stemelbow Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 hm...I don't know what's best here. No sex before marriage is so ingrained in me, it seems like a school should have a right to hold students to such a view, and still be able to get federal funding. Now that gay marriage is legal I don't know how that works. I guess the best solution is if the school insists on discriminating against married gay couples, then that school should not be given federal money. A school getting moneys from others is not a right. It's a privilege, granted by those who give it. 2
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, california boy said: Sorry for the formatting issues. I am trying to do this on my phone No, the religiously affiliated univeristy may not remain as it is - it must change and reflect the new moral standards. The students with the right of free exercise of religion may not attend a university of their choice AND enjoy the benefits of using a Pell Grant - that thing that they paid for through taxes. The only way for them to use the Pell Grant is by not attending the university of their choice and put aside their desire to exercise their religion at a university. Your post is a perfect example of the blindness of Liberals. Stand around saying everyone is free and we are tolerant of all things.....as long as you think just like me. That is not tolerance; it is not inclusiveness - it is the exact opposite. Edited August 1, 2016 by Storm Rider 1
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 On 7/31/2016 at 3:45 AM, california boy said: 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. I like your approach as long as paying taxes is optional. What you want is to force people to think like you while saying the whole time - you may think anything you want. However, if anyone has the temerity to think differently then they are treated as second class citizens. You can pay taxes, but you cannot have the same rights as anyone else. 1
stemelbow Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: No, the religiously affiliated univeristy may not remain as it is - it must change and reflect the new moral standards. The students with the right of free exercise of religion may not attend a university of their choice AND enjoy the benefits of using a Pell Grant - that thing that they paid for through taxes. The only way for them to use the Pell Grant is by not attending the university of their choice and continue to exercise their religion. Your post is a perfect example of the blindness of Liberals. Stand around saying everyone is free and we are tolerant of all things.....as long as you think just like me. That is not tolerance; it is not inclusiveness - it is the exact opposite. I'd agree if students were given free money to go to school. Sadly only poor people get free money to go to school. Money given to a student to go to school is not a right for each student. It's a benefit for students to give them opportunity. At some point you have to take what you can get. 1
california boy Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I like your approach as long as paying taxes is optional. What you want is to force people to think like you while saying the whole time - you may think anything you want. However, if anyone has the temerity to think differently then they are treated as second class citizens. You can pay taxes, but you cannot have the same rights as anyone else. Who said anything about forcing people to think like me? You are free to think however you want. I get it . Federal grants are given to any school that qualifies for those grants. One of the conditions of those grants is a no discrimination policy. But you want the grants AND want to discriminate against minorities. Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. In America, the federal government is not going to support discrimination. Anti discrimination laws have been in force for 50 years. I see no movement except among some Mormons and a few evangelical who want to once again start discriminating again like they could in the good old days. Good luck with that. You can't even make s case that church schools are treated any differently than any other school . ALL schools must comply with non discrimination laws. You just hate the fact that you can't get away with discrimination. You are demanding federal aid when the schools don't qualify for it. 2
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 2 hours ago, california boy said: Who said anything about forcing people to think like me? You are free to think however you want. I get it . Federal grants are given to any school that qualifies for those grants. One of the conditions of those grants is a no discrimination policy. But you want the grants AND want to discriminate against minorities. Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. In America, the federal government is not going to support discrimination. Anti discrimination laws have been in force for 50 years. I see no movement except among some Mormons and a few evangelical who want to once again start discriminating again like they could in the good old days. Good luck with that. You can't even make s case that church schools are treated any differently than any other school . ALL schools must comply with non discrimination laws. You just hate the fact that you can't get away with discrimination. You are demanding federal aid when the schools don't qualify for it. You are playing word games and it is not helpful. If a student wants to use a Pell Grant he is forced, under this bill, to attend a university that does not exercise, teach, celebrate her/his religious beliefs BECAUSE the Pell Grant can only be used at universities that don't "discriminate" - i.e. meets the standards of narrow mindedness of Liberals. The 1st Amendment must be put aside for a new, much more strict, novel interpretation of tolerance and inclusiveness....the kind that demands you think like "me", act like "me", and believe like "me". Why isn't the student enabled to attend any accredited university of their choice? Why must a religious student become a second class citizen by not having access to the Pell Grant to attend a university of their choice? The reality is that they would be forced to pick another university that does not offer the same environment or standards. Their choice has become limited in order to meet the demands of others that have no desire to attend their chosen university in the first place. Church schools are treated no differently? Earth to Nanoo-Nanoo - Yesterday church universities could allow a student to use a Pell Grant - this is the student's benefit not the university - and now they cannot. It is a farce to simply repeat they are they same yesterday and today. They are not - yesterday there was no discrimination and now there is. Don't make me laugh - the government discriminates every day it exists just like you do and every other human does. The only thing going now is that "you" are the in-group and your group has found another group to stomp into the ground. 1
