Jump to content
IGNORED

'We're Becoming Second-Class Citizens': Huge Implications of Year's Biggest Religious Rights Case


nebula

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,868
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,620
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Just curious - I wonder if the playground in question is open to all (like a public school playground would be); or if it is fenced in and locked and only open to those children who attend school there.  The reason this occurred to me is that when my grandchildren visit (they attend school two hours away), we go to the local elementary school playground even though they don't attend there.

The answer to that question might sway the outcome, I would think.  Although for liability issues, I would understand if the playground was limited to only those children attending that school.

Blessings,

-Ed

it is my understanding from the radio this morning that the school let the community use the playground after school hours, but during school it was only for the students safety that they limited it to student use.....     it makes sense so I pretty much accepted that they knew what they were talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

4 minutes ago, other one said:

it is my understanding from the radio this morning that the school let the community use the playground after school hours, but during school it was only for the students safety that they limited it to student use.....     it makes sense so I pretty much accepted that they knew what they were talking about.

Thanks, OO.

That might be a point in their favor in getting the funds, then.

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

12 hours ago, Running Gator said:

So, is giving a religion money promoting it or favoring it?

The "religion" is not asking for money, and giving the money to the school to add safety to their playground is not giving money to promote a religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were this church I would be very careful. When an entity starts taking government funds, they open the door for government interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

The Constitution states, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The separation of church and state  remark by Jefferson appeared in a letter to the Danbury Baptists who feared a state-run Church and Jefferson assured them that there was wall of separation that prohibited such a thing from occurring.   It had nothing to do with things like this issue about the playground. 

Giving money to a Christian school for the purpose of improving its infrastructure is not establishing a religion.  It is not showing undue favor to a Church or denomination.   Christians are not a subset of American citizenry; they are Americans.   If this had to do with the government funding a religious practice, the issue might be different.  But simply giving money to provide a better playground should not create a constitutional conundrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...