News

California bill would limit exemptions for religious colleges

An LGBT lambda equality flag flies in West Hollywood, Calif., on June 26, 2015. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Lucy Nicholson

(RNS) A bill wending its way through the California Legislature would limit religious colleges’ ability to claim an exemption from federal Title IX regulations that bar discrimination against LGBT students and faculty.

Only schools that prepare students for pastoral ministry would be allowed the religious exemption under California Senate Bill 1146 — which passed the state Senate in May and is scheduled for a hearing in the state Assembly on Thursday (June 30).

In other religious schools that receive Title IX money, students who believe they have faced discrimination on the basis of their sexual identity would have the right to sue the school.

The bill would also require religious schools to inform prospective students if the schools have a Title IX religious exemption.

Title IX, a 1972 law, forbids colleges that receive federal money from engaging in sexual discrimination. While Title IX does not expressly deal with sexual orientation, courts have upheld its use to protect LGBT students from harassment, bullying and discrimination in schools that receive Title IX money.

While the law is seen by some as an attempt to get California religious schools to comply with the state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, it could have national implications. Human Rights Watch, which calls the Title IX religious exemption “a license to discriminate,” reports there are 56 schools nationwide that have requested such exemptions, including Wheaton College, Liberty University and George Fox University.

Forty-two California colleges qualify for Title IX religious exemptions, according to the National Center for Law & Policy, a California-based Christian legal defense group. At least seven have applied, including Biola University, Simpson University and William Jessup University.

The bill is proving divisive. Some see it as a long-overdue advance in protecting LGBT students, while others view it as an infringement on the religious freedom of schools that adhere to forms of Christianity that reject homosexuality as sinful.

“This threatens religious institutions ability to require that students attend daily or weekly chapel services, keep bathrooms and dormitories distinct according to sex, require students to complete theology classes, teach religious ideas in regular coursework, hold corporate prayer at events such as graduation, and so on,” Holly Scheer wrote in The Federalist, a web-based magazine. “In other words, it threatens every practice that makes religious institutions distinct from secular institutions.”

But state and local LGBT rights advocates support the bill.

“Prospective students have a right to know if a university they are considering attending discriminates against LGBT people,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “This bill would let any school seeking to skirt federal anti-discrimination protections know that its policies would be public, and that anyone discriminated against would have legal recourse.”

State Sen. John Moorlach, a Republican whose district encompasses a swath of Southern California coastline, voted against the bill in the Senate.

The bill “does not safeguard against discrimination, but rather is a form of discrimination against religious liberty itself,” he said in a statement to constituents. “Restricting private institutions from adhering to its religious beliefs is a violation of their First Amendment rights and an act itself of intolerance.”

About the author

Kimberly Winston

Kimberly Winston is a freelance religion reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

223 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • It is not surprising that the schools which have applied for exemption are so often those who are known for the dissemination of hateful statements and actions.

  • The last paragraph says it all:
    “The bill “does not safeguard against discrimination, but rather is a form of discrimination against religious liberty itself,” he said in a statement to constituents. “Restricting private institutions from adhering to its religious beliefs is a violation of their First Amendment rights and an act itself of intolerance.”

  • Hating people, shunning people, slandering people should never be a part of practicing religion. That kind of religion is anti-christ.

  • The government has no right to limit the Christan faith in any way, shape or form as per the first amendment.

    Actually there is no LAW that can RESTRICT religion.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

    Do you even comprehend the meaning of “impeding the free exercise of religion,”?

    im·pede
    im’ped/
    verb
    gerund or present participle: impeding

    delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder

    inalienable right
    noun

    a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred

    Neither is Homosexual marriage found in the Constitution. The 9th and 10 amendment limits the Federal Government to a very narrow scope of influence. Everything not enumerated to the federal government is reserved for the States and the People. Marriage in not mentioned in the Constitution, either hetero or homo. That is reserved to the States… and the people.

  • No, I am not anti-christ. Please enjoy your fables. I am anti having religion pass restrictive laws against citizens who pay taxes, and do not live freely off of the society which they denigrate.

  • Christians, this is what happens when you vote for Democrats. This is what happens when you put money issues above moral issues at the ballot box. This is what happens when you don’t stand up against the gay activists.

    You have to stop pretending that Democrats still care about your religious freedom. They don’t.

    Obama and Hillary have made clear that your religious liberty is expendable now. California is the canary in YOUR mine.

  • Wrong on all counts. God gave Africans so called inalienable rights, and the catholic church took them away. All churches had taken away the rights of LGBTQI people. You may have noticed we are getting them back.

  • Is baseball mentioned in the Constitution? Do people have a right to play ball? Does it fall under “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration? Don’t stand in the way of my pursuit.

  • “Rights” cannot interfere with the rights of others. Reign yourself in, as California reigns in the bashers in education.

  • We our a sovereign country with laws that limit the governments powers and authority and you ought to educate yourself on that fact. BTW Africa is not the USA which makes your claim less than moot. And I don’t submit to nor acknowledge the catholic or their pagan beliefs. Please make an attempt to remain on subject because when you run rabbit trails it only make you look that much more desperate to save face when you’re proven wrong.

  • It is not a religious right to claim discrimination against others is a religious right, or a practicing of religion. It is bigotry, in it’s purest form, as well as an attempt to use the bible as a weapon.

  • You have no choice but to acknowledge and obey the first amendment because it’s the law of the land. Now f you don’t like our laws your free to leave to a country of your choice.

  • Obviously you have no idea what you’re talking about because whatever in not limited in the Constitution is a state and peoples right. Yes the Federal Government had no right to give special rights to homosexual sexual deviants.

  • A right according to natural law? Nature does not impart rights. It mostly makes a species compete to stay alive, whether plant or animal, or those miraculous little prokaryotes, such as Lokiarchaeota.

  • All rights are created, given, and taken away by government. The government of the US has 3 branches. You may be aware of the rights given recently by the 3rd branch.

  • Of course they did. When they saw that some states were mistreating citizens, they were forced to step in by the petition to SCOTUS.

