Churches Not Allowed to Rent Public School Place, Unions Can

[East of Eden]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/02/10/b ... or-unions/

This is rightly being challenged. How is this endorsement when the churches are renting the space? If 70 worship communities of different faiths and Christian denominations are renting space, which one is being established? Does the NYC school system have so much money they can't use extra?

Anybody want to defend this?

[dianaiad]

IMHO, lots of atheists are that way due to being raised ignorant of religion, kind of like if you never taught a kid math they'd be bad at math.

You shouldn't trust your opinion. Actually, atheists have shown to be more knowlegable than theists about religion...

That's possible. What sources do you use to establish that, though?

See, your comment is a perfect example of why theists are generally ignorant of their reliigon - they go by their feelings and opinions.

I bet you have come to your 'deep' thoughts about your religion without learning Greek, Hebrew or ancient history...

I bet you just read the Bible, heard a few good sermons and felt it in your heart that it was all true.

I don't go for that kind of unreliable opinion chasing.

No, you certainly do not.

[Ooberman]

IMHO, lots of atheists are that way due to being raised ignorant of religion, kind of like if you never taught a kid math they'd be bad at math.

You shouldn't trust your opinion. Actually, atheists have shown to be more knowlegable than theists about religion...

That's possible. What sources do you use to establish that, though?

See, your comment is a perfect example of why theists are generally ignorant of their reliigon - they go by their feelings and opinions.

I bet you have come to your 'deep' thoughts about your religion without learning Greek, Hebrew or ancient history...

I bet you just read the Bible, heard a few good sermons and felt it in your heart that it was all true.

I don't go for that kind of unreliable opinion chasing.

No, you certainly do not.

Were Jesus, Paul and the Apostles extremists? Or were they typical Christians?

Are you more like the lukewarm Christians commonly found in the pews on Christmas Eve and every other Sunday, or more like the Apostles?


Your answer probably determines, then, whether you are an extremist or not.

I don't get Faithheads. On one hand they want everyone to know how seriously they take their Faith, then when pointed out they are in a small percentage, suddenly want to reject their level of Faith...

What gives?

[East of Eden]

IMHO, lots of atheists are that way due to being raised ignorant of religion, kind of like if you never taught a kid math they'd be bad at math.

You shouldn't trust your opinion. Actually, atheists have shown to be more knowlegable than theists about religion...

That's possible. What sources do you use to establish that, though?

See, your comment is a perfect example of why theists are generally ignorant of their reliigon - they go by their feelings and opinions.

I bet you have come to your 'deep' thoughts about your religion without learning Greek, Hebrew or ancient history...

I bet you just read the Bible, heard a few good sermons and felt it in your heart that it was all true.

I don't go for that kind of unreliable opinion chasing.

No, you certainly do not.

Were Jesus,

Jesus Christ is God, so it is rather silly to compare him to a fininte, fallen Christian.

Paul and the Apostles extremists? Or were they typical Christians?

Are you more like the lukewarm Christians commonly found in the pews on Christmas Eve and every other Sunday, or more like the Apostles?

Richard Dawkins goes to church Christmas and Easter, does that make him a lukewarm atheist?

[East of Eden]

Clearly, my going to church with my parents doesn't make me a Christian Extremist if I don't believe the religion.

Clearly. That is, however, not what you claimed, nor is it what I said you claimed.

Also, if I go for the social reasons, it doesn't make me a Christian Extremist.

That is, however, not what you claimed, nor is it what I said you claimed.

If I go to help in the soup kitchen, it doesn't make me a Christian Extremist.

That is, however, not what you claimed, nor is it what I said you claimed.

Do you understand the difference I am trying to point out? If not, ask, don't argue for the sake of arguing.

I do. You claimed that an extremist is one who goes to church regularly because of religious reasons, not social reasons. Which is what I said you wrote; that you believe that Christians who go to church because they actually believe in the religion are extremist.

Seems simple and clear to me. That is what you wrote.

I think what bothers you is that you fall under the category of extremist.

I do? Well, I suppose if I accepted your definition of 'extremist,' I do. Since neither I....nor anybody else I can imagine, defines 'extremist' that way, I rather doubt that I am.

Personally, I believe that anybody who goes to church regularly and does NOT believe what is being taught there deserves quite another title.

Why would this bother you? It means you are passionate about your Faith and God?

Oh, Ooberman, have YOU stopped beating your wife?

Clearly you are a fanatic, or extremist... I'm trying to understand now why this bothers you?

Do you wish you didn't have so much Faith?

Faith isn't something you have. It's something you do. Belief is what you have, and either you have it or you don't....wishing doesn't much enter into it.

