Trayvon's avengers

[rosey]

Since the young Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, African Americans have been getting revenge for his death... on Caucasians. Why are they beating up white people? Zimmerman is Hispanic.
They beat up this guy,

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/2 ... r-3659891/

A couple days ago some boys beat up a 19 year old white kid, "For Trayon."

And some more African American boys beat up real bad a 80 year old white man.

WHY?

[East of Eden]

The point is, the pendulum has swung

In that case maybe now you know how blacks have felt for the last 300 years.

So...because the blacks of today had grandfathers who were oppressed (and they were) and parents who fought and gained so much (and they did) it is somehow a good thing to return the favor to people who are not guilty of that oppression?

I'm a Mormon. I have many stories of the way Mormons were treated in the nineteenth century. In fact, in the TWENTIETH century, while black people were allowed to serve in elected office, Mormons were not. Reed Smoot, a duly elected US senator from Utah, was refused permission to serve in the office to which he was legally elected BECAUSE HE WAS A MORMON.

Its a bit more complicated than that. From Wikipedia:

"His election sparked a bitter four-year battle in the Senate on whether Smoot was eligible or should be allowed to serve, due to his position as a Mormon apostle. Many were convinced that his association with the church disqualified him from serving in the United States Senate. Only a few years earlier, another prominent Utah Mormon, B.H. Roberts, had been elected to the House of Representatives but was denied his seat on the basis that he practiced plural marriage (polygamy).
Smoot did not practice plural marriage, and the LDS Church had officially renounced the practice in an 1890 Manifesto before Utah became a state. However, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that church leaders continued to secretly approve of new, post-Manifesto plural marriages.[1] As a result, the Senate began an investigation into Smoot's eligibility.[2] The Smoot Hearings began on January 16, 1904. The hearings included exhaustive questioning into the continuation of plural marriage within the state of Utah and the LDS Church, and questions on church teachings, doctrines and history. Although Smoot was not a polygamist, the charge by those opposed to his election to the Senate was that he could not swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States while serving in the highest echelons of an organization that sanctioned law breaking.

There were claims that temple-attending Latter-day Saints took an "oath of vengeance" against America for past grievances. As a leader of the LDS Church, Senator Smoot was accused of taking this oath, which Smoot denied. Five of the U.S. Senators who participated in the investigation agreed, writing, "As to the 'endowment oath,' it is sufficient in this summary to say that the testimony is collated and analyzed in the annexed statement, and thereby shown to be limited in amount, vague, and indefinite in character, and utterly unreliable because of the disreputable and untrustworthy character of the witnesses."[3] Although the majority of the committee recommended that Smoot be removed from office, on February 20, 1907 the Senate defeated the proposal and Smoot was allowed to serve in the Senate. Smoot was reelected in 1908 and continued to serve in the Senate until March 1933 (following his 1932 electoral defeat)."


Smoot served for quite a while, and was an author of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

[East of Eden]

The point is, the pendulum has swung

In that case maybe now you know how blacks have felt for the last 300 years.

Irrelevant, if you're talking about slavery, those who were slaves and those who owned slaved are all dead now. If you go back far enough in history probably most of us have slaves in our past, which was common in the ancient world.

[dianaiad]

The point is, the pendulum has swung

In that case maybe now you know how blacks have felt for the last 300 years.

So...because the blacks of today had grandfathers who were oppressed (and they were) and parents who fought and gained so much (and they did) it is somehow a good thing to return the favor to people who are not guilty of that oppression?

I'm a Mormon. I have many stories of the way Mormons were treated in the nineteenth century. In fact, in the TWENTIETH century, while black people were allowed to serve in elected office, Mormons were not. Reed Smoot, a duly elected US senator from Utah, was refused permission to serve in the office to which he was legally elected BECAUSE HE WAS A MORMON.

Its a bit more complicated than that. From Wikipedia:

"His election sparked a bitter four-year battle in the Senate on whether Smoot was eligible or should be allowed to serve, due to his position as a Mormon apostle. Many were convinced that his association with the church disqualified him from serving in the United States Senate. Only a few years earlier, another prominent Utah Mormon, B.H. Roberts, had been elected to the House of Representatives but was denied his seat on the basis that he practiced plural marriage (polygamy).

Odd, the above doesn't sound all that complicated to me. He was refused permission to take his senate seat for FOUR YEARS because of his religion.

Period.
full stop.