  • You stand for yourself and speak only for yourself so please don’t ever claim you speak for those that honor and respect God’s word because obviously you’re not a bible believing, god honoring Christian but rather a representative of the god of this world.

  • You mentioned the bible. I assumed you believe god has authority everywhere. Yes, and those limits are placed on the states as well. They are not permitted to vote on rights of others, hence the 3rd branch of our government.

  • The SCOTUS again is limited to the authority of the Constitution and no one as of yet has shown me where the SCOTUS has the authority to give homosexual deviants special rights that trample all over other God given rights. The fact is Alabama has already refused to submit to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS can’t seem to do anything about being called out on their illegal OPINION.

  • And you’re a fool to give YOUR inalienable rights away to a wicked government that has no right to do as you falsely believe.

  • You really are that blockish aren’t you and have no idea how and why the Federal government exists.

  • YOU”RE free to leave, also. The first amendment has limitations. SCOTUS is helping to sort those out. Have faith in your government, and as Paul said in Romans, “Obey the law of your government, for god placed them in office.” That is a paraphrase of 13:1 through about 14, or so. (Romans 13:1)

  • SCOTUS has shown their authority to describe equal rights. They struck down the special rights of heterosexuals to marriage.

  • I represent no gods. I hope I stand for knowledge beyond the beliefs. That is how we rid the species of superstition, and the wasteful use of virgins in Paradise, and of being tossed in volcanoes.

  • Concerning the Constitutional three branches “interpretation”:

    1.) The legislative branch:

    “LORD, OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, high and mighty King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who dost from Thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth, and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the kingdoms, empires and governments; look down in mercy we beseech Thee, on these American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be dependent only on Thee; to Thee they have appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious design of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause; and if they persist in their sanguinary purpose, O let the voice of Thy own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the counsels of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed, that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish among Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Savior. Amen.”– First Prayer in Congress September 7, 1774, Jacob Duche, Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia

    2.) The Executive branch:

    “Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ.” _ George Washington, Prayer

    3.)The Judicial branch:

    First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” – John Jay

    4.) considering the “father” of the constitution has a opposite “opinion” than that of fools (see Psalms 14 & 53) comes as no surprise!O_o!

  • No, I did quite well in both types of class, and have done some reading on my own. I think it best to be knowledgeable about the world in which we live.

  • “Doesn’t” have the authority” I have had English, spelling, and grammar classes in addition to law and civics. If you know the Federalist Papers, how did you miss the mention of preventing the majority from usurping the rights of the minority?

  • We will soon have an Atheist give the invocation to congress. Hallelujah and praise the lord! Mr Barker is picking out his tie.

  • Nor is that a prayer of George Washington. It goes back at least to the time of James 1st, and the handwritten book it was found in by Washington’s descendant, is not in the handwriting of George.

  • John Jay supported god and slavery. He failed to attend the Constitutional Convention. He pushed his religion on anyone he could. What does he know about rights?

  • And by the way Stand, I hope that when an atheist does give the invocation, you stay true to your form, and accept his “interpretation” as the correct one!

  • I am not interested in corporate law, nor any more opinions from blogs. I will defend knowledge in those places where I already have a presence.

  • But please do realize Democrats are concerned about the rights of others besides christians, as well. When exercise of religion becomes too “free”, it sometimes steps on the toes of others. Trying to keep Gays from marrying was one set of toes, trying to control the reproductive health of women was another.

  • Discrimination against anyone is not free exercise of religion. It is religion become ill.

  • Reads to me like, well, we hate Christians, so let’s use the homosexuals here, and here….gutless but maybe effective. Just another group hurting the homosexuals even more.

  • Is it gutless to Stand against those who once burned people alive for holding the wrong beliefs?

  • This is the stance of Gay christians, who would at least like to know if their school practices bigotry.

  • I forgot all about Romans 13, Found One.
    Here’s the text. Someone should tell Trump about that last part.

    Romans 13:1-7 (NIV)

    1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

    6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

  • It is interesting that Paul claims he says this on the express authorization of god himself!! If we could just get christians to obey their bible!

  • HILLARY could use one or two treason convictions herself! She’s certainly earned ’em !!!!!!!

  • Oh gee, golly, gosh! You are out of sync with the entire US, but for christians. Traitors are not running for president. What is it now, 12 Benghazi investigations, and all Trey Gowdy can do is say, “Read the report for yourself.”? It reminds me of the abortion clinic (women’s health care centers) videos.

  • If a school enjoys taxpayer funding, including tax-exemption, it shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. Gay people shouldn’t be forced to fund their own discrimination via taxation. Just as the Bob Jones University lost it’s tax-exempt status for discriminating on race, schools should lose it for discrimination against GLBT people. It took the Supreme Court to finally settle racial discrimination, and it will likely take the same for GLBT people. Steadily but surely, we’re getting there. Some day it will be as preposterous for any school to discriminate against GLBT people as it is to discriminate on race.

  • Now, we just need to get a bill passed to tax churches and religious institutions. I shouldn’t have to pay taxes to provide public safety and sidewalk maintenance services for institutions that work to deny me my basic rights as a human being. Nor should anyone be underwriting a system of belief that is not his or hers.

  • As a conservative Christian, naturally I find the bill problematic. However, perhaps it’s time for religious institutions to free themselves from a dependency on government “gifts;” I use the term advisedly. I know Christians are taxpayers and might expect that the government would advance education through their institutions, but this is something we can count on less and less. It would, of course be a great challenge to our faith to count on God to provide the means rather than the government, but that’s exactly what it appears we are coming to. I suspect that if we concede this, more onerous concessions will be demanded. I vacillate between whether a revival or reformation will arise, or the long slippery slide into the End of Times.

  • That cuts both ways, nor should Christians be penalized or vilified for desiring to adhere to the orthodox moral teachings of the church.

  • George Fox University? Are you absolutely kidding. It is a Quaker school and hardly among the mainstream of Christian educational establishments.

  • If there is a church ruling that you cannot do business with Gays, or admit them to your church, ask your bigoted minister to show it to you.

