More fun with guns.

[piece-itpete]

LMAO!!

Originally Posted by mpholland

.....
I wouldn't imagine that a church would need to use a school as a facility as the church itself would usually suffice.

Originally Posted by Boreas

The problem is as I stated it. Religious denominations, groups, etc, which enjoy tax exempt status have no business utilizing tax payer-funded facilities. It's a clear violation of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. ....

Here in Ohio churches occasionally rent space in schools for services. Early on churches often doubled as city halls, until they built one. Also some churches are polling places. Nothing like voting for abortion while God's staring at you!

So not so clear.

People miss the point of 'freedom' as the Founders saw it. They meant, mind your business.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Here in Ohio churches occasionally rent space in schools for services. Early on churches often doubled as city halls, until they built one. Also some churches are polling places. Nothing like voting for abortion while God's staring at you!

So not so clear.

I don't think churches or church schools are used anywhere I've ever lived - except maybe Virginia - and I don't actually know how I'd feel about that. It is/would be using church facilities for secular purposes, the opposite of what I was referring to but still an "iffy" commingling of church and state interests.

I have the same ambivalence about churches renting schools for the holding of services. Yes, they're paying for the use of the school but it's still using state facilities for religious purposes. If they have to rent a facility, why not a public one like.... oh, I dunno, a union hall or a VFW? Or! Why doesn't some other church, in a spirit of ecumenism, offer the use of their facilities gratis?

People miss the point of 'freedom' as the Founders saw it. They meant, mind your business.

Pete

It's a shame that the Fundies don't act accordingly when it comes to other religions.

John

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by Boreas

By the way, this question has been asked a couple of times in this thread but, I think, never answered. Maybe if I ask it again someone will answer it.

If these hunter safety classes aren't taught by the local school system, who does teach them?

The Richmond Rod & Gun Club does. People come from all around to use this place. The hunting classes are at the bottom, the youth just above it. Here is the Yelp link.



Carl

[mpholland]

I believe that separation of church and state has been greatly misinterpreted. I don't think it was intended to mean you can't pray in school, use the term God, or have a Christmas tree. I believe the intents were church can't rule and government can't preach.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I believe that separation of church and state has been greatly misinterpreted. I don't think it was intended to mean you can't pray in school, use the term God, or have a Christmas tree. I believe the intents were church can't rule and government can't preach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

Hi Mp, This is a pretty good source of information on the history and interpetation of the fairly accepted view of what the concept is. I'm not sure it's so easy to have religious celebration in a public school. You can't help but hurt some other citizen's feelings or offend them by having religious symbology displayed on govt. property. To change all of this would require a constitutional amendment. That would be a very hard thing to accomplish but have at it. Get a petition going and do it. In my opinion that would result in an actual theocracy here and those kinds of governments have been tried before with disasterous results. Your only option would be private schools based on your brand of religion and those already receive tax exempt status. If you want to send your kids there, that's your perogative and no I don't belive you should get your taxes back to pay for what I personally consider an ill conceived education. The curriculae are often short on science for one and promote less empathy for your fellow citizens who happen to not share your particular faith. I'm not saying it's impossible to achieve as Catholic schools seem to have been able to thread that needle somewhat sucessfully but the newer versions of Christianity have less history of the missteps involved in theocratical government and education. For the record in case you're interested- I was raised a Methodist and still subscribe to that brand of Protestant Christianity in my own way.

Sorry for the rambling post but I believe that better discourse can be achieved here, (without the backbiting and personal attacks that are becoming routine here,) by spelling out why we think as we do. Many times of late we are seeing far too much acrimony rather than discourse and exchange of ideas. It is increasingly becoming tedious rather than spirited debate and it has come from all sides. Maybe we need our own constitution ala 'all politics and no attitude'? Naw, that'll never work... Not in a million years. We could self police our own and simply shun anyone who won't play ball as a start and just maybe we can do it.
Hell if I know. Respectfully, Bob

[d-ray657]

The First Amendment most certainly protects the ability of one to pray, to use the word God and to have a Christmas tree. We enjoy those rights more completely when the government is not prescribing the prayers, defining the meaning of God, or mandating Christmas trees.

If you have an authority figure in a public school requiring the kids to pray each morning, you have a situation where the government has stepped into the role of the church, which is clearly contrary to the prohibition against government establishment of religion. If you have kid whispering "Oh Lord, help me get through this test," you have a private expression of religious faith, which no public official should proscribe in any way.

Folks can be very dogmatic about their religious beliefs. For a democracy to operate, however, there must be accommodation of differing views and compromise. Dogma and compromise do not coexist very well. That's as good a reason as any to keep the state out of the church and the church out of the state.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

I grew up in Quebec and the catholic and protestant school kids were not exactly buddy buddy. What was even worse was the language problem. Catholic schoold were predominantly French speaking, protestant schools predominantly English speaking. Not to swift foe Irish catholics or French spoeaking hugenots

Originally in the colonial days here the Churh of England was dominant. If you did not attend Sunday service, and could not prove the reason was that you were daethly ill, you spent a day or two in the stocks. Well if you happened to be a Methodist that really did not sit to well. That was the way it was in Virginia but I imagine the Quakers in Massachusets were any more friendly to non Quakers

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by bobabode

... Respectfully, Bob

Respectfully? RESPECTFULLY??! I, sir, take umbrage to your remark. Pistols at dawn!



Rob one of my favorites from very early colonial times was sewing the mouth shut for taking Gods name in vain.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I grew up in Quebec and the catholic and protestant school kids were not exactly buddy buddy. What was even worse was the language problem. Catholic schoold were predominantly French speaking, protestant schools predominantly English speaking. Not to swift foe Irish catholics or French spoeaking hugenots

Originally in the colonial days here the Churh of England was dominant. If you did not attend Sunday service, and could not prove the reason was that you were daethly ill, you spent a day or two in the stocks. Well if you happened to be a Methodist that really did not sit to well. That was the way it was in Virginia but I imagine the Quakers in Massachusets were any more friendly to non Quakers

Do you mean Puritans, Rob? Quakers were mostly in Pennsylvania, I think, and were pretty tolerant (so they themselves would be tolerated).

Religious tolerance was a very mixed bag in the American Colonies. Your (and my) State of Maryland was founded as a haven for British Catholics who were brutally persecuted in Anglican England. Because they were so sensitive to persecution they passed a law in 1649 titled The Maryland Toleration Act. It mandated the free practice of religion for anyone..... as long as they worshiped the Trinity. On the other hand, anyone who denied the Divinity of Christ could be put to death.

It strikes me that a law like that would be entirely satisfactory to some of our current crop of Christians.

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Respectfully? RESPECTFULLY??! I, sir, take umbrage to your remark. Pistols at dawn!




Pete

You talkin' to me? Yew TALKIN' TO ME? No pistolas for me but I'll arm rassle you left handed, any day! Right arm is still phucked but my left is fine..betcha I break your left arm into little pieces Pete... "That's the hand you use for... well, never mind."Dylan