But here, let me make a small argument about 'extreme.'

ex·treme [ik-streem] Show IPA adjective, ex·trem·er, ex·trem·est, noun
adjective
1.
of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2.
utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3.
farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4.
farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5.
exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.

Now, if 'extreme' means the above, then something that a majority (or even a significant minority) believes or practices cannot then, BY that very definition, be 'extreme.' Nor can those who participate in those beliefs be called 'extremists.'

Now me, I'm not an extremist...except perhaps in my aversion to mosquitoes, but even then I am not an advocate of eliminating the entire species; just those who want to bite ME.

(shrug) Indeed, given your opinion of religion, etc., I think that you probably fit the bill more than most.

The average religionist doesn't go online to defend their Faith. Generally, only extremists do.

And you could say the same about the average person who doesn't believe in God. I guess that makes you an extremist of an already extreme position (atheist).

[Ooberman]

And you could say the same about the average person who doesn't believe in God. I guess that makes you an extremist of an already extreme position (atheist).

What is with the Tu Quoque's with you guys?!?!?!

Yes, it's possible there are atheist extremists on this very board! OMG!

But how does that help your argument?

A: Christians with 100 IQ are of average intelligence

X: But some atheists might have 100 IQ, too! Haha! Gotcha!

A: Um? Apparently you aren't one of the Christians with 100 IQ or above....


I just don't understand why devout Christians wouldn't WANT to be considered extremists, since God spits out the lukewarm ones.


My suspicion is the Christians here love to argue more than they love God.

[dianaiad]

And you could say the same about the average person who doesn't believe in God. I guess that makes you an extremist of an already extreme position (atheist).

What is with the Tu Quoque's with you guys?!?!?!

Yes, it's possible there are atheist extremists on this very board! OMG!

But how does that help your argument?

A: Christians with 100 IQ are of average intelligence

X: But some atheists might have 100 IQ, too! Haha! Gotcha!

A: Um? Apparently you aren't one of the Christians with 100 IQ or above....


I just don't understand why devout Christians wouldn't WANT to be considered extremists, since God spits out the lukewarm ones.


My suspicion is the Christians here love to argue more than they love God.

How about because in the English language, "extremist' has connotations that involve insanity, violence, and the obvious definition of 'you can't go past here' that 'extreme' holds within it?

After all, you don't call something 'extreme,' if you can go farther down the spectrum of belief, can you? "Extreme" is a little like "unique." There are no possible degrees of uniqueness, after all; it's a binary set. Either one is unique, or one is not. One cannot be 'more unique,' or 'extremely unique.' Either one is one of a kind or one is not.

But you use 'extreme' in so loose a manner as to make it utterly meaningless; that is, to you, the majority of theists are 'extreme,' and that's not even possible.

As to whether you think that we Christians should WANT to be considered 'extreme,' when the connotation of the word puts us in company with bombers, etc.,

ARE YOU NUTS, or just trying to make US nuts?

Now you, I rather imagine, are on the extreme end of atheistic thought. Or rather, according to your own logic, you should be thrilled to consider yourself so. Mind you, the REST of us consider 'extreme' atheism to include those who feel just fine about imposing their lack of belief upon others by any means necessary...like, oh, Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin and the Albanians and the 'Young Turks' and all those other atheists who thought that the best way to ensure logical thought and a lack of belief in deity was to kill anybody who believed in one.

However, I don't think you are that extreme, nor would you be all that thrilled about being seen as that extreme.

Yet THAT is the 'extreme' end of atheism.

So why in the name of all that is logical would you imagine that any theist would want to be seen as 'extreme,' when the option for violence is so indelibly linked to the term?

Do you really think that more than half the population of the world is perfectly willing to impose their religious beliefs upon you by killing you?

If so, why are you letting us know what your opinions are?

If I thought as you do, I'd be hiding my opinions under a rock, not blasting them all over the internet.

[100%atheist]

I feel so bad that our Mayor is not someone like Bloomberg. A local church rents our school every weekend and puts huge advertisement banners on the schools land some of which read "what on earth am I here for?", which makes me think that this church is just a branch of a California megachurch infiltrating our school.

What on Earth can I do about it? Bloomberg? FFRF? Anyone?

Make fun of it...and be glad that the money they are handing over for space rental is money YOU don't have to pay in taxes to support the school.

If it really bugs you, plunk up the money and rent it yourself.

I don't think you really want to reduce the issue to the issue of money and taxes.

Why not? Isn't that the tack you take, insisting that churches be taxed because they aren't YOUR sort of non-profit organization? Isn't the objection that you don't want your taxes going to support the churches? Well, by allowing churches to rent (for instance) school buildings, isn't it then church money going to fund the schools? It's not as if they are renting those buildings during school hours, after all.