  • Floydlee, have you thought through your attack on Democrats and the fact that they seek the rights of every citizen. Use a sense of logic in your argument.

    You seem to feel that Democrats are against christians. This is not the case. They are for the rights of all citizens. LGBT people pay taxes. Why should their tax money be used to permit discrimination against themselves? You can discriminate at your schools, but not if you take my money.

    Consider that no taxpayer money goes to subsidize abortion, thereby not forcing those against abortion
    to have their taxpayer money used to procure abortions. Why therefore should LGBT taxpayer money, and that of their families and friends, be used to permit discrimination. Religious freedom is not expendable. Discrimination is expendable. And you are on the wrong side of history. Even Pope Francis says so.

  • Its a lie that democrats are for all citizens. They like to kill those in the womb.
    What makes you think you are on the “right side of history”? This is another one of those slogans that are meaningless.

  • JP, please consider what you wrote: Democrats “like to kill those in the womb”. I am sure that you don’t mean literally what you have written. I am a Democrat and I certainly don’t “like to kill those in the womb”. I personally wish that there were no need for abortions. I have three biological children and one adopted child. And, never had an abortion.
    But throughout history, women for whatever reason, have felt the need to terminate a pregnancy. Who am I to tell them that they must give birth, whether they want to or not? We are a country, so successful for our citizens, because we are a country of laws. You do not have to have an abortion, if you do not want to have an abortion. Buy you may have an abortion if you feel that it is necessary.

    The alternative to legal abortion is so bad. Women will seek abortions in “back alleys”, and potentially die. Often leaving other children without a mother.

    Democrats do not want to kill those in the womb. Given our current society legal abortion is necessary for the greater good. Even though you and I would not seek one.

  • Informing prospective students of Title IX exemptions is important for all parties. Why waste student loans and parents money on sending a kid to a religious school where they will be expelled for being themselves by bigoted administrators?

    Religious freedom is not license to discriminate. Never has been. Seeing how federal money goes towards paying for tuition for most students these days, the government has a right and duty to ensure it is not subsidizing discrimination.

  • Said a senator who thinks religious freedom only applies to reactionary Christians and is a pretense to attack others. There is no first Amendment right to attack others and discriminate. Your religious freedom here is on par with mine to sacrifice you and your family to the dark lord Cthulhu. IE none at all.

  • If you want to make discrimination and bigotry central to your faith, it’s best not to take the governments coin. It’s even better to inform students applying that they can expect to be discriminated against when they attend. Save headaches for everyone involved. Your religious based malice doesn’t require government subsidy.

  • Natural law is Catholicspeak for “I am making stuff up as I go along and am trying to avoid criticism or discussion on the subject”.

  • The democratic platform allows for abortion for any reason. You may not like it but this party stands for the murder of the unborn. No one should have the right to kill another human without a justified reason such as saving the life of the mother. For any other reason, it is murder.

    How can you say that “legal abortion is necessary for the greater good” when over 40 million babies have been killed by abortion? That is barbaric.

  • “Use a sense of logic in your argument.”

    Sorry. Impossible. How can one use a sense of logic if they are illogical. How can one reason with another if they are unreasonable.

  • Kill those in the womb? Pro-lifers had rather see them born and then starve to death at the rate of seven each minute of each day. Seven a minute.

    In this country at least, there is no longer any excuse for ignorance. Do a little research.

  • “How can you say that “legal abortion is necessary for the greater good”
    when over 40 million babies have been killed by abortion? That is
    barbaric.”

    Here’s how PatrickF1 can say it, JP.

    5.9 million children under age five died in 2015, 16 000 every day. Most die because of outright starvation or disease brought on by malnutrition or contaminated drinking water.

    Judging from your statement, I can infer you had rather see 16,000 children per day die than for their mothers to have an abortion.

  • And let’s hope that slowly but surely it will become unlawful for adults to indoctrinate children; children whose brains have not developed enough for reason, logic and critical thinking.

  • Democrats are Christians too. Republicans don’t put money issues above moral issues at the ballot box? And how exactly did Obama and Hillary make clear that religious liberty is expendable?

  • I have nothing bad to say about Jesus. Many of his followers however leave a lot to be desired.

  • Maybe /I/ shouldn’t need to pay taxes to you for the “privilege” of practicing a religion.

    The best solution here seems to simply STOP giving religious institutions money.

    Because no one’s tax money is going to the maintenance of MY faith. Even “sidewalks” don’t benefit the religious building, they benefit the people who live near the church. I have sidewalks near my house. I do not WANT them near my house (I don’t WANT extra shoveling and less yard space, thank you. To anyone who HAS sidewalks it is obvious that the sidewalks are primarily to benefit OTHER PEOPLE).

    People’s tax money IS going to the maintenance of other peoples’ religions, however. Like Title IX paying money to “schools that prepare students for pastoral ministry” in the first place.

    But I think your proposed solution is ridiculous.

    PROBLEM: Some religious institutions get benefits from tax money.

    YOUR SOLUTION: Tax ALL The religious institutions!!

    Here’s a BETTER idea, why don’t we just STOP GIVING THEM MONEY. You’re advocating stealing from ALL religions to correct the fact that some religions get free stuff from the government. Why try to fix the imbalance with taxes?? Why not just stop giving religions free stuff??

    Your idea is bad, it won’t solve the fact that religions are getting free stuff, and will only hurt the minority religions that DON’T get free stuff, as they now have to pay for the free stuff that the bigger religions get. That’s not fair.

    What you want is for your tax money to stop subsidizing religion. But there’s better ways to go around that. The way around that is to stop giving stuff to religions for free. The solution is not to make minority religions ALSO pay for the free stuff that bigger religions get. If we do YOUR idea you, good sir, will STILL be forced to pay for free stuff for religions!!

    The only difference is now that minority religions will be taxed for practicing to subsidize the COLLEGES for the clergy of larger religions. Sure, the big religions will have to pay too, but the ones with COLLEGES will still be GETTING more tax money than they are paying!!

