government funded activity was optional only in the absolute sense. You could quit or you could play, but you couldn't sit a song out, at least not without being kicked out and having a long and protracted legal fight that ultimately wouldn't buy you back the high school experience you wanted.

See, you gotta look at this in the worst possible light, not the best, or even the average.

How ironic is it that the quote by Lyndon B. Johnson explains exactly what was/is wrong with the whole "War on Pverty" idea he foisted off on America.

sqlbullet · « **Reply #73 on:** September 03, 2015, 03:52:23 pm »

I am with you there. First time I read that quote and saw the author I was sure it was a joke.

RetroGrouch · « **Reply #74 on:** September 08, 2015, 01:31:34 pm »

Going to bring this thread back from a deep sleep. I was exchanging messages with my son's former music teacher who is now a cantor (church music director). He obviously is in favor of religion, but pointed out that an acceptable music education requires listening to music, and a great deal of important music is religiously based, not to mention some of the most beautiful music ever composed promotes religion (for example, "Amazing Grace"). Taking that point further it got me to thinking about other art. You can't study classical art or the history of art without viewing works that promote religion. And again, some of the most beautiful art ever produced promotes religion (like the Sistine Chapel). Are we truly going to ban all of this in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

And lastly, there is now a Church of the Jedi. So does this judge and those who support this ban now propose we ban all Star Wars movies, books and images from schools? And don't tell me the Church of the Jedi isn't a "real" religion, unless you say all the small, non-mainstream religions aren't real religions.