Smoot did not practice plural marriage, and the LDS Church had officially renounced the practice in an 1890 Manifesto before Utah became a state. However, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that church leaders continued to secretly approve of new, post-Manifesto plural marriages.[1] As a result, the Senate began an investigation into Smoot's eligibility.[2] The Smoot Hearings began on January 16, 1904. The hearings included exhaustive questioning into the continuation of plural marriage within the state of Utah and the LDS Church, and questions on church teachings, doctrines and history.

Which was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Although Smoot was not a polygamist, the charge by those opposed to his election to the Senate was that he could not swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States while serving in the highest echelons of an organization that sanctioned law breaking.

There were claims that temple-attending Latter-day Saints took an "oath of vengeance" against America for past grievances. As a leader of the LDS Church, Senator Smoot was accused of taking this oath, which Smoot denied. Five of the U.S. Senators who participated in the investigation agreed, writing, "As to the 'endowment oath,' it is sufficient in this summary to say that the testimony is collated and analyzed in the annexed statement, and thereby shown to be limited in amount, vague, and indefinite in character, and utterly unreliable because of the disreputable and untrustworthy character of the witnesses."[3] Although the majority of the committee recommended that Smoot be removed from office, on February 20, 1907 the Senate defeated the proposal and Smoot was allowed to serve in the Senate. Smoot was reelected in 1908 and continued to serve in the Senate until March 1933 (following his 1932 electoral defeat)."


Smoot served for quite a while, and was an author of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

There is nothing complicated about the above facts; he was investigated and refused permission to take his Senate seat for four years...and Senators are elected to serve seven. He was refused permission for more than half his elected term...and the ONLY senator to have been so refused...only because of his religion. The fact that he was eventually ALLOWED to sit is proof that his religion was the only reason, because obviously he wasn't breaking the law in any way, was he? Indeed, as an apostle (one of the leaders of the church at the time, though the church put him on 'leave,' of sorts, given that it wasn't a good idea for him to lead the church AND be a Senator at the same time...we knew that, even if the government couldn't get that through their heads) it was even more telling that eventually even the bigots had to give in and let him sit. After all, if the church was doing something illegal...if SMOOT was doing something illegal...he would not have been allowed to, ever.

....and the less said about the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, the better. Being a Mormon...even a Mormon apostle...doesn't make one always correct in politics. I mean, shoot....look at our Senate leader now, Harry Reid! (shudder).

..............................on the other hand, good old Harry is my 'go to' guy whenever someone tries to accuse the church of telling it's members what to do, think or say politically.

[Cewakiyelo]

Manslaughter.

I think that if you kill somebody a plea or mitigation of self-defence should be allowed at your trial. You shouldn't be able to just walk away after killing someone on the strength of 'He broke my nose', even if it's true. Killing people is a serious matter.

This killing doesn't meet the definition of manslaughter, it is pure self defense, which in my country is not a crime. In my state you are entitled to use deadly force when you are threatened with great bodily harm, which Zimmerman was. There was no reason to charge him. Really, this happens all the time. Here is a whole list of similar incidents:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

These people should be commended, not charged with a crime.

I disagree with that statement. While you are right that one is entitled to used deadly force when being threatened. However, in this case I see that Zimmerman should be held to a count of no less than manslaughter.

The fact is that Zimmerman called 911 to report suspicious activity on the part of Martin. He told the 911 operator that he was following Martin. The 911 operator then told him to stop following Martin and await the police to do their jobs. Had Zimmerman complied with that directive he would not have the same problem he is facing now. But because he continued to press Martin, Martin then turned and engaged with Zimmerman.

This is like a kid poking a stick at the dog behind the fence. He is told to stop but does not and then ends up bitten. Is it the dogs fault for lacking self control or the kids fault for not following the directive and continuing to tease the dog.

Just because someone has the bulk of the injuries does not mean they were the victim. It can just as easily mean that they were the aggressors but found out that their victim was bigger and badder than themselves. Furthermore, it is not beyond reason to believe that someone would engage in a fight with the intent to kill, allowing their self to receive a few blows to ensure that it looked as if they were the victim and then use a concealed weapon to kill. Thus giving the appearance of self defense.

We have a fight or flight instinct. If you follow someone to the point that your actions become to feel menacing than your may end up with that fight or flight trigger being pulled. If your are a person that when that instinct kicks in, is to fight rather than run, then that is going to happen, a fight will ensue.