    The minority religious and non-religious taxpayers will STILL be subsidizing the big religions.

    If you want to stop your tax money paying for religious colleges. Then STOP the government from giving tax money TO religious colleges!! Don’t take money away from the colleges and then give it BACK. That’s pointless.

  • So if a student is studying to become a religious professional it is still OK to discriminate against them. It dovetails well with the fact that religions are the primary source for justification of discrimination.

  • Church-related colleges that accept public funding should be required to follow the same rules as publci colleges. Allowing them exemptions is tantamount to violating the religious liberty of all taxpayers. — Edd Doerr

  • If you want to be a clergyman of a certain religion, it makes sense that you have to follow whatever rules that religion sets up.

    The only problem HERE is why Title IX money is going to schools that teach exclusively /clergymen/ in the first place.

    If someone wants to set up their own organization with its own rules, they should be free to. Just don’t expect other people to pay for it.

  • Easiest way around this is to stop taking government money. Then you can do anything you want to in regards to your clergy-schools.

    The institution of clergy is blasphemy according to my religion and I shouldn’t have to pay for it.

  • Democratic support for abortion rights means that Dems support women’s rights of conscience, religious liberty and health claims. It’s the Repubs who want government to impose their theocratic notions on our country. — Edd Doerr

  • “taxpayer funding” is not “tax-exemption”

    The fact that one is occurring is bad. The other’s existence is not.

    Tax-exempt status is necessary for preventing minority religions from being stamped out by bigger ones who can afford taxing without loosing much money.

    And the question of why religion should be taxed is something that should be asked. You can donate money to ANY cause and write it off of your taxes. If someone can donate to a political ideology without taxation, why shouldn’t they be able to donate to a religion without taxation??

    I sure don’t here people calling for their favorite non-profit or political groups to be taxed. I wonder why that is…

  • a fetus isn’t a person, JP. a fetus isn’t aware of its existence anymore than a cactus is aware of its existence. a fetus doesn’t care if it is aborted anymore than sperm care when and where they are ejaculated.

  • JP ignores the the fact that accepting public funds means that you have to follow public rules. If you don’t like the rules, then don’t take the money.

  • This issue is insane.

    Government pays money to a religion and declares that if that religion is to receive funds, it must adhere to the government’s standards!!

    The insane part is the three types of commentators here:

    -The ones that think this is perfectly fine!!
    -The ones who think they should be entitled to free money but that the people giving them the free money should not have a say in how they run their organizations.
    -The ones who apparently have no problem with this, but they think that we should “tax” the religion and take away some of its money BEFORE giving it back a subsidy.

    Am I the only one thinking that we should just not have a situation in where the government is giving money to a religion?? Why is everyone okay with this?? Even the ones who want the “religion to pay” want the religion to pay taxes just to receive a subsidy back from the government.

    Instead of THAT complicated nonsense, I propose a simpler solution. The religion continues doing whatever it wants, and the government stops paying it money.

    That way the religion can set its own rules for becoming a clergyperson.

    No one is paying to support a clergy that does not share their values.

    And everyone who doesn’t think they’re entitled to other people’s money should be happy.

  • People are not killed in the womb. Citizens are not killed in the womb. Learn some science and forget your religious ideologies about abortion. Even the Bible says nobody is a person until first breath. An abortion merely prevents a fetus from BECOMING a person; it is not a person, but merely has the potential to develop into a person. There is no crime, no sin, no shame, in terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

  • “Democrats and the fact that they seek the rights of every citizen.”

    Except people on arbitrary, racist watch-lists… then the Democrats are apparently willing to stage sit-ins to ENSURE that those Muslims are stripped of their rights WITHOUT due process nor a clear way of getting those rights back!!

    Don’t pretend like there aren’t assholes on both sides.

    “no taxpayer money goes to subsidize abortion”

    That’s wrong. in 2014, $528 million was sent to an PRIVATE organization, 16% of which ($84 million) was spent on abortion. Now I personally don’t care about abortion, I only know these statistics because I am against ANY public money going to a private organization, non-profit or not, because I think that is a recipe for corruption. But regardless of my approval, your statement is wrong. Subsidization of abortion practices have been codified into law since Nixon.

    But yeah, the rest of what you say is right.

  • It is one thing to die of starvation and another to deliberately take the life of a human being in the womb without proper justification which would be to save the life of the mother if she is in mortal danger of birthing her child.

  • A human being is a person from the moment of conception. Medical science recognizes this fact.
    The Bible certainly does acknowledge the personhood of the baby in the womb:
    “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” Ps 139:13

  • Quite so, JP, but abortion does not involve killing a person. One third of all US women will have had an abortion in her lifetime. But you have no respect for their rights of conscience or religious liberty.

  • Here is what science says about when a human being begins:
    “Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
    [England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
    ________________________________________

    “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

  • You are the ignorant one, not me. Since science shows us that a human being begins at conception then to kill that life without a justified cause as to save the life of the mother is murder. Since Roe there have been over 40 million murders. I heard that something like 3,000 babies are killed a day in the US. Its barbarism.

  • The problem is that abortion does involve killing a person:

    “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

    No one should have the right to kill another human being without justification as I have stated.

  • False. Science recognizes that a fetus is a clump of human cells, but not an independent human BEING, or person.
    Ps 139:13 does not apply here. It refers only to the writer, and is a personal song of of praise, NOT any sort of scientific evidence of personhood of a fetus.

    The Bible doesn’t apply to science.

  • Nonsense. A bowl full of flour, eggs, milk, and sugar is not a fully developed cake; it’s just a potential cake with all the ingredients there, ready to develop. Your own quote betrays you:

    “This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” It does not say the fertlized ovum IS a human being. It is merely the starting point from which a human being eventually develops. Until it is viable outside the womb, or takes first breath, it is not a human. God breathed into Adam and he BECAME a living soul, remember?

  • Get serious. Science doesn’t say ” a fetus is a clump of human cells, but not an independent human BEING, or person.”

    Here is what science says:

    “”Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
    [England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
    ________________________________________

    “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

    Science says nothing about morality either.

