california boy Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Thinking said: This article is very informative. Well in that case, I don't even understand why this is an issue. For all the Scott Lloyds in the world, they can keep their principles/values by just not accepting government funding. Certainly that seems reasonable and fair. No one could possibly expect my tax dollars to go towards a school that discriminates against me. They are public funds. All the public contributes to taxes. All the public should be allowed to participate where those funds are spent. Simply put, if you want to discriminate, don't take tax dollars. You can continue on your way practicing your own personal beliefs and values and even forcing your students to embrace and live by those values while they are attending your school. If government loans are not available, then the student can either find another way to fund their education or vote with their feet and find a school where they can get government aid. I don't see how a person arguing against such a bill has a single leg to stand on. Edited July 31, 2016 by california boy 3
Meadowchik Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) So in other words the bill seeks to enact a religious test on the users of federal grants and loans? They can use it for accredited institutions of learning but only if those institutions accept non-straight sexual behaviour. Edited July 31, 2016 by Meadowchik 2
Meadowchik Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 Will there be a similar test for food stamp recipients or users of public roads? 1
california boy Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: So in other words the bill seeks to enact a religious test on the users of federal grants and loans? They can use it for accredited institutions of learning but only if those institutions accept non-straight sexual behaviour. 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Will there be a similar test for food stamp recipients or users of public roads? Of course. The government has long had a policy of not giving government aid to institutions that discriminate. Why would they change that policy just because the institution happens to be a church school doing the discrimination? The school has no rights to government money without complying with the conditions that come with those tax dollars. The schools don't have to comply with the conditions. They can continue to discriminate against gays just like they currently do. I can't see how anyone would have a problem with this. The government is not singling out religious schools. The government does not give out aid to ANY institution that discriminates 2
Thinking Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 7 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Will there be a similar test for food stamp recipients or users of public roads? I think you are missing the point. The bill is about institutions not individuals. 1
bsjkki Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 9 minutes ago, Thinking said: I think you are missing the point. The bill is about institutions not individuals. Pell grants and student loans are granted to individuals. They should be able to go to the school of their choice. 2
Storm Rider Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Thinking said: I think you are missing the point. The bill is about institutions not individuals. Institutions do not exist without people both individuals and groups. This bill is very much about the denial of rights in order to placate the rights of the few over the rights of all others. We used to have the freedom of religion in the USA, but that constitutional right that has existed from the very beginning of our country is being put aside, or at least greatly restricted, in order that a set of rights may be granted to individuals practicing a range of behaviors that society has deemed unhealthy and not to be encouraged for thousands and thousands of years. Times change and this is one that comes with it. I suspect that this cultural "cause celebre" will continue until they eventually demand that 1st Amendment be rewritten to exclude the freedom of exercise of religion because, in their view, religion is discriminatory because religion defines sin, which hurts their feelings. Yes citizens, we call this being "progressive, liberal, and tolerant". 3
Storm Rider Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 It does surprise me that a religion may define what is sin and thus what is acceptable behavior before God. However, this novel approach to "discrimination" demands that religion may not define sin because that affects those individuals who want to sin and still be a member of the religion and take advantage of all that the religion supports in schools, sports, academic excellence, etc. So the religion may exist, but it must be forced to change its ways to deny that sin exists or that sinful behavior is bad or unacceptable. They must actually support sinful behavior - gads, I just love progressive ideology. 1
Thinking Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Pell grants and student loans are granted to individuals. They should be able to go to the school of their choice. 39 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: It does surprise me that a religion may define what is sin and thus what is acceptable behavior before God. However, this novel approach to "discrimination" demands that religion may not define sin because that affects those individuals who want to sin and still be a member of the religion and take advantage of all that the religion supports in schools, sports, academic excellence, etc. So the religion may exist, but it must be forced to change its ways to deny that sin exists or that sinful behavior is bad or unacceptable. They must actually support sinful behavior - gads, I just love progressive ideology. You don't think the grantor of the money can regulate its use? Edited July 31, 2016 by Thinking 1
