Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Freedom FROM Religion vs. Freedom OF Religion   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court, Trinity Lutheran, Stephen Breyer, Trinity Lutheran case, Supreme Court case, Supreme Court Justice, Supreme Court decision  
•       •       •

2886 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2017 at 1:23 PM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-04-20 11:04:38 AM  
If you don't have freedom from religion in the public sphere, you can never have freedom of religion in the public sphere.

If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom.
 
2017-04-20 11:12:56 AM  

gameshowhost: If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom


But what if the state promotes every religion?

What if the state allows these vouchers to be used at, say, an Islamic school?

If Dems really wanted to sink the bill, all they need to do is remind their conservative counterparts of what it really means.
 
2017-04-20 11:39:10 AM  

cman: gameshowhost: If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom

But what if the state promotes every religion?

What if the state allows these vouchers to be used at, say, an Islamic school?

If Dems really wanted to sink the bill, all they need to do is remind their conservative counterparts of what it really means.


The Church of Satan needs to start opening schools.
 
2017-04-20 11:42:32 AM  

kbronsito: cman: gameshowhost: If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom

But what if the state promotes every religion?

What if the state allows these vouchers to be used at, say, an Islamic school?

If Dems really wanted to sink the bill, all they need to do is remind their conservative counterparts of what it really means.

The Church of Satan needs to start opening schools.


I think those are called Public Schools.
*ducks*
 
2017-04-20 11:42:50 AM  

kbronsito: The Church of Satan needs to start opening schools.


Is that state green yet? I'll volunteer....
 
2017-04-20 12:19:20 PM  
Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.
 
2017-04-20 12:27:10 PM  
I wonder if they made it a voluntary religious institution grant checkoff on state taxes (like we have in MN for non-game wildlife preservation) how many people would participate? How much would people contribute?

I am guessing not many
 
2017-04-20 12:57:08 PM  

impaler: Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.


So Jews are free from being pressured to hear Christian evangalists, and Baptists are free from being evangelized by Catholics. But what about agnostics? Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?
 
2017-04-20 01:16:12 PM  

J Noble Daggett: Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?


In a perfect world...
 
2017-04-20 01:19:33 PM  

impaler: J Noble Daggett: Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?

In a perfect world...


i.ytimg.com
 
2017-04-20 01:25:49 PM  
If Ralph Reed is fer it...it's undoubtedly a very stupid thing.
 
2017-04-20 01:26:57 PM  
Cut them off, completely and forever. At least until they leave politics and government.
 
2017-04-20 01:29:17 PM  

J Noble Daggett: impaler: Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.

So Jews are free from being pressured to hear Christian evangalists, and Baptists are free from being evangelized by Catholics. But what about agnostics? Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?


Maybe, but we're not sure.
 
2017-04-20 01:29:39 PM  
Why should tax payers build equity for private property owners that don't pay taxes?
 
2017-04-20 01:30:07 PM  
Farking ban it.
No religion.
You want it?
Keep it to yourself.
IN your own home.

Make it as off putting as most vanilla folks think a BDSM party should be.
Not like a munch, like a real down and out orgy.

Make them feel shame in  speaking of it in public.
Make it a thing that is not allowed to be spoken in schools or at polling places.

Make it as offensive as nailing a person to a board in public ought to be in a civilized society.
Farking sick bastards.
 
2017-04-20 01:30:12 PM  

J Noble Daggett: Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?


Where is this happening?
 
2017-04-20 01:32:18 PM  
I don't see this as being threatening or groundbreaking. If they were to apply the Lemon Test, which has been the precedent for decades, the playground should be elegible for the grant.

The law was for a secular purpose.

The law did not have the primary effect of promoting religion.

The law did not result in unnecessary entanglement between church and state.

If the grants were available to other private playgrounds, they should apply to those run by churches as well.
 
2017-04-20 01:32:19 PM  

cman: If Dems really wanted to sink the bill, all they need to do is remind their conservative counterparts of what it really means.


No. Dems could yell and scream that point to the high heavens and religious conservatives would never ever get it.

SCOTUS smackdown is the only thing they understand.
 
2017-04-20 01:32:27 PM  

vudukungfu: Farking ban it.
No religion.
You want it?
Keep it to yourself.
IN your own home.