  • I’ll convince the atheists to support ending tax exemptions– aka free money– to religions.
    you convince the churches.

  • Ok. So science gives you the defintion and explanation when human life begins and you assert “Nonsense”.

    We know even by common sense that the zygote is a human being given that all human beings today were zygotes.

    If human being exists when ” it is viable outside the womb, or takes first breath” then how is it that in many states where a pregnant woman is murdered its considered a double homicide i.e. 2 murders? That could only be because these states consider the fetus in the womb to be a human being.

  • so you oppose capital punishment and any war where we are not directly attacked first?

  • So you have no problem with Jesus warning people that if they don’t believe in Him they will be condemned to hell?

  • In the late 1980s a brief to the Supreme Court by 165 distinguished biologists (including 12 Nobel laureates, one of them DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick) advised the justices that the functions of personhood, consciousness and will, are not possible until allowed by brain development, some time after 28-32 weeks of gestation. About 90% of all abortions are done by 13 weeks, 99% by 20 weeks, and the small remainder only for serious medical reasons. This tallies with what the Bible says in Gen 1:27 and 2:7, that persnhood begins at birth. JP, you can believe as you like, but government has no business imposing your or anyone else’s religious opinions on all women. — Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty (arlinc.org)

  • You are mixing apples and lemons. More advanced nations have rightly abandoned capital punishment, and war should only be an absolute last resort.

  • More important a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for existence. Therefore the mother’s will is the only important part of the situation. A fetus is not a person and has no autonomous existence. But a mother does.

    Plus there is no biblical basis for attacking abortion rights. No legal basis either.

  • If they get any taxpayer dollars, then no exemption. If they are so set of following their beliefs, then they should be willing to pay everything themselves. My tax dollars should not be used to discriminate.

  • Let’s cut through the BS here. It makes absolutely no difference when you think life begins here. As long as a fetus requires being inside its mother to exist, it can’t ever be considered a person. It has no independent existence.

    The mother however does. That is why she has the right to terminate her pregnancy and you have no say in the matter.

  • Actually, taxpayers ARE footing the nine-figure tab for the Planned Parenthood Pogrom against babies. It’s an indirect gig (for obvious reasons), but yes your TAX money is ultimately being funnelled to PP. No joke.

    But that’s not what this article is about. California Democrats are staging a DIRECT attack on Christian schools, and it’s time to fight back.. They’re not even trying to hide it.

    You are pretending otherwise, but such pretense is not changing the picture. Democrats are messing up and showing their dirty colors. Again.

  • Taxes not paid are income to the recipient. As much of a subsidy as a grant would be. That being said the exempt status of churches is heavily abused. It should be limited to strictly worship or ministerial duties. Not commercial or political efforts.

  • That is not in the Bible either. Hell is more or less a construct of interpolation as well. It’s description has more to do with medieval literature and art than the Bible. There is no mention of hell in the OT either.

  • the fact is if christianity was so great people would be flooding these places and shoveling money at them. the fact they have to be tax exempt to stay afloat says more about the religious than the population. religious institutions should sink or swim on their own merits just like any other place that wants people to come in and give them money.

    if they say they help people, feed people, help the homeless, then prove it. let us follow the money. how can you add on to your building, buy the pastor a plane or a new home if you are feeding the hungry like you say?

  • My comment, Floyd, lines up with Jefferson and Madison, yours with Scalia and Thomas and the theocrats. — ED

  • Oh? Then how do you respond to this claim? “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

    Or this one: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

    Or this one: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”

    Or this one: “For the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!”

    Or this one: “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and on the third day He will be raised to life.”

    Or this one: “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

    Which of His assertions do you accept?

  • None of the above. To call someone a hater for failing to agree with those assertions is not only infantile but untrue. Disagreement does not imply hate. Except to you.

    By such an argument you would claim all Jews, Muslims, and any other religion but your own hates Jesus as well. I am sure that was not your intention. But that is because I am a hopeless optimist. 🙂

  • If you consider any of Jesus’ assertions listed above to be false, then they are lies. Which makes Him a liar.

    “By such an argument you would claim all Jews, Muslims, and any other religion but your own hates Jesus as well. I am sure that was not your intention.” My intention hardly matters. It was, however, Jesus’ intention: “The world is not able to hate you; but it hates Me, because I bear witness concerning it that its works are evil.” Is that another one of His lies, perhaps?

  • “Disagreement does not imply hate. Except to you.” Oh goodie, another line for my sock puppet! Do you mind if I quote you on that later? No matter — I will quote you whether you want me to or not…

  • Actually, your statement lines up with Obama and Hillary….and by any measure, those two jokers represent the bottom of the American barrel !!

  • Now you are just flinging p00. Do yourself a favor. Take a breather. Have a little coffee. Relax. Watch a little TV and take time off from your hobby of hurling creative invective.

  • “If you consider any of Jesus’ assertions listed above to be false, then they are lies.”

    Well that is certainly one way to look at it. Just not a sane way. I guess you think all people who are not Christians (or Christians like you) believe your religion is just lying. Its a very uncharitable and arrogant view of other faiths.

    “My intention hardly matters.”

    Of course it does. You were trying to portray me as some kind of Jesus hater. Or that anyone who disagrees with your professed faith, thinks your religion is false and you are a 1iar. Its a very paranoid and rather hateful way to think of others. It tells me more about your mindset than anything else.

    But of course you end it with the phony martyrdom. Claiming you are like Jesus because you hate the people and things he allegedly hates. I have to say, your take on Christian faith is hostile, self-centered and disagreeable. I feel sorry for people who share the pews with you. They must think you are a barrel of laughs.

  • Its not murder unless you are born. Too bad you have more regard for the unborn than you do actual people. It undercuts any pretension that you have a POV which should be taken seriously. To be brutally honest, I don’t give a flying sh1t what you think about abortion.

    Its been legal for 40 years. People like yourself couldn’t possibly cough up legal arguments why it needs to change. All you are telling us is that you are a self-righteous nosybody who thinks they are entitled to make decisions for all people.