california boy Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: You are playing word games and it is not helpful. If a student wants to use a Pell Grant he is forced, under this bill, to attend a university that does not exercise, teach, celebrate her/his religious beliefs BECAUSE the Pell Grant can only be used at universities that don't "discriminate" - i.e. meets the standards of narrow mindedness of Liberals. The 1st Amendment must be put aside for a new, much more strict, novel interpretation of tolerance and inclusiveness....the kind that demands you think like "me", act like "me", and believe like "me". Why isn't the student enabled to attend any accredited university of their choice? Why must a religious student become a second class citizen by not having access to the Pell Grant to attend a university of their choice? The reality is that they would be forced to pick another university that does not offer the same environment or standards. Their choice has become limited in order to meet the demands of others that have no desire to attend their chosen university in the first place. Church schools are treated no differently? Earth to Nanoo-Nanoo - Yesterday church universities could allow a student to use a Pell Grant - this is the student's benefit not the university - and now they cannot. It is a farce to simply repeat they are they same yesterday and today. They are not - yesterday there was no discrimination and now there is. Don't make me laugh - the government discriminates every day it exists just like you do and every other human does. The only thing going now is that "you" are the in-group and your group has found another group to stomp into the ground. I am not playing word games. This is about you thinking your religious beliefs mean you can discriminate against gays in the public sector. So far the courts have ruled against that idea. While you are certainly entitled to belong to a church that discriminates against gays, that doesn't entitle you to government aid. Just how do you expect this to turn out? Do you really think the courts will rule that your religious beliefs will supersede federal non discrimination laws? I will talk to you again after this goes through the court system and see how you did. I certainly can't see the courts ruling that personal religious beliefs supersedes federal law. But maybe I am wrong.
Danzo Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: I certainly can't see the courts ruling that personal religious beliefs supersedes federal law. Then the first amendment is dead. 2
Storm Rider Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 5 hours ago, california boy said: I am not playing word games. This is about you thinking your religious beliefs mean you can discriminate against gays in the public sector. So far the courts have ruled against that idea. While you are certainly entitled to belong to a church that discriminates against gays, that doesn't entitle you to government aid. Just how do you expect this to turn out? Do you really think the courts will rule that your religious beliefs will supersede federal non discrimination laws? I will talk to you again after this goes through the court system and see how you did. I certainly can't see the courts ruling that personal religious beliefs supersedes federal law. But maybe I am wrong. Here is the reality - I know, we are not really interested in reality when a Liberal has decided they need to "fix" all the poor, stupid saps called citizens. It is the burden of the truly enlightened, superior neo-Liberals of today's world: School A teaches that homosexuality remains a sin as Judeo-Christian religions have taught for over 2,000 years All students are welcome at School A regardless of sexual preference; however, the moral code of the school identifies all sexual relations outside of marriage to be unacceptable. Should a student violate the moral code of the school they may be expelled. Little Mary honor student comes from a poor family and wants to attend school A and use the Pell Grant that her family has paid in taxes for generations given that they her family has been in the country since before 1700. Little Mary is the same religion that sponsors the School A Does your vastly enlightened law allow Mary from a poor family to attend School A on a Pell Grant or is she denied access to the Pell Grant because mean, old, stupid Christian bad school teaches homosexual behavior is a sin?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 6 hours ago, Danzo said: Then the first amendment is dead. Hopefully not yet, though in cal boy's mind it is.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: the influence of those like you who would shut out voices from the public dialogue to suit their own personal preferences. Voices about what? No one is trying to take your freedom of speech away! Please tell me, what are you talking about?
Thinking Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Storm Rider said: School A teaches that homosexuality remains a sin as Judeo-Christian religions have taught for over 2,000 years. It's ironic that an appeal to tradition is coming from a member of a church that rejected traditional Christianity. 1
california boy Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Danzo said: Then the first amendment is dead. I don't see where you are getting that idea from. No one is preventing anyone from practicing their religion. But if you are suggesting that religious belief can dictate or supersede federal law, then you have a very warped view of what freedom of religion means. There is more to the constitution than just the first amendment. Others have guaranteed rights. If you don't understand how the entire rest of the constitution works, I would suggest you read some of the legal rulings that address this issue. You might start with the ruling on gay marriage. You know, the last attempt by religion to dictate religious belief over the rights guaranteed in the constitution. We don't have a theocracy. Thank goodness.
