Post #114,835
8/21/03 6:25:54 PM
|
Some serious disagreement
When talking about Catholics using a school gym, you're not talking about "establishment of a religion" here. You're talking about use of a public facility by a community group.
The problem is not use of public facilities by Catholics, it's exclusive access to public facilities by a particular religion. That can be hard to deal with in a deterministic manner, because of course resources aren't infinite so it's not necessarily true that everyone can have a turn. However, if the Catholics are getting it every night while the Muslims whistle dixie, then there's a problem.
In general this is a problem that requires sober judgement to resolve. Since most people in both politics and justice wish to avoid any possibility of the appearance of responsibility for pissing someone off, this doesn't happen. Instead, you see people attempting to "rationalise" the means of decision making, so as to avoid having to make any kind of decision at all... and the only equitable way to rationalise this kind of decision is to ban all of them. Personally, I think this is a mistake that destroys the value of the commons to the community in the long run.
Instead, the best possible solution to how to dispose of the use of the gym is that the folks that run it take applications for time, schedule them, yak with the people to find decent compromises when there are conflicts, and let people in to use the gym, whether the purpose be religious or simply gymnastic. If there is a problem with a bigot running the joint that simply refuses to allow say the Korean church into the place no matter what, that becomes a matter for politicians, and ultimately judges. In situations like that, if it ends up in a lawsuit appealing to minority rights protections, you've got a sure sign of a politician not doing their job properly, and a politician that should get turfed out at the next election.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #114,842
8/21/03 10:09:41 PM
|
No
When talking about Catholics using a school gym, you're not talking about "establishment of a religion" here. You're talking about use of a public facility by a community group. You're talking about using my tax dollars to support this religious group's activities. They may *also* be a community group. But they are a religious group first and foremost. I won't have it. You want to pay for it- fine. Let 'em meet in your back yard. But you can't use my money. I won't let you allow that camel's nose into the tent. -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
[link|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html|Fair and Balanced] sig
|
Post #114,865
8/22/03 12:26:33 AM
|
That is very nice
but is not a Constitutional issue. You will find various people making the same statement about any number of groups or subjects, don't use my money to support "fill in the blank" (homosexuals, blacks, welfare mothers, abortion, nuclear weapons, etc.) why is religion any different then any of the above?
|
Post #114,888
8/22/03 8:18:10 AM
|
Its outright prejudicial..
....and absolutley no different that not allowing >black people< to ride on my public bus.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,923
8/22/03 12:29:33 PM
|
You actually believe that?
I don't want you using my tax money to support your worship and that is the same as racial discrimination to you. Astounding. Tell me when I ever made christians ride in the back of the bus.
Neutral. Remember that word? The only way the gov can truly be neutral with respect to religion is to scrupulously avoid supporting any of the various flavors.
I don't think we can continue. Fundamental difference in definitions.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
[link|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html|Fair and Balanced] sig
|
Post #114,928
8/22/03 12:58:19 PM
|
Admin stated the views adequately above.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,929
8/22/03 12:59:02 PM
8/22/03 12:59:28 PM
|
Amtrack is federally subsidized
I ride an Amtrack train to attend a religious convention. Did I violate your rights?
--
Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them.
--Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Edited by Arkadiy
Aug. 22, 2003, 12:59:28 PM EDT
|
Post #114,931
8/22/03 1:04:57 PM
|
He wants his money back ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,934
8/22/03 1:21:59 PM
|
Silly, but it does raise an interesting point..
Using Amtrack is no different than using pubicly funded roads to go to church or convention.
However... Suppose that a church or religious group of some size held a clearly non-secular event. They are expecting thousands. Should the city officials schedule extra busses or otherwise increase the availibility of transportation? It is their responsibility to provide public transportation. Is it reasonable to supprort, say a Star Trek convention, and not support say, a Billy Graham fest?
I would think that it would be their responsibility to provide the transportation and ignore the motivation of the citizens. Keeping tabs of the motives of the people is not their responisbility.
Following that line of reasoning then, I would think that it would be appropriate for public buildings to be used by any group as long as the criteria for use was the same for any and all groups who are interested. My basic faith in human nature leads me to believe that the implementation of this would be corrupted in no time, but the concept should be good.
|
Post #114,936
8/22/03 1:30:36 PM
|
Exactly. The motivation should be moot.
Those people pay taxes too. They should be allowed the use of public facilities to meet, just as they can ride the train, or the bus, or whatever.
The fact that the Constitution's authors thought that religious discrimination was an important enough problem to be addressed explicitly should not be turned around into an excuse for discrimination against all religions.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #114,941
8/22/03 2:33:32 PM
8/22/03 2:35:20 PM
|
Riding in the back of the bus
Right now, a lot of Muslims are "riding in the back of the bus" in a lot of ways in NA right now... like arbitrary detention without charge and other fun things like that.
Silverlock, Atheism is just as much a statement of faith as Catholicism. You cannot expect your position to get more support from the state than those of Catholics etc, and yet you think it's ok for religious people's taxes to support non-religious events and groups, while it's not ok for non-religious people's taxes to support religious activities and groups.
The idea is absurd on the face of it. The statement in the Constitution seems very clear to me; no state religion, and no discrimination based on religion. This is NOT the same as discriminating against religion.
For the record, I usually keep my personal ruminations on the being and nature of God to myself. In general, I'm somewhere a mix between a pantheist/animist with touches of a personal deity. I definitely don't fall under the rubric of traditional christian doctrine; in the bad old days, they probably would have burned me at the stake.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by jake123
Aug. 22, 2003, 02:35:20 PM EDT
|
Post #114,970
8/22/03 4:28:32 PM
|
Where do you draw the line?
Say I finally relent and agree that it is harmless to hold prayer meetings in school. What exactly is not permissible? Proseltyzing? Preaching? Baptism? Conversion? Animal sacrifice?
Why does this argument always come up in response to yet another christian incursion into publicly funded areas? I don't seem to remember any cases of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or other beliefs getting shot down in court for the same things.
I guess I don't see it. How is not allowing the trappings of religion to be displayed in publicly funded buildings harming the followers of those religions?
You and a few others equate this with discrimination. I think of it as a sensible precaution.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
[link|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html|Fair and Balanced] sig
|
Post #114,976
8/22/03 5:10:33 PM
|
Re: Where do you draw the line?
Say I finally relent and agree that it is harmless to hold Pokemon tournaments in school. What exactly is not permissible? Run-offs? Advertising? Victory laps? Laughing? Card trading?
Why does this argument always come up in response to yet another corporate incursion into publicly funded areas? I don't seem to remember any cases of Harry Potter, Magic The Gathering, Scooby Doo or other trading card clubs getting shot down in court for the same things.
I guess I don't see it. How is not allowing the logos of a corporation to be displayed in publicly funded buildings harming the players of those card games?
You and a few others equate this with discrimination. I think of it as a sensible precaution.
--
And before you get hung-up on the details of the satire:
Ban all groups from using schools, or ban none of them. Anything else is discrimination.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #115,005
8/22/03 7:48:04 PM
|
Was that a surrender or a .. Gah !?__:-\ufffd
|
Post #115,021
8/22/03 9:55:43 PM
|
It was an attempt at illogic
... to show the illogic of his position.
So I guess it was a "Gah". ;-)
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