Make it as off putting as most vanilla folks think a BDSM party should be.
Not like a munch, like a real down and out orgy.

Make them feel shame in  speaking of it in public.
Make it a thing that is not allowed to be spoken in schools or at polling places.

Make it as offensive as nailing a person to a board in public ought to be in a civilized society.
Farking sick bastards.


Show us on the doll where religion touched you.
 
2017-04-20 01:32:47 PM  
What the GOP means by freedom of religion is that everyone does either follows the Christian faith or does what the Christians say. Anything else is a terrorist or worse a Democrat.

Except Jews. For some reason it is ok to be a Jew as long as there aren't too many of us.
 
2017-04-20 01:33:37 PM  

cman: gameshowhost: If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom

But what if the state promotes every religion?

What if the state allows these vouchers to be used at, say, an Islamic school?

If Dems really wanted to sink the bill, all they need to do is remind their conservative counterparts of what it really means.


Wasn't that their big problem in the first place? Complaining about how they couldn't say "Merry Christmas" anymore and having to say the more vile and evil "Happy Holidays"?
 
2017-04-20 01:34:39 PM  

Heywood Jublowme: vudukungfu: Farking ban it.
No religion.
You want it?
Keep it to yourself.
IN your own home.

Make it as off putting as most vanilla folks think a BDSM party should be.
Not like a munch, like a real down and out orgy.

Make them feel shame in  speaking of it in public.
Make it a thing that is not allowed to be spoken in schools or at polling places.

Make it as offensive as nailing a person to a board in public ought to be in a civilized society.
Farking sick bastards.

Show us on the doll where religion touched you.


If he is catholic then that would be his penis and ass.
 
2017-04-20 01:35:41 PM  

cman: gameshowhost: If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom

But what if the state promotes every religion?

What if the state allows these vouchers to be used at, say, an Islamic school?

If Dems really wanted to sink the bill, all they need to do is remind their conservative counterparts of what it really means.


Thats when they pull out the "Christian State" rhetoric and their belief that the First Amendment means you can choose to be any denomination of Christian you want, but that it doesn't protect other religions and that there's no problem with the government endorsing Christian Churches, Christian Schools, having Christian prayers before meetings ect. . .and not doing the same for any other religion.
 
2017-04-20 01:37:13 PM  

gameshowhost: If you don't have freedom from religion in the public sphere, you can never have freedom of religion in the public sphere.

If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom.


If the state promotes every religion, then no religion loses freedom.

They're not going to say, "No public funds for fixing safety problems in churches, except those Missouri Lutherans, those guys are cool."

They're going to say, "Public safety is important regardless of whether you're talking about a church or a mosque or a strip club."

There's a reason that the establishment clause prevents taxation of churches but doesn't prevent enforcing building codes and fire codes on churches. It's because normal thinking people are reasonable, despite what some would have you believe.
 
2017-04-20 01:38:23 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I don't see this as being threatening or groundbreaking. If they were to apply the Lemon Test, which has been the precedent for decades, the playground should be elegible for the grant.

The law was for a secular purpose.

The law did not have the primary effect of promoting religion.

The law did not result in unnecessary entanglement between church and state.

If the grants were available to other private playgrounds, they should apply to those run by churches as well.


I think the fact that the playground is associated/part of a preschool muddies the waters a bit because it is a religious school.  Unless you propose drawing the line somewhere where certain aspects of a religious school can receive funding and others can't which sounds convoluted and likely to cause more issues.  If it were a park/playground simply owned by a church for the community use and not associated with a religious school at all I'd agree.
 
2017-04-20 01:38:24 PM  

gameshowhost: If you don't have freedom from religion in the public sphere, you can never have freedom of religion in the public sphere.

If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom.


My god can kick ur gods ass!
 
2017-04-20 01:38:26 PM  

AntiNerd: What the GOP means by freedom of religion is that everyone does either follows the Christian faith or does what the Christians say. Anything else is a terrorist or worse a Democrat.

Except Jews. For some reason it is ok to be a Jew as long as there aren't too many of us.


They need you guys around as kindling to light the fire of the Second Coming of Jesus.  But too many off you together is an early fire hazard.

