5 ms·

Because forced religious programs are a violation of the 1st amendment.

by nsilvestri 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago
Only if the government is doing it.
- munk-a 7y ago
  If the government is jailing people for not attending religious events that counts well enough - and they potentially were in this specific case. That said, I don't dislike religion. I'm privately faithful but my parents are religious and a lot of my friends have been, the father of a good friend of mine growing up even managed to keep his alcoholism under control with faith - so whether it's a community or a support I'm happy with that. That said, I really despise hypocrites and the biggest ones I can see today are Prosperity Gospel preachers and that Evangelical voting block that support the "good christian" in office today. I have no problem with faith and churches, but when they start getting political or taking advantage of the needy then they've got to go. Lastly, it's getting a bit weird with religious institutions fighting against women's health organizations - and that discussion is a pile of snakes so let me just say I understand where both sides come from and don't really care to discuss the topic. It is highly likely that the religious institutions you're thinking of aren't these partisan televangelists or con-men but those guys have left a sour taste in my mouth for religious institutions in general - I default to spurning and distrusting them until I've seen an organization act in a beneficial and ethical manner. I trust them more slowly then I trust secular charities.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > If the government is jailing people for not attending religious events that counts well enough But that's not what was happening, right? > I have no problem with faith and churches, but when they start getting political I disagree with the notion that religion must be a private matter. Religion is not only a matter of personal belief. Its a framework for organizing communities and raising children. Forcing people to keep religion private amounts to an infringement on "the free exercise thereof." Notably, religion in the U.S. has always been political. Many of the original colonies were founded by religious people who were too radical for Europe. They didn't create a Constitution where the right to "free exercise" implied banning the very religious communities they had come to America to establish. Rather, religion has always been a part of peoples' politics. It played an outsized role in everything from abolition to women's suffrage to the civil rights movement.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > But that's not what was happening, right? Directly? No. "If there is a homeless shelter open, we can cite and jail you for sleeping outdoors". "But one of the shelters has a policy of always being 'open', even if there are no beds. They also require mandatory religious activity and participation." "If there is a homeless shelter open, we can cite and jail you for sleeping outdoors". Is a fairly strong indirect link.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Regarding what's happening, it's a bit of a generous read potentially but I think these lines are pretty clear at stating that it may be happening and the court is concerned that it is happening or that an overeager ruling would endorse it happening. > Boise said it does not issue citations if the city’s three homeless shelters are full. The plaintiffs said that the two Christian-based shelters have policies to never turn away anyone for lack of space, and so police have continuously enforced the ordinances. > > The 9th Circuit noted that those facilities could still refuse to shelter homeless people who exceed limits of the number of days they can stay or who object to mandatory religious programs. As to your other point > I disagree with the notion that religion must be a private matter. Religion is not only a matter of personal belief. Its a framework for organizing communities and raising children. Forcing people to keep religion private amounts to an infringement on "the free exercise thereof." That's fair, it definitely needs to be a balance, it's my opinion that things like Prosperity Gospel not being outright illegal and pundits like Pat Robertson are good examples that it has gone too far, but I definitely see and understand concerns about going too secular. I'm privately faithful and secular in nature, but that's just me and I understand that other folks have their own understandings of faith and religion.
- 0xEFF 7y ago
  The point is the government is doing it. Boise Police to the homeless: Either be prosecuted as a criminal or attend mandatory religious indoctrination.

Because forced religious programs are a violation of the 1st amendment.

rayiner 7y ago

Only if the government is doing it.

munk-a 7y ago
If the government is jailing people for not attending religious events that counts well enough - and they potentially were in this specific case. That said, I don't dislike religion. I'm privately faithful but my parents are religious and a lot of my friends have been, the father of a good friend of mine growing up even managed to keep his alcoholism under control with faith - so whether it's a community or a support I'm happy with that. That said, I really despise hypocrites and the biggest ones I can see today are Prosperity Gospel preachers and that Evangelical voting block that support the "good christian" in office today. I have no problem with faith and churches, but when they start getting political or taking advantage of the needy then they've got to go. Lastly, it's getting a bit weird with religious institutions fighting against women's health organizations - and that discussion is a pile of snakes so let me just say I understand where both sides come from and don't really care to discuss the topic. It is highly likely that the religious institutions you're thinking of aren't these partisan televangelists or con-men but those guys have left a sour taste in my mouth for religious institutions in general - I default to spurning and distrusting them until I've seen an organization act in a beneficial and ethical manner. I trust them more slowly then I trust secular charities.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > If the government is jailing people for not attending religious events that counts well enough But that's not what was happening, right? > I have no problem with faith and churches, but when they start getting political I disagree with the notion that religion must be a private matter. Religion is not only a matter of personal belief. Its a framework for organizing communities and raising children. Forcing people to keep religion private amounts to an infringement on "the free exercise thereof." Notably, religion in the U.S. has always been political. Many of the original colonies were founded by religious people who were too radical for Europe. They didn't create a Constitution where the right to "free exercise" implied banning the very religious communities they had come to America to establish. Rather, religion has always been a part of peoples' politics. It played an outsized role in everything from abolition to women's suffrage to the civil rights movement.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > But that's not what was happening, right? Directly? No. "If there is a homeless shelter open, we can cite and jail you for sleeping outdoors". "But one of the shelters has a policy of always being 'open', even if there are no beds. They also require mandatory religious activity and participation." "If there is a homeless shelter open, we can cite and jail you for sleeping outdoors". Is a fairly strong indirect link.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Regarding what's happening, it's a bit of a generous read potentially but I think these lines are pretty clear at stating that it may be happening and the court is concerned that it is happening or that an overeager ruling would endorse it happening. > Boise said it does not issue citations if the city’s three homeless shelters are full. The plaintiffs said that the two Christian-based shelters have policies to never turn away anyone for lack of space, and so police have continuously enforced the ordinances. > > The 9th Circuit noted that those facilities could still refuse to shelter homeless people who exceed limits of the number of days they can stay or who object to mandatory religious programs. As to your other point > I disagree with the notion that religion must be a private matter. Religion is not only a matter of personal belief. Its a framework for organizing communities and raising children. Forcing people to keep religion private amounts to an infringement on "the free exercise thereof." That's fair, it definitely needs to be a balance, it's my opinion that things like Prosperity Gospel not being outright illegal and pundits like Pat Robertson are good examples that it has gone too far, but I definitely see and understand concerns about going too secular. I'm privately faithful and secular in nature, but that's just me and I understand that other folks have their own understandings of faith and religion.
0xEFF 7y ago
The point is the government is doing it. Boise Police to the homeless: Either be prosecuted as a criminal or attend mandatory religious indoctrination.