Holyrollers attempting to take over public libraries.... YOU HAVE CHURCHES FOR CHRIST

IHateGovernment said:
I just don't think my tax dollars should go to any religious organization to provide them a house of worship. That is their problem.
It can also make others in the library uncomfortable, esp if they equate liberals, islamics and statn all in one lump like some do.

Thats not how it works USC. You are not paying tax dollars for a church. You are paying tax dollars for a public place in which people may express their first amendment rights. These people are just using their right to speech and assemble in a public place.

If a church group visited yellowstone park and they said some prayers while at a picnic there should the rangers chase them out?
Click to expand...
If they started meeting there regularlly yes .
 
Religion is not the same as those other groups in the eyes of the supreme court now is it ?

Actually it is in this regard. The religious group is not getting tax dollars. They are simple using public space that is available for everyone.

Do you honestly think that the separation clause equates to not allowing a church van to go on the road because you paid tax dollars for it and if someone uses public provisions for a religious purpose it violates that separation.

If you do you don't understand the first amendment I'm afraid.
 
I guess we need laws prohibiting bars and alcohol sales within 500 ft of all those other groups meeting palces dont we IHG ?

I don't follow this line of thought.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I guess we need laws prohibiting bars and alcohol sales within 500 ft of all those other groups meeting palces dont we IHG ?

I don't follow this line of thought.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out how the laws of the land make differences between religious groups and other non profit groups.

"Prohibiting Faith Center's religious worship services from the Antioch meeting room is a permissible exclusion of a category of speech," Judge Richard Paez ruled.

Such as the other exceptions to free speech that I have listed above.
 
It would be easy to run them out, just have other people go in and heckle them, they could not run them out, free speech remember :)
 
If they started meeting there regularlly yes .

Let me repost the first amendment

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.

If the rangers fail to chase away the religious picnicers what law has been made respecting an establishment of religion.

The establishment clause means that no law can be passed that pertains to religion. That means Congress can't make special tax laws for churches, or invoke religion as the justification of law or use religious symbols in buildings of the government.

It doesn't mean that religion cannot be practices in public places.

Take the school prayer issue. Conservatives cry and moan that their children aren't allowed to pray in school.

This is false. Children can pray they simply are not to be facilitated in being able to pray.

However you are actually the boogeyman they are talking about that actually wishes to deny their right to practice their religion in public. This is not unlike the French practice of not allowing students to display any religious artifact while in school.
 
One point and one point only .
The current law trumps the constitution until which time as that law is shown to be unconstitional by a court and thrown out. case dismissed.
 
You don't understand the supremes interpretation of the ammendment which is what we go by.

I understand it quite well. My constitutional knowledge is extensive and I think you know that. I have strong grounds for the argument that such an act is unconstitutional.

Just pointing out how the laws of the land make differences between religious groups and other non profit groups.

"Prohibiting Faith Center's religious worship services from the Antioch meeting room is a permissible exclusion of a category of speech," Judge Richard Paez ruled.

Such as the other exceptions to free speech that I have listed above.

Such speech is not in any way comparable to speech that creates a clear and present danger or language that facilitates fraud.

Religious speech is harmless and the state has no duty to protect you from such types of speech.
 
One point and one point only .
The current law trumps the constitution until which time as that law is shown to be unconstitional by a court and thrown out. case dismissed.

That doesn't really support anything in any real appreciable sense. Separate but equal was legal until Brown v. Board. But it never was constitutional because it violated the 14th amendment. Laws are not unconstiutional upon the ruling they are so any ruling that a law in unconstitutional is retroactive to the point of the creation of the law.

My point is that the district court should have ruled that it was unconstitutional. If it has to go to circuit or Supreme Court I support it and hope it is ruled unconstitutional since that would be the correct ruling.
 
I stand by my previous post on the constitution is nothing as far as legal. current law is legal. Right and wrong is another matter entirely now and is totally subjective.
 
Last edited:
Yes since the court ruled it legal it is. However their ruling is incorrect. Many laws have been ruled constitutional yet were in fact not as is shown by later rulings.

Separate but equal was legal so were anti-miscegination laws. They were never constitutional it just took time for the court to realize this.

Saying something is legal because it is legal is not an argument for anything other than the status quo is always what is legally appropriate.
 
IHateGovernment said:
IHG is lost in the political wilderness as usual.

Sure Rob. You really want to get in a Constitutional debate with me? I think everyone here knows what the outcome of that would be.
Click to expand...

well its stupid of them to have to hold religious meetings there, i mean go to a freakin church...its all about recruitment.
 
I don't see the problem, its not like the library itself is holding the prayer service.
 
"Holyrollers" pay taxes like anyone and thus have as much right as any of the rest of the public to have a say/use in the library.
If you force people to pay taxes for something, then they are going to have influence with it, if you don't like it then support privatizing libraries and the problem is solved.
It's not like you see such intense conflicts between religious and non-religious folk over what Chapters decides to sell, because both parties know and respect that it's Chapters decision to sell what they want and they have less reason to feel as if it's their place to interfere.
Also, you can use the money to lower taxes and pay down the deficit.
 
TheDanold said:
"Holyrollers" pay taxes like anyone and thus have as much right as any of the rest of the public to have a say/use in the library.
If you force people to pay taxes for something, then they are going to have influence with it, if you don't like it then support privatizing libraries and the problem is solved.
It's not like you see such intense conflicts between religious and non-religious folk over what Chapters decides to sell, because both parties know and respect that it's Chapters decision to sell what they want and they have less reason to feel as if it's their place to interfere.
Also, you can use the money to lower taxes and pay down the deficit.
Click to expand...


hmmm you really don't wanna create a slippry slope w/ the "paying taxes" thing do you.... if people force me to pay taxes for everything including SS, shouldn't i have a right to my husbands SS??
 
robdastud said:
hmmm you really don't wanna create a slippry slope w/ the "paying taxes" thing do you.... if people force me to pay taxes for everything including SS, shouldn't i have a right to my husbands SS??
Click to expand...
Sure, why not? You can have some of the nothing that will be left by the time we start collecting that!
 
IHateGovernment said:
Yes since the court ruled it legal it is. However their ruling is incorrect. Many laws have been ruled constitutional yet were in fact not as is shown by later rulings.

Separate but equal was legal so were anti-miscegination laws. They were never constitutional it just took time for the court to realize this.

Saying something is legal because it is legal is not an argument for anything other than the status quo is always what is legally appropriate.
Click to expand...

Just pointing our that the laws is what we follow , not the constitution.
Not necessarially right but the way it is.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can lose your freedom and posessions for using drugs the govt thinks is inappropriate.
Religion IS singled out in the constitution and most intrepretations indicate that govt support of any religion is also unconstitutional. Providing a tax supported place for worship is support by the govt.
The other non profit groups are not mentioned, therefore the govt has more latitude in making laws regulating those other non profit groups.
 
Many small burgeoning new churches in my area rent school rooms to have their services in. They are not provided free of charge, nor are they charged any less or more than any other group that may rent space at the school after hours...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top