Renting a room in a school is okay until you use state property to proselytize, which includes flashy sectarian banners on school property over weekends. This looks to me as an in-your-face offence on the Constitution.

It is because if you do, you must admit that you would be okay with Mr. Adolf Hitler to rent your local school for beer parties.

Oh, good grief. That's taking Godwin's law a bit far, isn't it?

However, if a man named Adolf Hitler isn't breaking any laws with his beer parties, and is willing to pay the rent, why not? At least we would know where he is when you want to go arrest him.

So, you are okay with using schools as pubs.... well, I will reserve my opinion about this for a showcase example sometime later.

Or how about letting "gentlemen" clubs to rent schools for weekends?

Which 'gentlemen's' club did you have in mind? The Boy Scouts? The Shriners? The closest Masonic lodge? ARE YOU INSANE?????

Sorry, I don't quite understand your problem. A "gentlemen" club is a strip club, if you don't know. I am sorry if you didn't know this.

But frankly, rent is a tiny-tiny drop in schools' budget, so your comment is completely irrelevant because it will NOT affect my taxes if the school is not renting our its space.

tiny-tiny drops are still drops...and your objection isn't about money, is it? It's not about the establishment clause, either. It's exactly the same objection every other bigot has to organizations he personally does not like: free speech is fine, as long as the speaker agrees with you. If he does not, he need not bother to exercise his/her rights to speak freely anywhere you might disapprove.

Get a grip.

Did you call me 'bigot'? ... and then accused of being against free speech? I think this is quite telling about you. Again, I will reserve this for a better occasion to demonstrate a typical religious psychology.

This very thing has already been decided in many cases; one of which I have referenced a couple of times, where a Christian youth club sued a school because it would allow gay and lesbian clubs to use classrooms after school, and art clubs, atheist youth groups and every sort of other club, but would not allow the Christian youth group to meet on school property.

My understanding is that this is likely because Christian groups often violate the Constitution.

The courts found for the Christian youth group; if any public facility is permitted to be used by any non-profit organization, then ALL nonprofit organizations have equal access to those facilities under the same rules; discriminating against them simply and only because they are religious is very much against the constitution.

Sorry. This one is going down in flames, as it should.

I think that disqualifying all religious groups to rent public education facilities is a non-trivial legal question. I can see the rational for this as to exclude particular vocal religious groups from easy access to kids using taxpayer funded educational facilities. Religious club at school is not a paper-plane club, religion is a much more serious and dangerous endeavor.

[Ooberman]

And you could say the same about the average person who doesn't believe in God. I guess that makes you an extremist of an already extreme position (atheist).

What is with the Tu Quoque's with you guys?!?!?!

Yes, it's possible there are atheist extremists on this very board! OMG!

But how does that help your argument?

A: Christians with 100 IQ are of average intelligence

X: But some atheists might have 100 IQ, too! Haha! Gotcha!

A: Um? Apparently you aren't one of the Christians with 100 IQ or above....


I just don't understand why devout Christians wouldn't WANT to be considered extremists, since God spits out the lukewarm ones.


My suspicion is the Christians here love to argue more than they love God.

How about because in the English language, "extremist' has connotations that involve insanity, violence, and the obvious definition of 'you can't go past here' that 'extreme' holds within it?

After all, you don't call something 'extreme,' if you can go farther down the spectrum of belief, can you? "Extreme" is a little like "unique." There are no possible degrees of uniqueness, after all; it's a binary set. Either one is unique, or one is not. One cannot be 'more unique,' or 'extremely unique.' Either one is one of a kind or one is not.

But you use 'extreme' in so loose a manner as to make it utterly meaningless; that is, to you, the majority of theists are 'extreme,' and that's not even possible.

As to whether you think that we Christians should WANT to be considered 'extreme,' when the connotation of the word puts us in company with bombers, etc.,

ARE YOU NUTS, or just trying to make US nuts?

Now you, I rather imagine, are on the extreme end of atheistic thought. Or rather, according to your own logic, you should be thrilled to consider yourself so. Mind you, the REST of us consider 'extreme' atheism to include those who feel just fine about imposing their lack of belief upon others by any means necessary...like, oh, Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin and the Albanians and the 'Young Turks' and all those other atheists who thought that the best way to ensure logical thought and a lack of belief in deity was to kill anybody who believed in one.

However, I don't think you are that extreme, nor would you be all that thrilled about being seen as that extreme.

Yet THAT is the 'extreme' end of atheism.

So why in the name of all that is logical would you imagine that any theist would want to be seen as 'extreme,' when the option for violence is so indelibly linked to the term?

