CA travel funding...last line says it all
|
CA travel funding...last line says it all
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. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:45:26 AM UTC-5, 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. Tell that to the Muslim's Student Organization. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
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, |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
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. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
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. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:04:41 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:45:26 AM UTC-5, 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. Tell that to the Muslim's Student Organization. No ****. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
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. What is an 'official' religious group? Is that something the California liberals have dreamed up? |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
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. Why not? You seem to forget freedom of religion. |
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
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. |
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. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:53:09 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
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. I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On 2/1/17 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:53:09 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 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. I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too. That's just more of your lunatic nonsense. I don't care who or what you worship or whether you worship at all. I simply don't want anyone's religious beliefs shoved onto my plate or the plate of my society or country. And I am certainly not looking to convert anyone to agnosticism or atheism. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
10:03 - show quoted text - I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too. ...... I would say "evangelical skepticism" would probably be more defining Greg. But both could be correct |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
Keyser Soze
On 2/1/17 10:26 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: - show quoted text - Try to keep up. It should be obvious to you by now that no one Â*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." I agree wholeheartedly with this post! |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On 2/1/17 11:31 AM, Tim wrote:
10:03 - show quoted text - I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too. ..... I would say "evangelical skepticism" would probably be more defining Greg. But both could be correct I have no idea what evangelical atheism is. Do you? I'm well into the Age of Decrepitude, year-wise, and so far no atheists or agnostics have tried to convert me. We do get the occasional stray christian on the street, knocking on doors to pump up local church attendance or, even rarer, to ask if we've found jesus or somesuch nonsense. I mean, really, what would Trump's ban on Middle Eastern refugees, why would jesus be here? :) |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
" I mean, really,
what would Trump's ban on Middle Eastern refugees, why would jesus be here? :) " Huh? |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
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. I dont particularly car what you say. Its all bull**** anyway. What you do defines you. For instance draft dodging, tax evading, compulsive lying, bankruptcies, foreclosure, disgusting language, etc. Have I forgotten anything? -- ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On 2/1/17 4:00 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: 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. I dont particularly car what you say. Its all bull**** anyway. What you do defines you. For instance draft dodging, tax evading, compulsive lying, bankruptcies, foreclosure, disgusting language, etc. Have I forgotten anything? Of course you care. The repetitive insults you drop are all you have here. What is funny is that you really think that I give a flying **** about what you post, as if you were someone whose opinions mattered to me. You're just a ball-less twerp whose psychological development stopped in junior high school, the kid no one wanted on their kickball team and the one no decent looking girl would date. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:37:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/17 4:00 PM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: 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. I dont particularly car what you say. Its all bull**** anyway. What you do defines you. For instance draft dodging, tax evading, compulsive lying, bankruptcies, foreclosure, disgusting language, etc. Have I forgotten anything? Of course you care. The repetitive insults you drop are all you have here. What is funny is that you really think that I give a flying **** about what you post, Obviously you do. You respond to every one. The thing is, Justan has you pegged, and that ****es you off. He is so correct with his comment that 'what you do defines you'. Your continuous anti-Trump tirade doesn't demonstrate any sense, but just the opposite. Read the **** you post. Yeah, Justan forgot something in his list - you're a real sore f'ing loser. |
CA travel funding...last line says it all
True North wrote:
Keyser Soze On 2/1/17 10:26 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: - show quoted text - 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." I agree wholeheartedly with this post! Of course you do. You are a dumb lemming. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com