Comments about ‘Editorial: Evicting religion’

Good editorial, good point. We pride ourselves in being progressive and diverse in our modern age. Jim Crow is over, racism is gone and we are hyper-sensitive to its possible return. But there is more to being progressive and liberal than simply having prejudice against a different group than the KKK.

I wonder i this opinion piece would read the same if the religion being "evicted" was Satanism or some other non-Judeo-Christian faith.

The words, "an establishment of religion" refers to an existing church or organization, not to "THE establishment of religion" which would mean creating a new church or organization.

The people who debated the words of the Constitution knew the difference between the word, "an" and the word, "the". They chose the word that meant what they intended.

Today, in our illiterate society, people are so ill-educated that they no longer know the difference between those two words.

What do the words, "free exercise" mean? Has New York restricted the free exercise of religion?

Ignorance of the Constitution breeds problems. Those who assumed authority to ban worship acted without regard to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Not only was religion attacked, but the right of free speech was violated. When a photo of a crucifix placed in a container of urine was sponsored by the National Endowment of the Art and when that photo was declared by the court to be "protected speech", surely hymns sung to God must also be seen as protected speech.

The fundamental right guaranteed to each of us to worship and to speak without interference and without restriction is being infringed.

@furry

Actually, if thee was a group of Wiccans who felt they were being evicted, I'm willing to be New York would bend over backwards to support them. Lets face it, when people now days have their issues with religion, i don't hear complaints against Hinduism, Shintoism, Daoism, or a variety of other eastern or non-judao christian groups.

That the claim is they are trying to protect impressionable young minds is even better. They are basically saying that the school should choose what they learn, thus limiting what they are "capable" of understanding. It is plain and simple hypocrisy.

The fact of life that churches refuse to admit, is that churches and religions are commercial business operations with the intent and purpose of owning and controlling the wealth of their members.

While they vehemently deny this, it is the nature of their being as seen by non members. And they have not ever shown this to be untrue. Throughout history and even today, churches erect huge magnificent buildings mainly on the poverty inflicted upon their members.

Not satisfied with the special treatment given them by the American government, they feign persecution to gain even more. Claiming the ownership of the meaning of words, like marriage, Christmas, and such.

As Americans we would not deny anyone the right and freedom to think, believe and worship as he pleases, but their continued din makes it awfully hard to not have negative thoughts about their motives.

'In both cases, only religious groups would be subject to discrimination, with non-religious community organizations allowed access to the facilities.' - article

Calling something discrimiantion...

does not make it so.

As, are there not...houses of worship?

Church, Temple, Synogoge (I know, I spelled it wrong) and Mosque...

and now, we MUST use community centers, for religious worship?

I will agree that members of certian groups are PART OF those communities, but to get a federally funded house of worship?

2 things:

1) We cannot favor ONE faith, as America has done in it's history. Crosses on freeways, 10 commandments on court houses.

This does not offer 'free' religion...

it FAVOR Judeo-christian faiths, OVER any other.

The hypothetical scenrio's that religion 'would' support other faiths...

does not reflect, history.

**'Federal judge dismisses Summum suit against Pleasant Grove' - By Dennis Romboy - DSNews - 06/04/10

2) Why should my tax dollars go to FURTHER worship for religion...

when religion is tax exempt? And can use those tax dollars...

to legislate my life?

**'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' - By Lynn Arave - By Dsnews - 02/03/09

That, is theocracy.

Ok. Last point about tax dollars and religious discrimination:

*Catholic charities ends Illinois adoption civil unions dispute By Sophia Tareen AP Published by the DSNews 11/15/11

The group had wished to continue its state contracts, while also referring unmarried couples who want to be adoptive or foster parents to other agencies, citing principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
The state of Illinois had said that longstanding practice is discriminatory, a violation of the new law, which allows unmarried couples gay or straight to legally enter into civil unions.' - article

**i.e. the catholic charity advocated ONLY for civil unions and THEN cited gay couples were not married to factually deny adoption gay couples, AFTER they had advocated AGAINST gay marriage!

Tithing dollars, are fine. A religion can do whatever they want with tithing dollars.

Tax dollars, are NOT tithing dollars.

As, you canont discriminate against the very same FEDERAL American public...

that put that federal American dollar, in your pocket.

It seems to me that people ignore the actual article in hopes of giving religion, specifically Christian, a black eye. The article was actually clear about a few factors that are being ignored.

First, these church groups pay for their use of the schools and public meeting facilities. They rent the location for meetings. They aren't being given access for free. In addition, they provide extra service in the form of cleaning and lending of their own equipment to the school for the school's use. They do these without the expectation of funds.

Second. Groups like the NAACP, OWS, NRA, Tea Party, and even the GLBT exist on the funding of the members of their groups. If these groups are allow to meet and assemble, why not a church? To say that you are worried about the "impressionable" minds of the youth means that you need to do no teaching to ensure they aren't being forced.