If a person is holding a weapon and the police tell him to drop it but they do not and instead continue to press a situation than all expectations are that the person will be shot, and more likely they will shoot to kill. The person is held responsible for the lack of compliance to the request by law enforcement. It is true that the 911 dispatcher was probably not law enforcement however, they are acting as a representative of the law enforcement agency. Thus any injury caused by you to another or to you by another by the disregard of the dispatchers instructions should be heavily considered. In this case that disregard turns Zimmerman from concerned citizen of a neighborhood watch into a vigilante.

Given Trayvon's past criminal record, it is more likely Zimmerman was telling the truth. I think he suspected Trayvon of some kind of crime, followed him, Trayvon figured Zimmerman would get him turned in to the police, so he attacked Zimmerman and told him 'Tonight you're going to die.' No way is that manslaughter.

Martins past does not have any bearing on anything. What he did last year, month, week, or day. If Martin was not in the act of committing battery upon someone Zimmerman had no reason to step in. If we see someone breaking and entering we do not have the right to intercede in any manner other than to report it to the police. The 911 call indicated suspicious activity and that Martin was walking and that Zimmerman was following. If both parties are walking than there is no crime being committed at the time that the call was placed to 911.

For argument sake lets say he was leaving the scene of the crime. Here there is still no crime being committed at the moment. Thus no need to intervene, even if it were appropriate. Zimmerman knew Martin and could identify him so he did not need to intervene. All he needed to do was wait for the police, tell them what he witnessed, tell them who he saw and where he believed they lived. Zimmerman instead ignored 911 dispatch's instruction. Followed Martin where a confrontation occurred which ended in Zimmerman killing Martin.

What Zimmerman did amounts to stalking which ended up in killing. Zimmerman said that Martin was acting suspicious. Suspicious is not the same as committing a crime. If he was committing a crime where is the evidence of that crime that Martin was committing that Zimmerman just had to stop instead of letting the police handle it?

By all appearances Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer but was turned down and attempted to show how good of a cop he would have been and attempted to take the law into his own hands in order to do just that. He wanted to be a hero. There was a reason he did not make it through the screening process for new recruits. It was probably that he did not pass his psych eval as that is more often than not disqualifies someone.

[East of Eden]

The point is, the pendulum has swung

In that case maybe now you know how blacks have felt for the last 300 years.

So...because the blacks of today had grandfathers who were oppressed (and they were) and parents who fought and gained so much (and they did) it is somehow a good thing to return the favor to people who are not guilty of that oppression?

I'm a Mormon. I have many stories of the way Mormons were treated in the nineteenth century. In fact, in the TWENTIETH century, while black people were allowed to serve in elected office, Mormons were not. Reed Smoot, a duly elected US senator from Utah, was refused permission to serve in the office to which he was legally elected BECAUSE HE WAS A MORMON.

Its a bit more complicated than that. From Wikipedia:

"His election sparked a bitter four-year battle in the Senate on whether Smoot was eligible or should be allowed to serve, due to his position as a Mormon apostle. Many were convinced that his association with the church disqualified him from serving in the United States Senate. Only a few years earlier, another prominent Utah Mormon, B.H. Roberts, had been elected to the House of Representatives but was denied his seat on the basis that he practiced plural marriage (polygamy).

Odd, the above doesn't sound all that complicated to me. He was refused permission to take his senate seat for FOUR YEARS because of his religion.

Period.
full stop.

You left out the part where it was questioned whether someone could say an oath to uphold the Constitution while being part of an organization that possibley sanctioned lawbreaking (polygamy). There were certainly times when Mormons were to put it mildly, at odds with the US government, as in the Utah War, etc. Brigham Young was something of a law unto himself. Now, if you want to say that was the ostensible reason but there was anti-Mormon bigotry underlying it, I can agree. We've seen such bigotry openly stated against Romney, IMHO one of the most qualified people to run for POTUS in recent memory. The people today always decrying racial bigotry, real or imagined, were silent on this.

"Smoot did not practice plural marriage, and the LDS Church had officially renounced the practice in an 1890 Manifesto before Utah became a state. However, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that church leaders continued to secretly approve of new, post-Manifesto plural marriages.[1] As a result, the Senate began an investigation into Smoot's eligibility.[2] The Smoot Hearings began on January 16, 1904. The hearings included exhaustive questioning into the continuation of plural marriage within the state of Utah and the LDS Church, and questions on church teachings, doctrines and history.

Which was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

I agree on the part on church teachings, doctrines and history, but the polygamy part is very much the government's business.

