December 26th, 2003, 08:56 AM
war against christ
The Supreme Court is about to hear a challenge from a former divinity student who was denied a state scholarship because he wanted to study for ministry.
The Davey case is critical, since the high court ruled last year that it is constitutional to allow parents to use public money to send their children to private religious schools. So, in this case, the question isn't whether the government can use public money to underwrite religious education. The Court has already decided it can.
U.S. Solicitor General Olson told the Court that "the clear and unmistakable message is that religion and preparation for a career in the ministry is disfavored and discouraged." He added that "the person who wants to believe in God or wants to have a position of religious leadership is the one that's singled out for discriminatory treatment."
The real point is this: It isn't religion in general that is under fire in America. There are all kinds of religions that are untouchable. Government-funded schools allow students to study whatever religion they wish – just as long as it isn't Christianity.
Myself...im a born again pagan, but i believe what their saying is true
Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”
January 5th, 2004, 07:32 PM
One of the problems arising out of this religion stuff is that there are so many decisions that have to be made on so many levels. It's not as simple as supreme court says yes or no. I personally believe that government funding should not be used to fund a religious education. Private schools are fine if a definite need for private schooling can be shown, but other than that, hell no.
I went to public schools for most of my life (I did spend 2 years at a private military school, but my parents paid, and it was a punishment, not an education.)
I don't want my tax dollars paying for religion, I want them paying for education.
Real security doesn't come with an installer.
January 5th, 2004, 07:42 PM
I would agree with you if this wasn't about scholorships to college. I don't have a problem making public scholorships available, in a competative fashion, to a young adult who wishes to pursue religious studies, over something like law or liberal arts.
January 5th, 2004, 11:26 PM
yea id havto agree with you guys... i dont want my familys tax dollars going to teach religion related stuff, however if it is goign to be teached all the major religions haveto be teached, you cant teach Judaism and Islam but not Christianity, if you teach any one of those you haveto teach all the other major world religions
January 6th, 2004, 01:35 AM
I don't see anything wrong with getting a scholarship for a degree in religion, regardless of which one it is. It's denying the guy of an education because he wants to major in a religous field. Government funding should be used. It's no different than getting a degree in anything else. The guy should be able to study whatever religion he wanted to.
It dosen't matter if he changes his major to ministry. It's for educational purposes and that is what alot of people aren't seeing in this court case. They're makeing too big of a deal that it has something to do with religion, and that frankly is none of their business and shouldn't have any effect on their decision. Fork it over Uncle Sam, he qualified for the scholarship fair and square. It's not religion, it's the study of ancient culture, history, and philosophy.
The case began in 1999, when Davey qualified for a Promise Scholarship, a state-funded program for high-achieving students
of modest means... Once it was awarded, it was taken away for the single reason that he wanted to use it to study for the ministry.
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.
January 8th, 2004, 08:48 AM
Alas, this seems to be the trend in our society today.
For instance, [in Australia] there has been much controversy about having nativity scenes/playing secular carols in malls across the country. Doesnt sound too bad at first, but then you need to realize that it is a *christian* nation, celebrating a *christian* festival.
Minority groups are ok, but as soon as they start causing disruption to the majority, things collapse. We are seeing the death of our own customs at the hands of aliens. I would like to see a Western Christian visit a Muslim country and protest about the "Morning call to prayer".
Screw multiculturism, it is doomed to failure. But by all means, yay multiracism.
January 8th, 2004, 03:46 PM
Nicely put Abtronic. Multiculturism cannot exist when each unit seeks to eliminate public display of one's own custom and insist on forced separation. Another thread here at AO included language, I stated if there is no common mechanism for communication then that action to institutionalize multiple languages. supports separation of races and separation of cultures. If one doesn't want to join a multinational community, why leave the original culture? Why separate one self from the society they live in? I don't get it.