    Lets be even more brutally honest. No matter how much you want it or how much money you waste on conservative political causes, it won’t do squat to ban abortion in this country. Even when SCOTUS skewed towards the right in the 1990’s, they still upheld the right to one. Even conservatives know its just a way to mobilize gullible voters and separate them from their money.

  • Nobody has to give a damn. As long as a fetus is in a womb and you can’t take it from the mother, it is never going to be anyone’s decision to continue the pregnancy but her. A woman is a person. With rights and autonomy which is not subject to your opinion. If you don’t like them having abortions, tough luck.

  • Yet the vagaries of placental animal gestation are entirely ignored by you. It can’t live outside the mother until its born. Therefore your opinion on the matter doesn’t mean squat. Her body, her possession, her rules.

  • “Tax exemptions” are not “free money”.

    I know this may be hard to understand. But taxes. Are about TAKING AWAY people’s money. “Tax exemptions” are about NOT taking away that person’s money.

    This may be surprising, but “giving something” to someone isn’t the same as “not taking something from someone”. Think of “giving”, or “subsidizing” as a positive number, “taking” or “taxing” as a negative number, and “not taking” or “tax exempting” something as zero, which is neither negative nor positive. You see how these things are DIFFERENT??

    In other terms: You know how I DIDN’T rob you today?? You don’t need to thank me for that “gift”. My (charitable, virtuous) act of NOT taking your money isn’t giving you money!! Neither you nor I committed acts of charity today to every person we met and didn’t take anything from. I have no IDEA what kind of mentality someone needs to have to think that person A not stealing from person B is equivalent to person A giving a GIFT to person B.

    Giving to NO other cause results in taxes!! Believe in saving the whales, give to a whale saving charity?? No taxes!! Believe in helping the poor and give your money to a soup kitchen?? No taxes!! Believe in the cause of secular humanism and want to give to a humanist charity?? No taxes!! Believe in a political cause to bring “Hope and Change” or “Make Murica Great Again” and want to donate to that politician?? No taxes!!

    In your ideal world you can believe in ANY cause you want and GIVE to any cause you want without a third party coming in and taking some of that money… except in the case of religion, I guess.

    Ultimately the money belongs to the person who has earned it, and that person has ALREADY paid taxes!! So if they want to spend their money, from which they have ALREADY paid for their fair share of taxes, on religion, who are YOU to say no?? Your proposal is nothing more than a vice tax meant to punish people for icky things you don’t like. No better than a SoCon!!

    Look, if someone freely giving money to [insert your least favorite political party here] isn’t a problem, why would freely giving money to any given religion?? Is there something that makes [insert your least favorite political party here] more WORTHY than other causes??

    Maybe you should just let people spend THEIR money however THEY want, even if that involves supporting causes you find icky.

    This issue, however, ISN’T a case of a school merely not having to pay taxes. Your tax money is DIRECTLY funding this religious school. You see, this is different because it is actually GIVING SOMETHING ~to~ the school, rather than NEGLECTING TO TAKE SOMETHING ~from~ the school, which, as we’ve discussed, is surprisingly NOT the same as giving something!!

  • Your tax doolars are used to support our Constitution and in particular the 1st amendment.

  • There are all the liberals here that want to show your hate and bigotry towards Christians and when things like this come up you show just how bigoted and ignorant you are about our country’s laws. I’m glad that your opinions are nothing but foolishness and outright discrimination. The first amendment is meant to stop your bigotry and discrimination because the Christian forefathers knew there would be anti-Christian haters and bigots and wrote in plain English that liberals couldn’t limit our faith in any way nor take from us the same rights you attempt to steal from us. So what we have here is liberals blatantly violating our inalienable rights. Now if you want to be fair and not support Christian schools then we should stop supporting all public schools that a citizen has the pay to attend that way there will be competition and people will at that point get a quality education instead of the brainwashing you liberal exhibit on these type of sites.

    Actually there is no LAW that can RESTRICT religion unless it violates Common or Natural laws.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits CONGRESS from making of any law respecting an establishment of (a NATIONAL) religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

    Do you even comprehend the meaning of “impeding the free exercise of religion,”?

    im·pede
    im’ped/
    verb
    gerund or present participle: impeding

    delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder

    The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.

  • What you define as knowledge was referred to a propaganda during the second world war with Germany. To break it down in simple terms you’re not at all familiar with US history or our laws.

  • Obviously he knew much more than you but here more education for you again about you slavery issue.

    Rational people expect common sense and rationale, from the NAACP? That will never happen. As a group, blacks support democRATs 90=95% These is INSANE Facts……
    1. The vast majority of slave owners were democRATs
    2. The KKK was founded and populated by democRATs
    3. The emancipation proclamation was set forth by a Republican and opposed by democRATs.
    4. Jim Crowe laws were instituted and enforced by democRATs.
    5. The Civil Rights Act would have never passed if it weren’t for republicans who voted for it in larger numbers than the democRATs
    6. Albert Gore Sr and William J Fullbright filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
    7. Bill Clintons mentor was William J Fullbright.
    8 The people who stood in front of schools and universities in the south in the 60’s ordering the use of firehoses and dogs to keep black children out. were democRATs Bull Conner, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace ALL democRATs.
    9. Margaret Sanger was a democrat, and started PP as a way to control the black population.

    And yet the blacks vote for these racists year after year after year after year

  • Knowing you pretty much clueless about US history I’ll not take anything you say as based on fact because as of yet you haven’t presented anything but rhetoric and propaganda.

  • When you libtards have nothing intelligent to say you then resort to being spelling nazi’s and grammar attacks. So no you didn’t disappoint me lowering yourself to that level. Again where in the Constitution does it say sexual deviants are a minority . Our CHRISTIAN forefathers didn’t support but in fact condemned sexual deviants…..

    Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed the penalty for homosexuality should be castration. (Washington Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Volume. 1 pp. 226-27)

  • Yes from a libtard view convicting a convict and passing a deserving judgement on them wouldn’t be easily comprehended OBVIOUSLY. Oh wait they’re convicts…….DUH.