There is nothing complicated about the above facts; he was investigated and refused permission to take his Senate seat for four years...and Senators are elected to serve seven. He was refused permission for more than half his elected term...and the ONLY senator to have been so refused...only because of his religion. The fact that he was eventually ALLOWED to sit is proof that his religion was the only reason, because obviously he wasn't breaking the law in any way, was he? Indeed, as an apostle (one of the leaders of the church at the time, though the church put him on 'leave,' of sorts, given that it wasn't a good idea for him to lead the church AND be a Senator at the same time...we knew that, even if the government couldn't get that through their heads) it was even more telling that eventually even the bigots had to give in and let him sit. After all, if the church was doing something illegal...if SMOOT was doing something illegal...he would not have been allowed to, ever.

....and the less said about the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, the better. Being a Mormon...even a Mormon apostle...doesn't make one always correct in politics. I mean, shoot....look at our Senate leader now, Harry Reid! (shudder).

I don't blame you for Reid, who represents all that is wrong with Washington. Just curious, does the Mormon leadership ever comment on Reid like the Catholic Chruch does with their wayward political members?

Hopefully Reid will be senate minority leader after the next election.

[dianaiad]

I agree on the part on church teachings, doctrines and history, but the polygamy part is very much the government's business.

No it isn't. Please show me in the constitution where it's the government's job to tell a religion what IT has to think 'marriage' is?

There is nothing complicated about the above facts; he was investigated and refused permission to take his Senate seat for four years...and Senators are elected to serve seven. He was refused permission for more than half his elected term...and the ONLY senator to have been so refused...only because of his religion. The fact that he was eventually ALLOWED to sit is proof that his religion was the only reason, because obviously he wasn't breaking the law in any way, was he? Indeed, as an apostle (one of the leaders of the church at the time, though the church put him on 'leave,' of sorts, given that it wasn't a good idea for him to lead the church AND be a Senator at the same time...we knew that, even if the government couldn't get that through their heads) it was even more telling that eventually even the bigots had to give in and let him sit. After all, if the church was doing something illegal...if SMOOT was doing something illegal...he would not have been allowed to, ever.

....and the less said about the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, the better. Being a Mormon...even a Mormon apostle...doesn't make one always correct in politics. I mean, shoot....look at our Senate leader now, Harry Reid! (shudder).

I don't blame you for Reid, who represents all that is wrong with Washington. Just curious, does the Mormon leadership ever comment on Reid like the Catholic Chruch does with their wayward political members?

Nope. His politics, his choice. I might not like 'em, but that's politics, not religion.

...........and he does remain very useful in pointing out how stupid people are who are afraid that the church will dictate to LDS politicians how to vote and govern.

(shaking head) In fact, until the Democrats screwed themselves up in Utah, Utah was a fairly solid Democrat state. (thinking...) OK, perhaps not 'solid,' but certainly as 'blue' as, say, Oregon or some of the east coast states. The Democratic administrations just couldn't seem to stop messing with Utah, though; not just 'fly over' country, but 'fly over and aim the yellow ice in the middle" country.

Hopefully Reid will be senate minority leader after the next election.

Well, hope springs eternal, in spite of things, doesn't it?

[East of Eden]

I agree on the part on church teachings, doctrines and history, but the polygamy part is very much the government's business.

No it isn't. Please show me in the constitution where it's the government's job to tell a religion what IT has to think 'marriage' is?

The Constitution doesn't doesn't say anything about polygamy or gay marriage, but the government does have an obligation to uphold existing law, and to make sure elected officials are on board with that also. A religion is free to think what they want, but they aren't free to break the law.

[dianaiad]

I agree on the part on church teachings, doctrines and history, but the polygamy part is very much the government's business.

No it isn't. Please show me in the constitution where it's the government's job to tell a religion what IT has to think 'marriage' is?

The Constitution doesn't doesn't say anything about polygamy or gay marriage, but the government does have an obligation to uphold existing law, and to make sure elected officials are on board with that also. A religion is free to think what they want, but they aren't free to break the law.

And the government is not free to pass a law that interferes with the free exercise of religion.

Your argument is not only specious, but circular. Indeed, you are basically arguing that all congress has to do to make it OK to mess with someone's freedom of religion (or speech, or press, or assembly, or whatever else is in there) is simply to 'pass a law' against such things.