Not entirely joking; there's a strong belief in certain strains of American Christianity that the Jews have to take back Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple so that it can be destroyed as per Revelations.
 
2017-04-20 01:38:30 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: J Noble Daggett: Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?

Where is this happening?


Fark?

Only half kidding. But I've seen an atheist or two make the charge that there is no such thing as agnostic, they are all just cowardly atheists.

It's not common, but neither is a family holding up a sign saying "God Hates Fags"
 
2017-04-20 01:39:04 PM  

darkmayo: Heywood Jublowme: vudukungfu: Farking ban it.
No religion.
You want it?
Keep it to yourself.
IN your own home.

Make it as off putting as most vanilla folks think a BDSM party should be.
Not like a munch, like a real down and out orgy.

Make them feel shame in  speaking of it in public.
Make it a thing that is not allowed to be spoken in schools or at polling places.

Make it as offensive as nailing a person to a board in public ought to be in a civilized society.
Farking sick bastards.

Show us on the doll where religion touched you.

If he is catholic then that would be his penis and ass.


Now, now, plenty of vehemently anti-gay evangelicals are likely to go there, too.
 
2017-04-20 01:39:32 PM  

Silverstaff: cman: gameshowhost: If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom

But what if the state promotes every religion?

What if the state allows these vouchers to be used at, say, an Islamic school?

If Dems really wanted to sink the bill, all they need to do is remind their conservative counterparts of what it really means.

Thats when they pull out the "Christian State" rhetoric and their belief that the First Amendment means you can choose to be any denomination of Christian you want, but that it doesn't protect other religions and that there's no problem with the government endorsing Christian Churches, Christian Schools, having Christian prayers before meetings ect. . .and not doing the same for any other religion.


This. If I hear one more time a moron on cable news starting a point with "well, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values" and get away with it unchallenged, I'm going to... well, I can't really watch cable news less, but I'll really be on the fence about voting for Donald Trump.
 
2017-04-20 01:39:37 PM  
To any reasonable person, it's both.
 
2017-04-20 01:39:52 PM  

darkmayo: Heywood Jublowme: vudukungfu: Farking ban it.
No religion.
You want it?
Keep it to yourself.
IN your own home.

Make it as off putting as most vanilla folks think a BDSM party should be.
Not like a munch, like a real down and out orgy.

Make them feel shame in  speaking of it in public.
Make it a thing that is not allowed to be spoken in schools or at polling places.

Make it as offensive as nailing a person to a board in public ought to be in a civilized society.
Farking sick bastards.

Show us on the doll where religion touched you.

If he is catholic then that would be his penis and ass.


You assume the priest gave a reacharound
 
2017-04-20 01:39:54 PM  

JolobinSmokin: J Noble Daggett: impaler: Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.

So Jews are free from being pressured to hear Christian evangalists, and Baptists are free from being evangelized by Catholics. But what about agnostics? Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?

Maybe, but we're not sure.


The correct answer is, "It's impossible to know."
 
2017-04-20 01:40:00 PM  

facepalm.jpg: gameshowhost: If you don't have freedom from religion in the public sphere, you can never have freedom of religion in the public sphere.

If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom.

If the state promotes every religion, then no religion loses freedom.

They're not going to say, "No public funds for fixing safety problems in churches, except those Missouri Lutherans, those guys are cool."

They're going to say, "Public safety is important regardless of whether you're talking about a church or a mosque or a strip club."

There's a reason that the establishment clause prevents taxation of churches but doesn't prevent enforcing building codes and fire codes on churches. It's because normal thinking people are reasonable, despite what some would have you believe.


What country are you living in where you believe mosques are treated equally to Christian churches? Because it certainly isn't the United States.
 
2017-04-20 01:40:30 PM  
Remember kids, as DEVO sang:

"Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want."

Best song (And album) going into the gaping maw of the Reagan 80's.
 
2017-04-20 01:42:08 PM  

AntiNerd: What the GOP means by freedom of religion is that everyone does either follows the Christian faith or does what the Christians say. Anything else is a terrorist or worse a Democrat.

Except Jews. For some reason it is ok to be a Jew as long as there aren't too many of us.


The only religion that matters in america is cash. Everything else is noise.
 
