Phoenix school forfeits championship baseball game rather than play against girl.

[jdhu]

Originally Posted by kevin 714

I woyuld look towards tha "faith based initiaves"that george bush started. whjere tax dollars are specifically given to religous organozations

Interesting. Look towards that for what purpose? What I mean is, as a sign of the weakening of separation? As a sign of religious intrusion, and judicial tolerance of it?

[kevin 714]

Originally Posted by jdhu

Interesting. Look towards that for what purpose? What I mean is, as a sign of the weakening of separation? As a sign of religious intrusion, and judicial tolerance of it?

as a sigtn of the continued and growing blurring of line between church and state.

all three basically. in addition, just the overall seemingly gorwing reliousness of this country. to me, what seems backward movement.

[jdhu]

Originally Posted by kevin 714

as a sigtn of the continued and growing blurring of line between church and state.

all three basically. in addition, just the overall seemingly gorwing reliousness of this country. to me, what seems backward movement.

Agreed with backward, but from what I have read, the trend seems to be that Americans are less and less religious. The line has always been blurred, but that will never change (because we are talking about legal interpretation).

[planegray]

Originally Posted by jdhu

ADisagree, but oh well. A church, like any other organization, has every right to try and influence policy. It is the judiciary's function to determine which cross the line. Churches are not obligated to obey/define "separation," that is (again) the judiciary's role.

BI would otherwise agree with the futility of chicken/egg, but in this case, you asserted that one of them came first.

A How would that be separation of church and state, if the church uses it's money to influence laws ? This isn't a real complex issue.

Let's not forget the eensy teensy little detail of religious TAX FREE status. I'd be fine with religious political action if they paid taxes.


B Of course one of them came first... but I really don't know WHICH one came first. If you have the impression that I think I DO know which came first, then either I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood.

[jdhu]

Originally Posted by planegray

A How would that be separation of church and state, if the church uses it's money to influence laws ? This isn't a real complex issue.

Let's not forget the eensy teensy little detail of religious TAX FREE status. I'd be fine with religious political action if they paid taxes.


B Of course one of them came first... but I really don't know WHICH one came first. If you have the impression that I think I DO know which came first, then either I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood.

1. Separation of church/state is a legal doctrine, not a literal one. If a preacher is elected to Congress, has this line been crossed? Tax status is interesting, probably agree with you there.

2. Since you said the church's actions (such as in this Phoenix case) are part of a BACKLASH (meaning "response"), that would clearly imply that efforts to suppress religious influence came first, right?

[kevin 714]

Originally Posted by jdhu

1. Separation of church/state is a legal doctrine, not a literal one. If a preacher is elected to Congress, has this line been crossed? Tax status is interesting, probably agree with you there.

2. Since you said the church's actions (such as in this Phoenix case) are part of a BACKLASH (meaning "response"), that would clearly imply that efforts to suppress religious influence came first, right?

religious people serving in government is no issue to me. most people are religous. the vasy majority. it becomes a problem to me when those people wither start giving tax money to churches and faith organzations, enacting laws that support faith or negate science in teh classroom, or doing other thibngs with government power and money to promote religion

[jdhu]

Originally Posted by kevin 714

religious people serving in government is no issue to me. most people are religous. the vasy majority. it becomes a problem to me when those people wither start giving tax money to churches and faith organzations, enacting laws that support faith or negate science in teh classroom, or doing other thibngs with government power and money to promote religion

I don't know about their tax status much, but do agree that if they are treated favorably (like profitable non-profits), then there should be some sort of rule regarding any political donations they make.

Well again, I don't know how much they donate to groups like the Discovery Institute. I guess we can take solace in the fact that they are largely unsuccessful.

[tzrider]

Originally Posted by planegray

I don't know about you guys, but if I was coach on a team that was about to play "Our Lady of Sorrows" I'd add a girl the roster hella quick !

Guaranteed WIN

Awesome idea!

Originally Posted by tzrider

Maybe so, but now every coach in the division knows of an easy way to beat that team.

[planegray]

Originally Posted by jdhu

1........2. Since you said the church's actions (such as in this Phoenix case) are part of a BACKLASH (meaning "response"), that would clearly imply that efforts to suppress religious influence came first, right?

ahhh.. good point, I see how you got that now. But now you know, I don't know (and don't care) which came first..... the oscillations seem to be getting more outrageous though, imo

Originally Posted by tzrider

Awesome idea!

I spelled it out though

[tzrider]

Originally Posted by planegray

I spelled it out though

True enough.

[HappyHighwayman]

I wonder what would have happened if one kid stood up and called his teammates a bunch of pussies for forfeiting.

[Dr. Evil]

If everyone stuck to their guns like this, the world would be a better place. Their cause may be folly, but their conviction is admirable.

[Climber]

Originally Posted by Dr. Evil

If everyone stuck to their guns like this, the world would be a better place. Their cause may be folly, but their conviction is admirable.

Bigots have convictions too, but I don't see too many people admiring them for their convictions and especially not for acting on them.