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

[RRR70]

Seize the fgtry!

 

[jdhu]

You need a news article for that, maybe a Wiki reference ?

How about starting here? A link or two highlighting possible "retaliation" (by religious groups seeking to weaken church/state) against perceived threats?

My view is that courts are increasingly wary of religious influence, particularly by the established Eurocentric ones.

Here are some starter links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_scene#Controversies
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...Lawsuit-pending-over-Green-Bay-nativity-scene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

For the pledge case, Newdow lost on a standing issue, and so the merits were not addressed. My point here is that such challenges are becoming more prevalent, and courts seem more willing to ban religious displays as part of "separation." The larger point is that in my opinion, the trend is towards more strict interpretation of separation, rather than more lenient interpretation.

As an aside, I am agnostic bordering on atheist, and don't have a dog in this race, so to speak.

 

[planegray]

How about starting here? A link or two highlighting possible "retaliation" (by religious groups seeking to weaken church/state) against perceived threats?

My view is that courts are increasingly wary of religious influence, particularly by the established Eurocentric ones.

Here are some starter links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_scene#Controversies
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...Lawsuit-pending-over-Green-Bay-nativity-scene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

For the pledge case, Newdow lost on a standing issue, and so the merits were not addressed. My point here is that such challenges are becoming more prevalent, and courts seem more willing to ban religious displays as part of "separation." The larger point is that in my opinion, the trend is towards more strict interpretation of separation, rather than more lenient interpretation.

As an aside, I am agnostic bordering on atheist, and don't have a dog in this race, so to speak.

I only need one;

The church backed Proposition 8, in CA. (see supporting link below)

When any church actively attempts to influence lawmaking, they have crossed the line of "separation of church and state", in my opinion.

Of your 3 links, I'm going to take the third one, since the line "in god we trust" wasn't in the original Pledge of Allegiance and was added in the '50s. This is further evidence of religion trying to extend it's influence over ALL citizens.


So we've added links that show that religions are pushing for more control, and citizens are pushing for less religious influence.

I suggest that arguing over which came first would be a "chicken or the egg" event.







"About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[62] ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.[63] The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.[64]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

 

[Climber]

How about starting here? A link or two highlighting possible "retaliation" (by religious groups seeking to weaken church/state) against perceived threats?

My view is that courts are increasingly wary of religious influence, particularly by the established Eurocentric ones.

Here are some starter links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_scene#Controversies
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...Lawsuit-pending-over-Green-Bay-nativity-scene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

For the pledge case, Newdow lost on a standing issue, and so the merits were not addressed. My point here is that such challenges are becoming more prevalent, and courts seem more willing to ban religious displays as part of "separation." The larger point is that in my opinion, the trend is towards more strict interpretation of separation, rather than more lenient interpretation.

As an aside, I am agnostic bordering on atheist, and don't have a dog in this race, so to speak.

Nothing happens in a vacumm, there is always action/reaction. If your assertion that courts have been increasingly wary of religious influence, it would follow that there is a reason for that wariness.

Especially in the world of human interaction, when there is a strong response of any kind, there is usually an equal and roughly opposite force that either exists or will come into existence. That is just human nature and as basic as action/reaction.

 

[Climber]

I only need one;

The church backed Proposition 8, in CA. (see supporting link below)

When any church actively attempts to influence lawmaking, they have crossed the line of "separation of church and state", in my opinion.

Of your 3 links, I'm going to take the third one, since the line "in god we trust" wasn't in the original Pledge of Allegiance and was added in the '50s. This is further evidence of religion trying to extend it's influence over ALL citizens.


So we've added links that show that religions are pushing for more control, and citizens are pushing for less religious influence.

I suggest that arguing over which came first would be a "chicken or the egg" event.







"About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[62] ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.[63] The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.[64]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

I find it exceedingly ironic that one of the arguments against Gay Marriage is the claim that it would open up the doors for such atrocities as multiple people getting married to one (or marrying dogs, brothers marrying sisters, etc.) when one of the major driving forces against gay marriage is the Mormon Church.

 

[sanjuro]

Play against her team. Then spike her on every double play and throw at her head on every AB.

That's the classy way to handle it.

 

[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

 

[jdhu]

When any church actively attempts to influence lawmaking, they have crossed the line of "separation of church and state", in my opinion.

I suggest that arguing over which came first would be a "chicken or the egg" event.

Disagree, 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.

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

 

[jdhu]

Nothing happens in a vacumm, there is always action/reaction. If your assertion that courts have been increasingly wary of religious influence, it would follow that there is a reason for that wariness.

Because times change. Obviously, judges age and retire, and their replacements tend to belong to a different generation, with different values and upbringing. I think that is the reason for "wariness," rather than as a response to increased religious intrusion.

 

[kevin 714]

Disagree, 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.

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

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

in 2004,. 40 billiobn dfollars was goven out by the government of this country to religious institutions

 

[jdhu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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

 

[planegray]

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

Awesome idea!

I spelled it out though

 

[tzrider]

I spelled it out though

True enough.