2017-04-20 01:42:12 PM  

J Noble Daggett: impaler: Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.

So Jews are free from being pressured to hear Christian evangalists, and Baptists are free from being evangelized by Catholics. But what about agnostics? Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?


They already have unless they go to church on odd numbered Sundays.  They're still functionally atheist.
 
2017-04-20 01:43:59 PM  
I posted something similar in the other thread:

This school should be treated like any other private school.

If a Muslim or secular private school would be eligible for these funds, then this school should be eligible.

A religious non-profit must be treated under the law exactly the same as any other religious or secular not-for-profit, with no advantage or disadvantage of any kind given.
 
2017-04-20 01:44:36 PM  
I know what Jesus would do. Run as fast as he can from organized religion.
 
2017-04-20 01:44:48 PM  

Heywood Jublowme: vudukungfu: Farking ban it.
No religion.
You want it?
Keep it to yourself.
IN your own home.

Make it as off putting as most vanilla folks think a BDSM party should be.
Not like a munch, like a real down and out orgy.

Make them feel shame in  speaking of it in public.
Make it a thing that is not allowed to be spoken in schools or at polling places.

Make it as offensive as nailing a person to a board in public ought to be in a civilized society.
Farking sick bastards.

Show us on the doll where religion touched you.


One doll ain't gonna cover it.
 
2017-04-20 01:45:18 PM  

leehouse: Lenny_da_Hog: I don't see this as being threatening or groundbreaking. If they were to apply the Lemon Test, which has been the precedent for decades, the playground should be elegible for the grant.

The law was for a secular purpose.

The law did not have the primary effect of promoting religion.

The law did not result in unnecessary entanglement between church and state.

If the grants were available to other private playgrounds, they should apply to those run by churches as well.

I think the fact that the playground is associated/part of a preschool muddies the waters a bit because it is a religious school.  Unless you propose drawing the line somewhere where certain aspects of a religious school can receive funding and others can't which sounds convoluted and likely to cause more issues.  If it were a park/playground simply owned by a church for the community use and not associated with a religious school at all I'd agree.


The primary purpose is improving child safety. If we pass out carbon monoxide detectors for all places children gather, and include private daycare centers, a religious daycare is just another private daycare center.

Bach wrote a lot of sacred music. Giving an NEA Grant for performances of those works is fine, as the primary purpose is to promote the arts, not religion.
 
2017-04-20 01:45:21 PM  

AntiNerd: What the GOP means by freedom of religion is that everyone does either follows the Christian faith or does what the Christians say. Anything else is a terrorist or worse a Democrat.

Except Jews. For some reason it is ok to be a Jew as long as there aren't too many of us.


My DVR managed to pick up "Escape from LA" over the weekend, and while I initially watched it for nostalgia, it became pretty unsettling very quickly as a "national police force" was formed to enforce the laws of a theocratic "Christian America". All non-Christians were given the choice between electrocution or "exile" in LA, which had become an island after an earthquake. And I was sitting there thinking that as crazy as that may have sounded 20 years ago when the film was made, it sure as shiat wasn't any crazier than if someone looked at Trump 20 years ago and predicted that he'd be President. Or that dominionists and evangelicals would have taken over the party of Gordon Gecko and Wall Street.
 
2017-04-20 01:45:25 PM  

impaler: Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.


I'm going to borrow that one, giving myself full credit for being the witty one who thought of it.  Thank you for the opportunity.

As an atheist, I regard emotional religious arguments much in the same way Neo regards bullets at the end of The Matrix.  So much intensity comes from the source firing them it's almost a pity to watch them land at my feet.  Of course, they're going to use the fire department example to get the believers into a fear based frenzy.  It's a proven technique and it'll work here too.
 
2017-04-20 01:45:56 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Why should tax payers build equity for private property owners that don't pay taxes?


Came here for this. Maybe start paying taxes and become entitled to special services paid for with taxes.
 
2017-04-20 01:49:32 PM  
Religion is a lot like racism...which is a lot like a penis.  It's fine to have one.  It's even fine to be proud of it.  But when you start waving it around in public, people are going to have a problem.  Please keep it in your pants.