  • And Alabama called them out on there illegal opinion and hasn’t upheld their opinion because the SCOTUS doesn’t have the authority to make law on Congress does . But then again you know absolutely nothing about our three branches of government nor their function and you’ve proved that foolishness over and over again.

  • Obviously science isn’t you forte because a fertilized egg has it’s very own DNA and is a completely different human than it’s mother. DUH.

  • How far out there are you, to say that my knowledge is wartime propaganda? Come back to the world, friend. We don’t hate you! Thank you for your denouncement of my education. I shall study harder. Will you?

  • Now go read the current article in this edition of RNS under Opinion, on how the Presbyterian church started.

  • You know what I believe? I believe that with 5 minutes online research, you could find the same info I just told you.

  • You and others are turning the crucifix into a swastika, by posting it with accusatory statements. You are changing it’s meaning, just as a previous hate group did, with the Cross of St. George.

  • You are lying or misdirecting, misled (highly likely), or misinformed. Let me correct you, if I may. While Jefferson did head a committee, whose goal was to reduce capital punishment, he was discomfited by the laws reached by the committee, and so wrote. He did not approve of the concept of “Lex Talionus”, or punishment in kind, ie. castration for the act of sodomy

  • LOL! “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matt.10:28

    “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2)

  • Sounds a bit like “love the sinner hate the sin,” doesn’t it? And THAT’S a triple dog no-no! 😀

  • Mmmm. I do have better things to do, so unless you have something more substantive than your christian desire to punish, humiliate, and defile convicts, I should be moving on.

  • It’s so heartening to see America, beginning with California, realize that “liberty for all” needs to be made real for every citizen. Religion is not a license to discriminate. This nation should not be in the business of legalizing any discrimination for any reason. “Liberty for all!”

  • 2 contradictory passages about the fate and power of God. Matt talks of body and soul being destroyed. Daniel talks of everlasting contempt and shame. One is a finality, the other is eternal. Not my job to make claims of consistency or figure out how they work together. Don’t rightly care.

    But like many claims of absolute certainty as to what the Bible is telling people, it exaggerates the level of interpolation and interpretation being employed.

  • I happen to be an ultimate annihilationist myself — but being blotted out forever due to rebellion against God sure sounds like an “everlasting shame” to me. It’s eternal in that there’s no coming back from it. But in neither case can anyone make the claim with a straight face that hell isn’t in the bible. Jesus talked more about it than heaven.

  • Wasn’t true the first time you said it, nor will be true the next time. Planned Parenthood doesn’t get government funding, its patients do. Christian schools think its their right to take government money and not follow the rules involved with doing so. They simply want all the advantages of having government subsidy and none of the responsibility. Responsibility being one of those things Christians like you talk about as applying to other people but not themselves.

  • So you think it’s ok for you to discriminate against Christians inalienable rights but when we stand on those rights you call us bigots. Sounds like the liberal mental illness in it’s zenith.

  • All you need do is prove what I posted is in error but we both know you don’t have the intelligence.

  • You opinion is meaningless and what I posted is factual and can be found in and actual historical book. Got opinion?

  • I post fact you post propaganda….see the difference. You give your unfounded opinion I post where the facts are found….know the difference.

  • Yes I could because deception to an uneducated mind like yours stops you from discerning the truth from propaganda.

  • Are you accusing yourself to be in some way knowledgeable? And I thought you didn’t have a sense of humor.

  • What would you know about Christianity when you continually point to men’s deeds and never God’s word? So we know two things here one you’re a propagandist and two a faux christian.

  • I am finished with your ignorant christian denial. Go beat someone else with your crucifix.

  • Bigotry and hatred are not the issue, I make it a practice not to hate anyone, though I may vehemently disagree with them about what is morally and spiritually sound. And if you read my post closely, you would see that I in fact posited that the loss of such subsidy may be the proper course…a rendering unto Caesar, as it were.

  • Re “…others view it as an infringement on the religious freedom of schools that adhere to forms of Christianity that reject homosexuality as sinful.”:

    In other words, “We want to discriminate against you AND we want you to pay us for it.”
    Two smites for the price of none.

    Note that “Title IX, a 1972 law, forbids colleges that receive federal money from engaging in sexual discrimination.”

    Not “all colleges”. Not “all religious colleges”. Just “colleges that receive federal money”.
    They can discriminate all they want. Just not on the nationwide public’s dime.

    Sounds like Title IX is FAR MORE than fair to religion-affiliated colleges — and all California Senate Bill 1146 does is effectively remove the “FAR”.

  • A little edit is needed on my part. To my previous post.

    If you want to make discrimination and bigotry central to your faith, it’s best not to take the governments coin.”

  • The bill presents several issues. First, while California can limit exemptions to its own educational equity statute, it cannot limit exemptions to Title IX, which is a federal statute. So while an individual could sue a school alleging a violation of the state statute, the school would still have the Title IX exemption defense.
    The second potential problem is the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which prevents the government from limiting a benefit on the condition that the person forfeit a constitutional right. If a private religious institution has the First Amendment right to limit admission to, for instance, students that adhere to a religiously-based code of conduct, the bill presents an issue. Note that the Bob Jones U. case decided that the school did not have the right to discriminate on race — it’s unlikely the same determination would be made today concerning sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.
    The third potential problem is equal protection. The bill seeks to make a distinction between schools that prepare students for pastoral ministry (defined as?), and schools that simply have a religious mission or require religious adherence. What’s the basis, constitutionally, for the distinction?

  • Telling the same lie twice doesn’t help much. Perhaps you stopped reading after you filched the cherry which pleased you. Your address got me only to UofC ‘Page Not Found”, but I think what I read was from them also. Try reading the whole thing.

  • And that same Constitution says that that government shouldn’t be supporting and religion.

  • JP, I believe it is not only the democratic platform, but also the much revered by conservatives (except when they disagree) US Constitution that allows for abortion for any reason. So live with it.

