CA travel funding...last line says it all
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that precludes religion and higher education. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. Again, what is an 'official' religious student organization. Is it 'official' only because California used the word? This is twice you've used it, but apparently you do so only because the state of California did. Your argument is meaningless. No one has suggested any of the students are being forced to do anything religious. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:35:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. You are getting really dumb. Yup. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that "established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans lots of diverse religions? These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims and Jews. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that "established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans lots of diverse religions? These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims and Jews. I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a campus map or brochure. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that "established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans lots of diverse religions? These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims and Jews. I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a campus map or brochure. Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****. If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era decision gets a haircut. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that "established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans lots of diverse religions? These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims and Jews. I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a campus map or brochure. Do you have *any* indication that's what California is talking about? No. California is saying the 'official' religious group must not exclude members or officers who are of a different persuasion. Again, what is 'official', Krause? Perhaps I'm not entitled to an answer, eh? |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On 2/1/17 12:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that "established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans lots of diverse religions? These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims and Jews. I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a campus map or brochure. Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****. If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era decision gets a haircut. Try to keep up. I stated *my* preference. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On 2/1/17 10:26 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 2/1/17 12:46 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d "Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded university. Neither should political groups, There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of politics and higher education. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required in a law passed by the US congress. The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from exercising a religious program. If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project, it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a political position because they are getting funding from the executive branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary so they are federal employees. Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion. Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop him. We're talking about public schools here. That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that "established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans lots of diverse religions? These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims and Jews. I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a campus map or brochure. Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****. If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era decision gets a haircut. Try to keep up. I stated *my* preference. Try to keep up. It should be obvious to you by now that no one cares about your preferences. Obviously, you do. You keep commenting on them. But, hey, if it weren't for me and the occasional post from Donnie, you'd have nothing on which to comment here, dumb as you are. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com