Do you really think that more than half the population of the world is perfectly willing to impose their religious beliefs upon you by killing you?

If so, why are you letting us know what your opinions are?

If I thought as you do, I'd be hiding my opinions under a rock, not blasting them all over the internet.

You provided the definition for extremist! I agreed with you. Now you want to shift from the meaning you provided and say it's a connotation?

I get it. The Christian has nothing if they can't allow for their own interpretations of texts. They need to read into things, make subjective determinations of the meanings of words in order to justify their belief in the religion they were raised in. They need words to be pliable.

Listen, I get that you guys are extremists and don't want to be. I understand. You have been indoctrinated and it doesn't sit well with you. That's fine, but don't come on here saying "oh, it's all real! The Jesus (and Joseph Smith) stories are all real! No one understands it like I do - you have to really, really know it and feel a deep emotion in your heart to understand the truth... and even though only about 5% of people understand it the way I do, I'm not an extremist! I'm just misunderstood!"


I find this whole discussion absurd.

"True" (deeply believing) Christians don't want to be considered extremists, but that would mean they don't beleive the Bible that says "few" will gain entry in Heaven. That is, few people are "true" Christians, but they want everyone to think that 80% of the population is Christian so they don't feel extreme....

[dianaiad]

I don't think you really want to reduce the issue to the issue of money and taxes.

Why not? Isn't that the tack you take, insisting that churches be taxed because they aren't YOUR sort of non-profit organization? Isn't the objection that you don't want your taxes going to support the churches? Well, by allowing churches to rent (for instance) school buildings, isn't it then church money going to fund the schools? It's not as if they are renting those buildings during school hours, after all.

Renting a room in a school is okay until you use state property to proselytize, which includes flashy sectarian banners on school property over weekends. This looks to me as an in-your-face offence on the Constitution.

How are 'flashy sectarian banners' inviting people to attend services any worse than 'BUY GIRL SCOUT COOKIES HERE!" or "STAMP COLLECTORS CONVENTION, ROOM 143" signs?

People are smart enough to understand that non-profit organizations renting space from public schools are just renting the space, not psychically imprinting their cooties on the desk seats.

It is because if you do, you must admit that you would be okay with Mr. Adolf Hitler to rent your local school for beer parties.

Oh, good grief. That's taking Godwin's law a bit far, isn't it?

However, if a man named Adolf Hitler isn't breaking any laws with his beer parties, and is willing to pay the rent, why not? At least we would know where he is when you want to go arrest him.

So, you are okay with using schools as pubs.... well, I will reserve my opinion about this for a showcase example sometime later.

I'm ok with non-profit organizations renting space from schools, if the rules are the same for everybody. Sign size, alcohol regulation, smoking bans, vandalism, etc.

....as long as said non-profit organizations are not advocating the violent overturn of the government, or burning crosses on lawns, or other violent acts of lawbreaking, I have no problem with 'em. I wouldn't even mind American Atheists or Greenpeace renting space. Might have a problem with the Weather Underground, if they hold arson classes.....

Or how about letting "gentlemen" clubs to rent schools for weekends?

Which 'gentlemen's' club did you have in mind? The Boy Scouts? The Shriners? The closest Masonic lodge? ARE YOU INSANE?????

Sorry, I don't quite understand your problem. A "gentlemen" club is a strip club, if you don't know. I am sorry if you didn't know this.

Men who go to strip clubs are not gentlemen. As well, I don't think I've ever heard of a non-profit strip club. Have you?

But frankly, rent is a tiny-tiny drop in schools' budget, so your comment is completely irrelevant because it will NOT affect my taxes if the school is not renting our its space.

tiny-tiny drops are still drops...and your objection isn't about money, is it? It's not about the establishment clause, either. It's exactly the same objection every other bigot has to organizations he personally does not like: free speech is fine, as long as the speaker agrees with you. If he does not, he need not bother to exercise his/her rights to speak freely anywhere you might disapprove.

Get a grip.

Did you call me 'bigot'?

Well, let me think.....


bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

[C16: from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin]

Given your intolerance of religion in any form, and objection to any religious group...even though the constitution absolutely decrees that the state NOT interfere with the 'free exercise thereof,' and that forbidding a religious group from renting space every other non-profit group has access to simply and only because it is religious has got to be the epitome of interfering the free exercise thereof, then..er...it's difficult to sufficiently waffle around things. Though I am trying.

There is only one way to satisfy both provisions of the first amendment. You realize that, right?