The problem is, the Constitution tells the government what sort of laws it may, and may not, pass. The government may not pass laws which violate freedom of religion; after all, 'freedom of speech' isn't about protecting what people THINK. It's about protecting what they say and do about what they think.

Let's take a look at that amendment, shall we? It's interesting.

Congress shall make no law (There you go...this doctument telling congress what sort of laws IT CANNOT PASS)
respecting an establishment of religion, (OK, Congress can't pass a law that establishes (or in any way registers approval of one religious viewpoint over another, as all the kerfuffle over school prayer and the Ten Commandments in courthouses illustrates)
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (part two of the freedom of religion thing...this is important and will be addressed in a moment, but basically, Congress can't pass a law that tells a religion that it has to act in a way that violates doctrine or beliefs. Exceptions exist, of course, but those are pretty rare and for a specific reason.)
or abridging the freedom of speech, Kinda important...and is important not only to the non-religious, it ties into religion, as well)
or of the press; (slightly different from 'freedom of speech," as recent events are showing)
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, (also ironic, given recent events...
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Like that's doing us any good. ANYway....

Please notice something. Each one of the freedoms and instructions to Congress telling it what laws it MAY NOT PASS are mentioned once.

Except one. Freedom of religion is mentioned twice. Not only telling the government that IT can't establish a religion, but it can't "prohibit the free exercise thereof." Not, please note, Congress shall pass no law that may"prohibit someone's ability to believe something," but the actual EXERCISE of that religion. You know...not 'you have to hide this behind closed doors so that nobody knows you believe something I don't like," or "you can believe anything you wish as long as you don't let anybody KNOW about it.." but "guess what, guys, you can live your religion." We can wear the clothes. We can plant the crosses, glue the bumper stickers, hire who we want, be with the folks who believe as we do, and kick the folks out of the group who don't.

"Freedom of speech" has been consistently interpreted as the freedom to SPEAK, not 'freedom to think." Why does anyone figure that 'freedom of religion' means only 'freedom to believe,' and not 'freedom to exercise" that belief, especially given the very, very clear language in the first amendment?

The exceptions to this freedom of religion have, historically, been about consent and harm. That is, religions which have, as a part of their belief system, human sacrifice will find that to be illegal. Why? Because as a general rule, the sacrifice isn't a willing participant. Courts may force religious parents to allow life saving medical care for their children, because children are not seen as capable of freely choosing to agree to this lack of care; no court will force a legal adult to accept medical care that is against his/her religion. A church which has, as its doctrine, 'you go ahead and steal your neighbor's lawn mower" is going to run afoul of the law, because presumably the neighbor would prefer to keep his lawnmower.

Now you tell me: when you talk about something like, oh....forcing a church to allow a non-believing non member to be a janitor in its sacred Temple...when MEMBERS have to qualify according to strict rules in order to attend, how is that NOT 'prohibiting the free exercise" of a religion?

How is forcing a religion...which, say, has established a school for the express purpose of teaching members and others who AGREE WITH THE RULES OF THE RELIGION because a: those students want such an education and b; they want to associate with people who share their faith (gee, there's a twofer for you; freedom of religion and freedom of assembly) to change those rules because the government thinks that someone else's religious views are better than theirs...how is that NOT 'prohibiting the free exercise" of their faith?

How is forcing a business owner to provide services that he does not advertise and does not offer to an event that violates his/her religious principles...especially when other businesses are equally discriminatory (but in a more politically correct direction) are not just let alone, but lauded...how is that not 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"

I have often used the example of the Kosher catering service. It would be LUDICROUS...and I can pretty much guarantee you...that nobody would be stupid enough to take such a company to court because it refused to cater a Catholic wedding and cook ham. Nobody would sue this Orthodox Kosher catering service if it refused to cater a GAY wedding. Such a lawsuit would be laughed right out of court.

Nobody is suing any business that targets exclusively gay clients because they focus on gay clients..and refuse (say) to photograph 'straight' weddings. Isn't happening, because everybody knows that trying to do so would cause great hilarity in the court system.

....and this is the way things SHOULD be. The first amendment is not about protecting the politically correct. It's about protecting the folks whose views are not popular, 'correct,' or which march with yours, and if you don't figure that out fairly soon, then someday you are going to be the one with the unpopular viewpoint.

How will you justify any outrage you might have then, if someone says to you...well, we just passed a law against what you believe, and the government's job is to enforce the law...but you can still think and believe what you want, don't worry!

[McCulloch]

And the government is not free to pass a law that interferes with the free exercise of religion.