/Penis
 
2017-04-20 01:51:06 PM  

facepalm.jpg: If the state promotes every religion, then no religion loses freedom.

They're not going to say, "No public funds for fixing safety problems in churches, except those Missouri Lutherans, those guys are cool."

They're going to say, "Public safety is important regardless of whether you're talking about a church or a mosque or a strip club."


Therein lies the rub. Of course it would suck if the ruling said "hey school, you don't get public funding for improving schools BECAUSE you're a Catholic school." Of course, once they can get their hands on public funding, it would ALSO suck if public funding for developing schools just so happened to go to St. Alban's, St. Mary's, and Martin Luther High, but not to ibn-Mohammad Elementary or Beth Tikva, because there are just so many grant proposals, of course, and not for any particular reason, mind you.
 
2017-04-20 01:51:07 PM  

J Noble Daggett: impaler: Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.

So Jews are free from being pressured to hear Christian evangalists, and Baptists are free from being evangelized by Catholics. But what about agnostics? Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?


Atheism means you don't believe in god, agnosticism means that you're not claiming knowledge of your beliefs. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive. A person can be an agnostic atheist: that is a person who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim certainty about knowing about the lack of a deity - keeping in line with the thinking that it's impossible to prove a negative. "I know god(s) do/don't exist" is a gnostic (lower case is important here, upper case indicates a philosophical religious movement).
 
2017-04-20 01:53:32 PM  

facepalm.jpg: gameshowhost: If you don't have freedom from religion in the public sphere, you can never have freedom of religion in the public sphere.

If the state promotes any religion, every other religion necessarily loses freedom.

If the state promotes every religion, then no religion loses freedom.

They're not going to say, "No public funds for fixing safety problems in churches, except those Missouri Lutherans, those guys are cool."

They're going to say, "Public safety is important regardless of whether you're talking about a church or a mosque or a strip club."

There's a reason that the establishment clause prevents taxation of churches but doesn't prevent enforcing building codes and fire codes on churches. It's because normal thinking people are reasonable, despite what some would have you believe.


Trump is president. The basis of your argument is incorrect. People are not thinking or reasonable. If you actually use your brain in a moderately analytical way you're in the minority.
 
2017-04-20 01:53:56 PM  

J Noble Daggett: impaler: Freedom of Religion requires freedom from religion. Everyone must be free of every religion they're not a part of.

Atheists are just free from one more religion than everyone else.

So Jews are free from being pressured to hear Christian evangalists, and Baptists are free from being evangelized by Catholics. But what about agnostics? Can they finally get a break from atheists who keep harassing them and telling them to make up their minds?


No one has the right to be insulated from religious discussion or pursuasion. The first amendment applies to government action (or inaction) with respect to religion. 1A has jack all to do with street preachers, other than tell the cops they can't arrest them just for street preaching.
 
2017-04-20 01:54:05 PM  

capn' fun: My DVR managed to pick up "Escape from LA" over the weekend, and while I initially watched it for nostalgia, it became pretty unsettling very quickly as a "national police force" was formed to enforce the laws of a theocratic "Christian America". All non-Christians were given the choice between electrocution or "exile" in LA, which had become an island after an earthquake. And I was sitting there thinking that as crazy as that may have sounded 20 years ago when the film was made, it sure as shiat wasn't any crazier than if someone looked at Trump 20 years ago and predicted that he'd be President. Or that dominionists and evangelicals would have taken over the party of Gordon Gecko and Wall Street.


Dominionists and Evangelicals had been working on taking over the Republicans since the 1970's.

Barry Goldwater famously warned about them and the risk they posed to the Republican Party, and American politics as a whole, in 1994.

Remember the "Moral Majority" nonsense of the '80's?  They were starting their move by that point.

Christianity in America tended to be non-partisan until the '70's.  Their first stirrings of politics came with Roe v. Wade and their religious objection to it, and realizing that no amount of prayer would change a SCOTUS ruling.  They slowly accumulated influence and power over several decades to get to this point.  They started small, with local elections, they started by getting preachers to mingle politics into their sermons, by making religious issues like anti-LBGT bigotry and anti-Choice into political issues.

By the time Escape from LA was being made, that element of the movie was a satire about trends that were forming in American politics, not some out-there fantasy.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report