It is for the government to be blind to the religious nature of any non-profit group seeking to rent space. Rent on a first come, first served basis according to who is willing to follow basic rules (like behavior, signage, whatever), keep the folks on terrorist watch lists off the radar, and don't worry about it.

... and then accused of being against free speech? I think this is quite telling about you. Again, I will reserve this for a better occasion to demonstrate a typical religious psychology.

As a point of fact, bigots usually are against free speech. Unless it's theirs. Just sayin.' Therefore there is nothing inconsistent with noting that you may be against free speech AND that your opinions seem to tip the scale toward 'bigoted.'

........unless you wish to change your mind about allowing religions to have the same rights that other non-profit organizations do, without discriminating against them simply and only because they are religious? (take another peek at the definition of 'bigot,' above)

This very thing has already been decided in many cases; one of which I have referenced a couple of times, where a Christian youth club sued a school because it would allow gay and lesbian clubs to use classrooms after school, and art clubs, atheist youth groups and every sort of other club, but would not allow the Christian youth group to meet on school property.

My understanding is that this is likely because Christian groups often violate the Constitution.

Your understanding is flawed. In this case, the courts found rather solidly against the school and FOR the youth group.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

....and here are some precedents:

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)

IT's not the only situation in which such things have been decided in favor of the religions--just three that went all the way to SCOTUS.

Following are a few that didn't actually make it to court judgment, but were settled out of court in favor of the religious groups:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56173 ... s.html.csp
http://www.faithissues.com/page/473536017
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rel ... 1729/posts
http://ww2.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/ ... ith-school

The courts found for the Christian group; if any public facility is permitted to be used by any non-profit organization, then ALL nonprofit organizations have equal access to those facilities under the same rules; discriminating against them simply and only because they are religious is very much against the constitution.

Sorry. This one is going down in flames, as it should.

I think that disqualifying all religious groups to rent public education facilities is a non-trivial legal question. I can see the rational for this as to exclude particular vocal religious groups from easy access to kids using taxpayer funded educational facilities. Religious club at school is not a paper-plane club, religion is a much more serious and dangerous endeavor.

And that is a bigoted statement. By definition.

I mean....really...you think that renting school facilities AFTER HOURS is somehow preaching to a captive audience of children who AREN'T EVEN THERE????

What, you don't believe in the supernatural, but somehow think that the psychic emanations from a religious club or meeting are going to stick around and contaminate the kids texting each other during Algebra the next day?

Good grief.

[dianaiad]

How about because in the English language, "extremist' has connotations that involve insanity, violence, and the obvious definition of 'you can't go past here' that 'extreme' holds within it?

After all, you don't call something 'extreme,' if you can go farther down the spectrum of belief, can you? "Extreme" is a little like "unique." There are no possible degrees of uniqueness, after all; it's a binary set. Either one is unique, or one is not. One cannot be 'more unique,' or 'extremely unique.' Either one is one of a kind or one is not.

But you use 'extreme' in so loose a manner as to make it utterly meaningless; that is, to you, the majority of theists are 'extreme,' and that's not even possible.

As to whether you think that we Christians should WANT to be considered 'extreme,' when the connotation of the word puts us in company with bombers, etc.,

ARE YOU NUTS, or just trying to make US nuts?

Now you, I rather imagine, are on the extreme end of atheistic thought. Or rather, according to your own logic, you should be thrilled to consider yourself so. Mind you, the REST of us consider 'extreme' atheism to include those who feel just fine about imposing their lack of belief upon others by any means necessary...like, oh, Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin and the Albanians and the 'Young Turks' and all those other atheists who thought that the best way to ensure logical thought and a lack of belief in deity was to kill anybody who believed in one.

However, I don't think you are that extreme, nor would you be all that thrilled about being seen as that extreme.

Yet THAT is the 'extreme' end of atheism.

So why in the name of all that is logical would you imagine that any theist would want to be seen as 'extreme,' when the option for violence is so indelibly linked to the term?

Do you really think that more than half the population of the world is perfectly willing to impose their religious beliefs upon you by killing you?

If so, why are you letting us know what your opinions are?

If I thought as you do, I'd be hiding my opinions under a rock, not blasting them all over the internet.

You provided the definition for extremist! I agreed with you. Now you want to shift from the meaning you provided and say it's a connotation?

You are honestly claiming that everybody who goes to church because they believe in the doctrine taught there is an extremist the way I defined it, above? (and the definition you just agreed with)?

You know, the 'violently insane' part, willing to bomb, kill, and all the rest of the baggage that comes with the word 'extreme?"

If so, then it is a major wonder you dare express your anti-religious opinions. How are you not hiding in a bunker somewhere with three year's supply of food, water and ammunition?

If not...would you care to clarify your definition a bit?