There is no logical reason to deny these groups access to locations they pay rent on. Unless of course you have a bone to pick with religion. In which case, you are DISCRIMINATING!

@Pagan: The column clearly says that these congregations are RENTING the buildings. As long as any religion gets the same opportunity and pays a rent consistent with the free market rate, then how is that getting a "federally funded house of worship"? If I was a NYC taxpayer I would be outraged that the school board was throwing away an opportunity to get more school funding by charging rent on Sunday.

'@Pagan: The column clearly says that these congregations are RENTING the buildings. As long as any religion gets the same opportunity and pays a rent consistent with the free market rate, then how is that getting a "federally funded house of worship"?' - Invisible Hand | 11:03 a.m. Jan. 31, 2012

I have already addressed this issue with you.

I will do so again, with my last post, so I hope you are paying attention.

Two words. Religion is:

Tax

Exempt.

Let me get this straight.....

The people of New York want to
Allow Christians to worship in Publically owned buildings.
but
NOT allow Muslims to build a Cultural Center which they would own outright?

and to
Mike Richards | 7:44 a.m. Jan. 31, 2012
South Jordan, Utah

Pipe down.
No one is attacking the Constitution.

It is the Government's duty to see that there is no favortism.
Either EVERYONE gets to use Schools for worship
or
No one gets to use Schools for worship.

it's called "Equality"

BTW - they threw out the Boy Scouts from using Public Schools long before this happened.

@Furry1993
I wonder if offense over this opinion piece would read the same if the organization being "evicted" was Planned Parenthood.

@Pagan
The other organizations allowed to use the schools are also tax exempt; therefore according to your logic, taxpayers are subsidizing them too and therefore you are clearly advocating discrimination based solely upon religion.

@Pagan: Explain to me how a tax-exempt organization is being federally subsidized if they pay rent to use a school but not subsidized if they buy their own building? You can argue that the tax exempt status amounts to a subsidy, although I disagree. But what does renting a building have to do with it? Do you think they wouldn't exist if they didn't rent a building? The issue here is not tax exempt status but rather renting a public building.

@LDS liberal

actually if yo go back and look at the poll numbers at the time you will see the people that actually live in New York City did support the muslim center. The people protesting where a bunch of outsiders egged on by faux news and their less then honest friends.

It is the same here as I am sure it is in Utah where everyone tries to lump everything into one big stereotype to rail against. These issues look at lot different from the ground then they do from the far removed worlds that people like the ones that wrote this editorial see it from. I would dare to venture a guess that none of them have ever actually lived in New York City and no long island and new Jersey are not the city.

To Counter Intelligence | 11:51 a.m. Jan. 31, 2012
Salt Lake City, UT
@Furry1993
I wonder if offense over this opinion piece would read the same if the organization being "evicted" was Planned Parenthood
---------------------

That comment has no merit. Planned Parenthood isn't a religion.

To Mike Richards | 7:44 a.m. Jan. 31, 2012
South Jordan, Utah
The words, "an establishment of religion" refers to an existing church or organization, not to "THE establishment of religion" which would mean creating a new church or organization.

--------------------------

Once again you deliberately and willfully mis-state the import and meaning of the First Amendment to the US Constitutionh. "Establishment of religion" refers BOTH to an existing church or organization AND actions by the government which would create/establish a religion OR give one religion precedence or preference over another.

Mike -- I know you're saying what you honestly think it means and/or what you want it to mean. That doesn't make what you say correct (and what you say is NOT correct). Please -- really study the constitution with someone who knows its breadth and depth, not just its surface meaning. It's a magnificent document, and your shallow knowledge of it short-changes you.

There's a glaring omission from this editorial. There is no mention that this case has already been litigated and the 2nd Circuit Appeals court sided with the school board. I think that's an important part of the story that's been conveniently left out.

Here is the question I would like answered: Is there something special about a church building or is it just another building? If a church building is special, why? What makes it so? Is a church building more special than a grocery store? Is it more special than a library?

We have been told in numerous court cases all across the United States that zoning laws should be waived for church buildings - that height and space and use restrictions should not apply because of the nature of church buildings.

What is this nature that they should be treated differently from any other building private or public?

What is it that makes a church special?

furry' "That comment has no merit. Planned Parenthood isn't a religion"
Your statement kills your argument, You imply a non-religous organization can rent the public buildings, but a religous organization can not. That is discrimination based on one charateristic of the organization. What happened to the right of free assembly. A few of these post advocate, that a religous group can not meet together in a public park, a religous group can not take a group bus tour of a national park. A religous group can't kneel in prayer on the sidewalk.

I can see no reason why a religious congregation cannot simply rent space for meetings. What a silly then for the authroities to do.