Storm Rider Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Thinking said: You don't think the grantor of the money can regulate its use? Every citizen pays taxes. The vast majority observe the laws of the land. What you are supporting is that citizens who actually have a religion may not benefit from Federal programs - those things that their taxes support - unless they attend specific schools - any school except for those supported by their religion or other religions with similar teachings. Of course we don't call that discrimination and/or intolerance because everyone is too busy admiring the naked twits sitting on their thrones demanding that everyone fawn over their new clothes. Edited August 1, 2016 by Storm Rider 3
Calm Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 4 hours ago, bsjkki said: Pell grants and student loans are granted to individuals. They should be able to go to the school of their choice. I do believe the quality of the school is relevant. Spending tax money on a diploma mill or on a college that does nothing to help student get a better job, but is only about making a profit is not a good use of funds. 1
rodheadlee Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Thinking said: You don't think the grantor of the money can regulate its use? Just as soon as paying taxes becomes optional. 2
california boy Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 Discrimination is not an American value. You are welcome to practice your religious beliefs any way you want. You can even discriminate against gays. That is what is guaranteed in the constitution. Government supporting religious schools who discriminate with tax dollars is not protected by the constitution. It is that simple. As religion continues to support and demand that they have a right to discriminate, they WILL continue to have both the government and most of America fight against them. If you think that discrimination will ever again be allowed in this country you have not been paying attention to our history for the past 50 years. America has chosen NOT to discriminate against any minority, even sinners. Quite frankly I thought not to descriminste was also a Christian value. Evidently it is not a value shared by all Christians. So sad. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Bytheway, did you know that ronald reagan sough a fortuneteller for advice? Gotta issue a CFR on that. I'm aware that Nancy Reagen consulted an astrologist, but astrology is not religion. 1
bsjkki Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: I do believe the quality of the school is relevant. Spending tax money on a diploma mill or on a college that does nothing to help student get a better job, but is only about making a profit is not a good use of funds. I agree with you but I would not want to then discriminate against religious schools that meet that academic test. I think some schools absolutely bilk their students out of government funds and leave them holding the debt with nothing to show for it. Higher education lacks accountability. An argument could be made that government funded school loans and pell grants have enabled higher education to increase their costs to the detriment of the student. If students couldn't get these loans, could the schools actually cost so much? 1
california boy Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 The government does not discriminating against religious schools. Schools that have access to student loans and pell grant is exactly the same for all schools. They do not have a different criteria for religious schools. Which is exactly how it should be. Do you really want to have the government start to have a different criteria for religious schools? 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Gotta issue a CFR on that. I read that on Hand, David J. The improbability principle: Why coincidences, miracles, and rare events happen every day. Macmillan, 2014. You can read about that in the New York Times too http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/white-house-confirms-reagans-follow-astrology-up-to-a-point.html 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: , but astrology is not religion. I don't see any difference. 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm aware that Nancy Reagen consulted an astrologist, but astrology is not religion. You want astrology out of politics right? Imagine world leaders being influenced by astrology. Please tell me why you are against astrology in politics. Edited August 1, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 6 hours ago, california boy said: Discrimination is not an American value. You are welcome to practice your religious beliefs any way you want. You can even discriminate against gays. That is what is guaranteed in the constitution. Government supporting religious schools who discriminate with tax dollars is not protected by the constitution. It is that simple. As religion continues to support and demand that they have a right to discriminate, they WILL continue to have both the government and most of America fight against them. If you think that discrimination will ever again be allowed in this country you have not been paying attention to our history for the past 50 years. America has chosen NOT to discriminate against any minority, even sinners. Quite frankly I thought not to descriminste was also a Christian value. Evidently it is not a value shared by all Christians. So sad. Nope, not that easy. The "government" does not exist by itself. It exists because we pay taxes in exchange for being treated fairly. What you are saying, Cal, is that only that special group of people have rights. All the religious people, you remember those poor degenerates that are guaranteed the right of free exercise of religion and have paid the same taxes - those people cannot choose to attend the university of their choice and get their Pell Grant that they have paid for and their parents have paid for and their grandparents have paid for. Why not? Because this nation is a nation of special rights, intolerance, and cultural preferences. Religious people are on the lowest run of the totem pole because they actually think that the 1st Amendment actually meant something. Of course it did used to mean something until our friendly Liberals decided that they wanted the nation to be "tolerant". Not really tolerant, but to call it tolerant and force everyone to think like they think, talk like they demand we talk like, and if not, kill them, deny them jobs, persecute them, and withhold their all rights until they are forced into submission or die. Their choice. Oh, what a wonderfully tolerantly, loving, equality-based society we are creating. That sad think you were saying....yeah, it is sad because the hypocrisy is so towering and overwhelming. Liberals actually believe this tripe and speak it with a straight face....laughably sad. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I read that on Hand, David J. The improbability principle: Why coincidences, miracles, and rare events happen every day. Macmillan, 2014. You can read about that in the New York Times too http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/white-house-confirms-reagans-follow-astrology-up-to-a-point.html I don't see any difference. You want astrology out of politics right? Imagine world leaders being influenced by astrology. Please tell me why you are against astrology in politics. I never said I wanted astrology out politics. I am indifferent about it. You are the one here who is calling for heavy-handed thought control.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I never said I wanted astrology out politics. I am indifferent about it. because astrology doesn't have a lot of power in politics, it doesn't influence most lawmakers and voters. Thank goodness world powers don't make decisions based on astrology. I hope you understand why religion needs to get out of politics. Edited August 1, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 40 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: because astrology doesn't have a lot of power in politics, it doesn't influence most lawmakers and voters. Thank goodness world powers don't make decisions based on astrology. I hope you understand why religion needs to get out of politics. What worries me far more than the influence of astrology or anything else in politics is the influence of those like you who would shut out voices from the public dialogue to suit their own personal preferences. 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What worries me far more than the influence of astrology or anything else in politics is the influence of those like you who would shut out voices from the public dialogue to suit their own personal preferences. Please stop playing victim, no one is against religious freedom and the right to preach! No one is telling you to shut up, you are free to preach! I am just saying, religion in politics is not a good idea. She was only 10 years old, why don't you say anything about this? Don't tell me that religion in politics doesn't cause serious problems. Quote You said, "who would shut out voices from the public dialogue to suit their own personal preferences" Your voices about what? What are you talking about? Is someone threatening your religious freedom? Edited August 1, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
california boy Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 7 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Nope, not that easy. The "government" does not exist by itself. It exists because we pay taxes in exchange for being treated fairly. What you are saying, Cal, is that only that special group of people have rights. Where did I say that? On the contrary, what I said is that everyone is being treated equally the criteria for government aid is exactly the same for everyone to qualify for government aid the institution cannot discriminate All the religious people, you remember those poor degenerates that are guaranteed the right of free exercise of religion and have paid the same taxes - those people cannot choose to attend the university of their choice Yes they can attend any institute they want and get their Pell Grant that they have paid for and their parents have paid for and their grandparents have paid for. Yes they can. They can also get those pell grants just like everyone else, by attending a college that does not discriminate and qualifies for those grants 7 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Why not? Because this nation is a nation of special rights, intolerance, and cultural preferences. Religious people are on the lowest run of the totem pole because they actually think that the 1st Amendment actually meant something. We we have heard this accusation of a so called war on religion in this board and in the media before. Your post is typical of such accusations. But the truth is, religious schools are being treated just like every other organization Name ONE institution that discriminates and still qualifies for government aid for their students Of course it did used to mean something until our friendly Liberals decided that they wanted the nation to be "tolerant". Not really tolerant, but to call it tolerant and force everyone to think like they think, talk like they demand we talk like, and if not, kill them, deny them jobs, persecute them, and withhold their all rights until they are forced into submission or die. Their choice. Oh, what a wonderfully tolerantly, loving, equality-based society we are creating. That sad think you were saying....yeah, it is sad because the hypocrisy is so towering and overwhelming. Liberals actually believe this tripe and speak it with a straight face....laughably sad. The constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law if the government required that any institution receiving federal grants not to discriminate, then that means every institution Can you name any institute hat is getting federal grant money even though they discriminate? Sorry for the formatting issues. I am trying to do this on my phone
CV75 Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 On 7/30/2016 at 3:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said: There are a number of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim colleges and universities in California, not to mention the parochial schools which might be affected. However, it is very doubtful that such a bill would pass, or that it would stand a Constitutional test. In Provo, Utah, as I understand it, unisex bathrooms are being provided in the new Provo High School for single use by any LGBTQ person who might feel a need to use one. Non-LGBTQ (is that what I am now?) people also might feel a need to use a single-use bathroom. Now for my PSA of the day: for proper etiquette, all toilets should be single-use (please flush!). I have more but we'll see how this one floats.
Recommended Posts