But even that provision is not absolute. If my religion, like the Doukhobors involved public nakedness and arson, I would expect that the government might interfere with its free exercise. If my religion involved killing idolators, I would expect that the government might interfere with its free exercise.

"Freedom of speech" has been consistently interpreted as the freedom to SPEAK, not 'freedom to think." Why does anyone figure that 'freedom of religion' means only 'freedom to believe,' and not 'freedom to exercise" that belief, especially given the very, very clear language in the first amendment?

Agreed.

Now you tell me: when you talk about something like, oh....forcing a church to allow a non-believing non member to be a janitor in its sacred Temple...when MEMBERS have to qualify according to strict rules in order to attend, how is that NOT 'prohibiting the free exercise" of a religion?

Consistency is the key here. If a church allows certain non-believing non-members to perform specific tasks: construction, repair, janitorial but refuses to allow certain other non-believing non-members to perform the same tasks, then I think we might have a legal issue.

How is forcing a religion...which, say, has established a school for the express purpose of teaching members and others who AGREE WITH THE RULES OF THE RELIGION because a: those students want such an education and b; they want to associate with people who share their faith (gee, there's a twofer for you; freedom of religion and freedom of assembly) to change those rules because the government thinks that someone else's religious views are better than theirs...how is that NOT 'prohibiting the free exercise" of their faith?

But any government funding of such a school would be a violation of the establishment clause. Go ahead and have your privately funded schools to teach only to those people who share your particular faith.

[dianaiad]

And the government is not free to pass a law that interferes with the free exercise of religion.

But even that provision is not absolute. If my religion, like the Doukhobors involved public nakedness and arson, I would expect that the government might interfere with its free exercise. If my religion involved killing idolators, I would expect that the government might interfere with its free exercise.

I did address that issue in that post, McColluch. All such laws seem to revolve around 'harm' and 'consent,' which is actually very consistent WITH the first amendment; if any religion does harm to another without his/her consent, isn't that interfering with that OTHER'S free exercise of his/her beliefs?

As in...the idolaters have the right to worship as they wish without interference, too.

"Freedom of speech" has been consistently interpreted as the freedom to SPEAK, not 'freedom to think." Why does anyone figure that 'freedom of religion' means only 'freedom to believe,' and not 'freedom to exercise" that belief, especially given the very, very clear language in the first amendment?

Agreed.

Now you tell me: when you talk about something like, oh....forcing a church to allow a non-believing non member to be a janitor in its sacred Temple...when MEMBERS have to qualify according to strict rules in order to attend, how is that NOT 'prohibiting the free exercise" of a religion?

Consistency is the key here. If a church allows certain non-believing non-members to perform specific tasks: construction, repair, janitorial but refuses to allow certain other non-believing non-members to perform the same tasks, then I think we might have a legal issue.

The question here (specifically raised) was that the church does NOT allow non-believing non-members to perform specific tasks: construction, repair, janitorial (well, construction we do, but that's before the Temple is dedicated. the others? No. We do allow emergency non-member personnel in when required: ambulance and firefighters...and though this has never happened to my knowledge, we wouldn't keep the cops out) The question then is why should the government have the right to force us to hire non-believing non-members--or even members without recommends--if we don't want to?

It's quite a minefield being laid here.

How is forcing a religion...which, say, has established a school for the express purpose of teaching members and others who AGREE WITH THE RULES OF THE RELIGION because a: those students want such an education and b; they want to associate with people who share their faith (gee, there's a twofer for you; freedom of religion and freedom of assembly) to change those rules because the government thinks that someone else's religious views are better than theirs...how is that NOT 'prohibiting the free exercise" of their faith?

But any government funding of such a school would be a violation of the establishment clause. Go ahead and have your privately funded schools to teach only to those people who share your particular faith.

Thank you for your permission. The problem is, it's not your permission that is the problem here, is it?

BTW, I also addressed the issue of government funding, and agree with you. Mind you, I would exempt Pell grants, because they are assigned to the student as a result of his/her financial need, and the qualification (and any money over the tuition) goes to students, not the schools. I would also exempt specific grants given for specific purposes to specific faculty members, such as, for instance, grants to fund research into a specific medical treatment or something, because that has nothing to do with the social/administrative function of the school. Such things should be assigned on the merits of the proposal, not as a 'hook' to get control of the school culture. Other than that?

Absolutely. If the school wants to take government funding 'for the arts' or something, they accept the control along with the cash.