california boy Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Here is the reality - I know, we are not really interested in reality when a Liberal has decided they need to "fix" all the poor, stupid saps called citizens. It is the burden of the truly enlightened, superior neo-Liberals of today's world: School A teaches that homosexuality remains a sin as Judeo-Christian religions have taught for over 2,000 years All students are welcome at School A regardless of sexual preference; however, the moral code of the school identifies all sexual relations outside of marriage to be unacceptable. Should a student violate the moral code of the school they may be expelled. Little Mary honor student comes from a poor family and wants to attend school A and use the Pell Grant that her family has paid in taxes for generations given that they her family has been in the country since before 1700. Little Mary is the same religion that sponsors the School A Does your vastly enlightened law allow Mary from a poor family to attend School A on a Pell Grant or is she denied access to the Pell Grant because mean, old, stupid Christian bad school teaches homosexual behavior is a sin? You forgot about the legally married couple who are being discriminated against by school A and not allowed to attend, which IS the reason for this law. Discrimination may be a religious value but it is not an American value. The federal government is not going to support discrimination.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Voices about what? No one is trying to take your freedom of speech away! Please tell me, what are you talking about? Right. I don't know what those of us who think the First Amendment actually means something (or at least, that it should mean something) are so concerned about: The religiously devout still have plenty of freedom of speech, as long as we say the "right" things; and we still have plenty of freedom of religious exercise: Albeit with a few sensible constraints, we can say and do whatever we wish to say and do in terms of practicing our religion ... within the walls of our holy place on our holy day.
california boy Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I think it is pretty clear what the issue is. I really see little value in continuing this discussion. I support the rights of every American to worship and believe anything they want to believe. But those beliefs are not the law of the land. Those beliefs do not trump the constitution. A religion can not hold a belief and then force others to follow those beliefs. It is still legal in this country to smoke or drink or give blood or celebrate birthdays or for all couples to marry or a zillion other personal beliefs. While ALL are free to practice their beliefs, religion does not determine constitutional rights. We have s document that does that. Rule of law is based on THAT document not religious dogma.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 24 minutes ago, california boy said: I don't see where you are getting that idea from. No one is preventing anyone from practicing their religion. But if you are suggesting that religious belief can dictate or supersede federal law, then you have a very warped view of what freedom of religion means. ... You've got it precisely, exactly, perfectly backward california boy. Human beings don't derive their rights from government. Rather, government derives its powers from human beings.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Thinking said: It's ironic that an appeal to tradition is coming from a member of a church that rejected traditional Christianity. Non sequitur and red herring.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: The religiously devout still have plenty of freedom of speech, as long as we say the "right" things You are free to say and preach what ever you want! No one cares! I just think it is best if you keep religion out of political discussions because not everyone shares your religious beliefs. Saying "Don't allow gays to get married because God said so" is not wise in a political discussion. It is best to keep religion out of politics, in my opinion. Edited August 2, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kenngo1969 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: You are free to say and preach what ever you want! ... Right. "Say" and "preach." Just don't "live." Heaven forbid religion should actually guide anyone's actions or decisions. 1
Storm Rider Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 8 hours ago, Thinking said: It's ironic that an appeal to tradition is coming from a member of a church that rejected traditional Christianity. And this has what exactly to do with the price of tea in China? Or are you attempting to distort reality to fit your cotton candy, rainbow world of fantasy?
Storm Rider Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, california boy said: You forgot about the legally married couple who are being discriminated against by school A and not allowed to attend, which IS the reason for this law. Discrimination may be a religious value but it is not an American value. The federal government is not going to support discrimination. Now tell me why "legally married couple" would want to go to School A? See, this is where your logic train comes off the track. This couple does not exist and never will. Yet, everyone who does want to attend, in your world, is denied access to a Pell Grant. This is called intolerance and it is also persecution of religions. Edited August 2, 2016 by Storm Rider 1
california boy Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 34 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Now tell me why "legally married couple" would want to go to School A? See, this is where your logic train comes off the track. This couple does not exist and never will. Yet, everyone who does want to attend, in your world, is denied access to a Pell Grant. This is called intolerance and it is also persecution of religions. You do realize your logic train comes off the track from either direction. Why have a policy discriminating against gays when no gays would want to go there i graduated from BYU. If I wanted to do advanced studies why would I not want to go to BYU? I liked the program in my field of study I don't have a problem with the church I support their right to teach whatever they want It is the church that has a problem with me Not everyone who goes to BYU agrees with church teachings.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Right. "Say" and "preach." Just don't "live." Heaven forbid religion should actually guide anyone's actions or decisions. There is no need to add words to my mouth! Stop!
Storm Rider Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: There is no need to add words to my mouth! Stop! Sometimes it is better to add words, if not entire thought processes, to others. I have thought the world would be a better place if we could just stop poor logic or poor thinking. That Satan's plan thing has merit except for the part of who is actually getting to make the choice for everyone else.
Recommended Posts