bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
Win for churches
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102438402/
7-2 court ruled that Missouri church could not be discriminated against solely because it was a church. Ginsburg and Sotomayor were the two who believe the 1st amendment is freedom from religion.
Strong win for those who still believe in the original intent of the 1st amendment, freedom of religion, not from.
|
|
06-26-2017 10:33 AM |
|
Bull_Is_Back
Heisman
Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 10:33 AM)bullet Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102438402/
7-2 court ruled that Missouri church could not be discriminated against solely because it was a church. Ginsburg and Sotomayor were the two who believe the 1st amendment is freedom from religion.
Strong win for those who still believe in the original intent of the 1st amendment, freedom of religion, not from.
Please let ginsburg be replaced soon..
|
|
06-26-2017 10:41 AM |
|
rath v2.0
Wartime Consigliere
Posts: 51,151
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2150
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 10:41 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote: (06-26-2017 10:33 AM)bullet Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102438402/
7-2 court ruled that Missouri church could not be discriminated against solely because it was a church. Ginsburg and Sotomayor were the two who believe the 1st amendment is freedom from religion.
Strong win for those who still believe in the original intent of the 1st amendment, freedom of religion, not from.
Please let ginsburg be replaced soon..
Mean is forever....she will have her animated head in a jar like Nixon on Futurama.
|
|
06-26-2017 10:58 AM |
|
HeartOfDixie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
|
RE: Win for churches
I read part of Sotomayor's decision and she must be selecting her clerks via the same affirmative action that got her on the bench because Lord save us from that level of logical scrambling to make a political point!
|
|
06-26-2017 11:13 AM |
|
Hood-rich
Smarter Than the Average Lib
Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
|
|
06-26-2017 12:04 PM |
|
Hood-rich
Smarter Than the Average Lib
Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
|
RE: Win for churches
I would be wary of accepti g public funds. That's all I will say about this.
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
|
|
06-26-2017 12:05 PM |
|
umbluegray
Legend
Posts: 42,166
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 10:33 AM)bullet Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102438402/
7-2 court ruled that Missouri church could not be discriminated against solely because it was a church. Ginsburg and Sotomayor were the two who believe the 1st amendment is freedom from religion.
Strong win for those who still believe in the original intent of the 1st amendment, freedom of religion, not from.
Good news!
(Bit of a pun there.)
Also, nice to see that somebody else understands the Founders' intent regarding the 1st Amendment as opposed to a later court's incorrect interpretation.
|
|
06-26-2017 12:07 PM |
|
Bull_Is_Back
Heisman
Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 12:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote: I would be wary of accepti g public funds. That's all I will say about this.
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
FWIW, I agree here..
|
|
06-26-2017 12:37 PM |
|
umbluegray
Legend
Posts: 42,166
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 10:33 AM)bullet Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102438402/
7-2 court ruled that Missouri church could not be discriminated against solely because it was a church. Ginsburg and Sotomayor were the two who believe the 1st amendment is freedom from religion.
Strong win for those who still believe in the original intent of the 1st amendment, freedom of religion, not from.
They want $225 for an annual subscription to USA Today?!?!?!
Are they freakin' insane?
Never mind. I know the answer.
|
|
06-26-2017 01:08 PM |
|
Native Georgian
Legend
Posts: 27,519
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 01:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote: $225 for an annual subscription to USA Today?!?!
I remember reading that paper every chance I got in the 80s/90s. Now, I couldn't tell you when was the last time I even saw a copy of it, much less actually read one...
|
|
06-26-2017 03:24 PM |
|
Godzilla
All American
Posts: 2,595
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 88
I Root For: TXST
Location:
|
RE: Win for churches
So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
|
|
06-26-2017 03:29 PM |
|
Kaplony
Palmetto State Deplorable
Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 03:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: (06-26-2017 01:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote: $225 for an annual subscription to USA Today?!?!
I remember reading that paper every chance I got in the 80s/90s. Now, I couldn't tell you when was the last time I even saw a copy of it, much less actually read one...
The only time I read USA Today is reading the complimentary copy while taking a crap in a hotel.
|
|
06-26-2017 03:31 PM |
|
JMUDunk
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
Posts: 29,501
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1724
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 03:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
Why would you "figure" that other than being a political/religious bigot?
No. I would have no problem if the local Mosque with a pre-school or whatever this was using the exact same program as this Church. Kids are kids.
|
|
06-26-2017 04:07 PM |
|
HeartOfDixie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 03:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
For things that aren't religious in nature, yes.
If a Mosque is out there building playgrounds for kids they should be eligible for public money.
That's what this is about--making Churches etc. eligible to receive public money for the good they do outside proselytizing.
Your mischaracterization is just that.
|
|
06-26-2017 04:38 PM |
|
Godzilla
All American
Posts: 2,595
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 88
I Root For: TXST
Location:
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 04:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: (06-26-2017 03:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
For things that aren't religious in nature, yes.
If a Mosque is out there building playgrounds for kids they should be eligible for public money.