  • As the article notes, Title IX contains a method by which any school can obtain an exemption from its requirements – don’t accept Federal money, and you’re automatically exempt.

  • Yeah it’s not that hard to make you libtards look ridiculous because all I need do s let you talk.

  • Yeah you know I’ve proven you’re a propagandists so be a good libtard and run away because you have no real facts to confirm your unfounded opinion.

  • I love it when history prove you wrong and you are forced to make up more unfounded propaganda. Please give me the source where your unfounded opinion can be found?

  • Then you need to point out where in the Constitution that erroneous claim can be found? Oh wait it’s just your opinion gottcha.

  • , “Is the fetus human?” My answer is yes. Of course the mother is also human. The second point is “Does she have any rights to decide what grows?” Well, she does have some rights, but as Lincoln said, “No one has a “right” to do wrong.” No one has the right to murder. So let’s think about the word “Growing.” If something is “growing” the implication is that it is living. So although the little embryo is located inside the mom, she is distinct from her mother. She has own DNA. So what is the difference between the embryo and a newborn? Well, only for things: size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency. But are any of these justification for murder? You see it is the embryologist who tell us that the embryo is a DISTINCT, WHOLE, LIVING entity with HER (or his) OWN DNA. “This is scientific fact. Not religious doctrine.” says Harvard embryologist Michiline Matthews Roth. Does Size determine value? well, if that’s the case. I’m taller than you, but that doesn’t make me more human. It may help me on the basketball court, but both you and I are fully human regardless of function. What about location? Does the fetus’ location determine worth? No of course not. You see we do not have “absolute” bodily autonomy. Why? Because some actions that we do with our bodies, could influence another persons body. So although the embryo is located inside the mother, she is distinct from her mother with her own DNA. Let me ask you this. Would it be morally permissible for a mother to kill a toddler who had health issues and was expensive? Why or why not? Well the only differences between the toddler and the fetus are SLED, Size, Level of Development, Environment (or location), and Degree of Dependency. These are only instrumental differences. None of these provide justification for murder.

  • >without a justified reason such as saving the life of the mother.

    Thank you for saying that. Way too many “pro-lifers” do not add that qualifier.

  • Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
    The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the
    tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege
    given to other nonprofit organizations:

    “The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the
    inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its ‘moral or mental improvement,’ should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664, 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or
    even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest. Qualification for tax exemption is not perpetual or immutable; some tax-exempt groups lose that status when their activities take them outside the classification and new entities can come into being and qualify for exemption.”

    from http://ffrf.org/faq/feeds/item/12601-tax-exemption-of-churches

  • Hmmm, Cheif Justice Burger was quite explicit: “New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its ‘moral or mental improvement,’ should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664, 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups.”

    How did you manage to miss it?

  • Also, most churches provide benefits to the community in public service, charity work, and more. Paying taxes reduces the ability to do this work as money is shifted from charity to government.

  • Walz had to do with tax exemptions, not with tax subsidies. So your comment is not relevant to the matter at hand.

  • Well then God is the biggest aborted since 50% of pregnancies are spontaneous abortion from DNA not being right. Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester sometimes before people realize they are pregnant.

    So based off that and the fact that most people have abortions during that time in the first trimester, then you can’t prove that the fetus being aborted would have not been miscarried and made it to birth. So how would that being killing a person if your God may not have even let it be born. Since 50% of pregnancies end in miscarraige or still born, then chances are many of those aborted babies would have never seen the light of day.

  • Conklin is dead wrong. Billions of dollars in public funds have flowed to church-run private schools through voucher and tax credit programs, schools that are integral parts of churches. Other billions have flowed to churches through other federal and state programs. For details see all the back issues of Voice of Reason at arlinc.org. — Edd Doerr

  • >Billions of dollars in public funds have flowed to church-run private
    schools through voucher and tax credit programs, schools that are
    integral parts of churches.

    None of that is relevant to the article–which you wanted me to stay on topic with. You should try staying on topic yourself.

    BTW, if a school teaches the studenst English, math, geography, biology,chemistry, physics, etc. then and only then tdo the private schools get any sort of aid–FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES–they do NOT get aid to preach.

  • >Billions of dollars in public funds have flowed to church-run private schools through voucher and tax credit programs, schools that are integral parts of churches.

    Hmm, yesterday you claimed that a relevant post wasn’t om topic and now you gho off topic!

    BTW, any private school that teaches students English, math, geography, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. gets aid FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES.

    >For details see all the back issues of Voice of Reason at arlinc.org.

    The burden lies with you; not for us to go hunting.

  • My comment is right on target. The vast majority of K-12 private schools are pervasively sectarian religious institutions. Religion tends to permeate the curriculum.

  • The truth about most K-12 religious private schools is that religion tends to permeate the curriculum — as in lit, science and social studies classes. That is a main reason why parents send their kids there and also why those schools tends toward religious homogeneity, which in turn tends to fragment the school population along religious and other lines. — Edd Doerr

  • >The truth about most K-12 religious private schools is that religion
    tends to permeate the curriculum — as in lit, science and social
    studies classes.

    Spoken like someone who hasn’t been in a secular and religious school as I have been.

  • To repeat:

    1) None of that is relevant to the article–which you wanted me to stay on topic with. You should try staying on topic yourself.

    2) BTW, if a school teaches the studenst English, math, geography,
    biology,chemistry, physics, etc. then and only then tdo the private
    schools get any sort of aid–FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES–they do NOT get aid
    to preach.

  • But taxpayers should not be compelled by government to support them through vouchers or tax credits. Since 1966 28 state referenda have shown that Americans oppose tax support for them by 2 to 1. — Edd Doerr

  • I spent 11 years in Catholic schools and am an honors grad of my state’s leading Catholic high school.

  • Then you know that what you said was false. Unless Catholic schools really do things differently from the rest. English grammar, the sciences, etc. are constants to all of us.

  • You realize, of course, that Catholic school enrollment has declined over the past 50 years from 5.5 million kids to 2 million, Conservative evangelical schools are growing and they are really sectarian.

ADVERTISEMENTs