Multi-culture can only exist when customs are joined and accepted. You don't have to like "Silent Night" to respect it and accept those people as neighbors because the VAST majority of people like it when shopping. Those who seek to destroy multiculturism through separation lose my respect. What if I said a made up holiday in the 60s offends me? Or "Feliz Navidad" offends me? I get squashed because a minority who doesn't even give a rat’s ass about the flag or this country or my views has precedence to destroy my own inherent beliefs over there own. Even, EVEN though I am resolutely not Christian by my own thoughts and only seek to allow a culture I have little understanding of keep some of they’re values or traditions. I like Silent Night, Felix Navidad, and a mesh of other traditions not of my own Irish and Scottish decent because..... they are fun and make me smile. To oppose those things of diversity in the world is extremely selfish.
Some would have a world void of diversity and color while thinking they are protecting freedom when in reality they destroy it and create there own example of a black and white world devoid of feeling and emotion, with a dictionary of colorful and traditional words removed because it’s not politically correct to have the word “God” in there or “Hanukah” or “Christ-anything” or even the words “inspiring” “beautiful”and “diverse”
PS, if one said anything about morning prayer in a Muslim country, even when it woke you up every single day when all you want to do is sleep sleep sleep… the people might just break into your house and have a “word” with you, for the selfish audacity to think you could have the nerve to insult them. In fact in Afghanistan and Iran you would be thrown in jail then executed to a cheering crowd (they don’t share my diversity feelings of union). Or you could choose to join with them and wave on their way even though you choose to not partake in their belief or think it is evil. Buy a nice man coffee while waiting on the bus and call him “abi”. I choose respect.
Another speech I quess.
January 9th, 2004, 03:42 PM
The main problem with the whole case is that they Granted then took away the scholarship. If you are to have such "filters" apply BEFORE you grant them. Otherwise, be ready for legal challenges.
January 10th, 2004, 04:23 AM
I have no problem whatever with someone receiving a scholarship to study for the ministry. I also have no problem with prayer in schools, if it's done silently. I think that, right now, the entire focus of the anti religious zealots is against Christianity. I was invited to a Christmas play by our neighbors several weeks ago.
There were generic, non religious Christmas carols, a nice little play that featured absolutely nothing whatever about Christ. It did have Father Frost and the Queen of something or other, both pagan entities. There was also no CHRISTmas on any poster or sign in the gymnasium. Every reference to Christmas was Xmas.
Anyway, I also have got to question why ONE person can force the removal of anything religious, speaking of the 10 Commandment monument in Alabama or wherever in the South. A few years ago, in Santa Fe NM, two people forced a change in the City Seal, which had a cross on it and had been Santa Fe's seal for nearly a century. Others did the same thing in Las Cruces NM, even going so far as to want the name of the city changed. Las Cruces means The Crosses. That didn't work, but the seal was change there too. How come nobody has noticed or spoken out about Congress and the Senate beginning with a prayer? What about In God We Trust on our money?
Enough. I'm a practicing Catholic, but believe in the separation of Church and State. Also, I went to parochial schools 1st thru 12th grade, so maybe my opinion is a little clouded. That was a long, long time ago, when the nuns wore habits.
January 12th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Would it surprise you that I think the universe is billions of years old, that mankind most likely evolved from lower species of animal and at the same time speak to preserve and apply freedom of speech to Christianity? And state that 90 percent of what goes on is simple BS in the US and that I see religious oppression bleeding forth from many angles and that people are blind to their own form of fascism and they won't dare acknowledge it for fear of battling against the wind of popular belief? Then...
At the same time openly speak against the 10 commandments monument, not because it was in a park, or public square or school, but because it was in a building representative of justice, and that the scales of justice should balance with the non-Christian population, because that is a place where their own freedoms could be revoked? That under god or not, they have equal representation and delivery of the bill or rights, justice and the constitution?
Public parks or just that, "Public" even if given money from federal sources they are public in nature and subject to rights and freedoms given to public forums.