That's what this is about--making Churches etc. eligible to receive public money for the good they do outside proselytizing.
Your mischaracterization is just that.
Lol I think your projecting a little bit. I never said I disagree with it I was just surprised y'all were so for it. Republicans aren't exactly known for advocating their tax dollars go to the church of Satan... even if it's to build playgrounds. I find the last sentence of the OP particularly disturbing though. The first amendment does and was ment to protect people from religion and expressly establishes us as a secular nation. So we need to monitor these religious institutions closely to make sure they are using the money for nothing more than the reason they got it.
|
|
06-26-2017 05:22 PM |
|
Fo Shizzle
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina
|
RE: Win for churches
As long as the church facility that is requesting the funds is open to the public?....I have no problem with this decision. I assume that was the SCOTUS's feelings also.
|
|
06-26-2017 07:41 PM |
|
Fo Shizzle
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 05:22 PM)Godzilla Wrote: (06-26-2017 04:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: (06-26-2017 03:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
For things that aren't religious in nature, yes.
If a Mosque is out there building playgrounds for kids they should be eligible for public money.
That's what this is about--making Churches etc. eligible to receive public money for the good they do outside proselytizing.
Your mischaracterization is just that.
Lol I think your projecting a little bit. I never said I disagree with it I was just surprised y'all were so for it. Republicans aren't exactly known for advocating their tax dollars go to the church of Satan... even if it's to build playgrounds. I find the last sentence of the OP particularly disturbing though. The first amendment does and was ment to protect people from religion and expressly establishes us as a secular nation. So we need to monitor these religious institutions closely to make sure they are using the money for nothing more than the reason they got it.
I don't get to discriminate between religions...regardless of which I personally feel are BS. I expect the SCOTUS had the same view.
|
|
06-26-2017 07:46 PM |
|
umbluegray
Legend
Posts: 42,166
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 05:22 PM)Godzilla Wrote: (06-26-2017 04:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: (06-26-2017 03:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
For things that aren't religious in nature, yes.
If a Mosque is out there building playgrounds for kids they should be eligible for public money.
That's what this is about--making Churches etc. eligible to receive public money for the good they do outside proselytizing.
Your mischaracterization is just that.
Lol I think your projecting a little bit. I never said I disagree with it I was just surprised y'all were so for it. Republicans aren't exactly known for advocating their tax dollars go to the church of Satan... even if it's to build playgrounds. I find the last sentence of the OP particularly disturbing though. The first amendment does and was ment to protect people from religion and expressly establishes us as a secular nation. So we need to monitor these religious institutions closely to make sure they are using the money for nothing more than the reason they got it.
Well, that's one line of thought.
|
|
06-26-2017 08:30 PM |
|
bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 05:22 PM)Godzilla Wrote: (06-26-2017 04:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: (06-26-2017 03:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
For things that aren't religious in nature, yes.
If a Mosque is out there building playgrounds for kids they should be eligible for public money.
That's what this is about--making Churches etc. eligible to receive public money for the good they do outside proselytizing.
Your mischaracterization is just that.
Lol I think your projecting a little bit. I never said I disagree with it I was just surprised y'all were so for it. Republicans aren't exactly known for advocating their tax dollars go to the church of Satan... even if it's to build playgrounds. I find the last sentence of the OP particularly disturbing though. The first amendment does and was ment to protect people from religion and expressly establishes us as a secular nation. So we need to monitor these religious institutions closely to make sure they are using the money for nothing more than the reason they got it.
Quakers, Puritans, Hugenots. Our nation was populated with people trying to get away from state sponsored religion. They wanted to be free to practice what they wanted or not if they chose not to.
The First Amendment was to allow free expression of whatever religion you chose. If you don't understand that, as many Democrats don't, your history education was grossly inadequate. Democrats want to use it to try to suppress religion and discriminate against the religious (see Bernie Sanders).
|
|
06-26-2017 08:47 PM |
|
Kaplony
Palmetto State Deplorable
Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
|
RE: Win for churches
(06-26-2017 05:22 PM)Godzilla Wrote: (06-26-2017 04:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: (06-26-2017 03:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: So your ok with your tax dollars going to mosques, temples, and scientology centers? I figured republicans would be staunchly against this.
For things that aren't religious in nature, yes.
If a Mosque is out there building playgrounds for kids they should be eligible for public money.
That's what this is about--making Churches etc. eligible to receive public money for the good they do outside proselytizing.
Your mischaracterization is just that.
Lol I think your projecting a little bit. I never said I disagree with it I was just surprised y'all were so for it. Republicans aren't exactly known for advocating their tax dollars go to the church of Satan... even if it's to build playgrounds. I find the last sentence of the OP particularly disturbing though. The first amendment does and was ment to protect people from religion and expressly establishes us as a secular nation. So we need to monitor these religious institutions closely to make sure they are using the money for nothing more than the reason they got it.
Strange....I don't read that in the text.
Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps you could point out the part that backs your claim.
|
|
06-26-2017 09:01 PM |
|