4 ms·

> but it wouldn't be defensible for me to do so under separation of religion I don't understand your sentence. "separation of religion" with what? Is there a l

> but it wouldn't be defensible for me to do so under separation of religion I don't understand your sentence. "separation of religion" with what? Is there a law stating religion needs to be separated from everything else?

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
It's the first amendment of the US Constitution.
alistairSH 7y ago
The Constitution. But, that only applies to charities receiving state funding. If you want to self-fund a dinner-for-calculus program, you are free to do so.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Unless, like in the case of this specific article - you are getting the government to jail people for not attending.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Yeah, the article addressed a slightly different angle than most of the discussion in this thread. This case (partially) answered "Can the government jail you for being homeless?" The answer being "No, not generally, but perhaps under a certain set of circumstances that are outside the scope of this case." Much of the discussion here is "Can a charity compel you into indoctrination in return for bed/food/etc?" The answer to which is "No, not if they are receiving state funding." (They probably shouldn't regardless of funding, but that's a moral question, not a legal one)
    - munk-a 7y ago
      My apologies - I have been reading this in line with the article with the scenario question including "... and potentially be jailed for not attending". Omitting that addendum I agree this is more clear cut legally - I still think there may be moral questions about feeding people conditional on their attendance to a lecture religious or otherwise, but honestly... there are some moral questions about refusing to feed someone in need in any circumstances that our society has mostly moved on from acknowledging so I think most of my objections (excluding the potential arresting scenarios) are academic and beyond the common ethics. Neat thread though, lots of fun stuff in it.
      - alistairSH 7y ago
        Yeah, the edge case is jailing the homeless, when there are beds available, but those beds are contingent on indoctrination. The way the article reads, that wasn't fully answered with this case. FWIW, my vote would be forced indoctrination would be illegal in this context (ie, you can't jail for declining a bed with religious strings attached).
munk-a 7y ago
I don't know if it's technically a law per se but yea there is in the US: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. this has generally been opined to imply a separation of church and state since any state endorsement of a religion (any directly stated ties) would support the establishment[1] of one religion[2] while also curtailing the establishment[1] of another religion. 1. The usage of the word establishment is pretty archaic language-wise, I think it's fair to conceptually substitute organization, enrollment and participation. 2. Generally, traditionally we haven't minded supporting religious organizations unless that support is unequal, this is why a lot of religious organizations are tax free and have some other fun benefits.
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  This comment is terribly misinformed. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply to charities distributing their own resources. There is no law preventing them from conditioning aid on listening to a religious sermon.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    The original topic under discussion involves the US government by way of Boise police arresting people for not being in shelters - in some cases there were beds available that came with mandatory religious programs and the 9th circuit court held that that was insufficient to count as freely offered housing. People were, essentially, arrested for not attending religious ceremonies - there is a lot more interesting nuance here, but suffice to say that the 1st Amendment is absolutely relevant if people are potentially being jailed by the state due to a failure to attend religious ceremonies.
FireBeyond 7y ago
When Boise threatens you with arrest for being homeless, and says that "shelter A over there had a bed/soup kitchen and you didn't use it", but shelter A mandated that you had to participate in religious ceremonies or sermons, you now have the state putting you in jail should your beliefs not be compatible with the religious bent of the charity. That kind of separation.
- datashow 7y ago
  Is shelter A responsible for the state arresting homeless people? Should not the state stop this practice? What if shelter A says I will close if you don't allow me to practice religion?
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    No-one in this case is "blaming" the shelter. Sure, they're free to offer charity under whatever terms they like. But the shelter's policy can and should limit what the city is allowed to do. Saying "I have a 'choice': to go to your religious shelter or be arrested for sleeping outside" is a problem.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

It's the first amendment of the US Constitution.

alistairSH 7y ago

The Constitution. But, that only applies to charities receiving state funding. If you want to self-fund a dinner-for-calculus program, you are free to do so.

munk-a 7y ago
Unless, like in the case of this specific article - you are getting the government to jail people for not attending.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Yeah, the article addressed a slightly different angle than most of the discussion in this thread. This case (partially) answered "Can the government jail you for being homeless?" The answer being "No, not generally, but perhaps under a certain set of circumstances that are outside the scope of this case." Much of the discussion here is "Can a charity compel you into indoctrination in return for bed/food/etc?" The answer to which is "No, not if they are receiving state funding." (They probably shouldn't regardless of funding, but that's a moral question, not a legal one)
  - munk-a 7y ago
    My apologies - I have been reading this in line with the article with the scenario question including "... and potentially be jailed for not attending". Omitting that addendum I agree this is more clear cut legally - I still think there may be moral questions about feeding people conditional on their attendance to a lecture religious or otherwise, but honestly... there are some moral questions about refusing to feed someone in need in any circumstances that our society has mostly moved on from acknowledging so I think most of my objections (excluding the potential arresting scenarios) are academic and beyond the common ethics. Neat thread though, lots of fun stuff in it.
    - alistairSH 7y ago
      Yeah, the edge case is jailing the homeless, when there are beds available, but those beds are contingent on indoctrination. The way the article reads, that wasn't fully answered with this case. FWIW, my vote would be forced indoctrination would be illegal in this context (ie, you can't jail for declining a bed with religious strings attached).

munk-a 7y ago

I don't know if it's technically a law per se but yea there is in the US: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. this has generally been opined to imply a separation of church and state since any state endorsement of a religion (any directly stated ties) would support the establishment[1] of one religion[2] while also curtailing the establishment[1] of another religion. 1. The usage of the word establishment is pretty archaic language-wise, I think it's fair to conceptually substitute organization, enrollment and participation. 2. Generally, traditionally we haven't minded supporting religious organizations unless that support is unequal, this is why a lot of religious organizations are tax free and have some other fun benefits.

hcurtiss 7y ago
This comment is terribly misinformed. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply to charities distributing their own resources. There is no law preventing them from conditioning aid on listening to a religious sermon.
- munk-a 7y ago
  The original topic under discussion involves the US government by way of Boise police arresting people for not being in shelters - in some cases there were beds available that came with mandatory religious programs and the 9th circuit court held that that was insufficient to count as freely offered housing. People were, essentially, arrested for not attending religious ceremonies - there is a lot more interesting nuance here, but suffice to say that the 1st Amendment is absolutely relevant if people are potentially being jailed by the state due to a failure to attend religious ceremonies.

FireBeyond 7y ago

When Boise threatens you with arrest for being homeless, and says that "shelter A over there had a bed/soup kitchen and you didn't use it", but shelter A mandated that you had to participate in religious ceremonies or sermons, you now have the state putting you in jail should your beliefs not be compatible with the religious bent of the charity. That kind of separation.

datashow 7y ago
Is shelter A responsible for the state arresting homeless people? Should not the state stop this practice? What if shelter A says I will close if you don't allow me to practice religion?
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  No-one in this case is "blaming" the shelter. Sure, they're free to offer charity under whatever terms they like. But the shelter's policy can and should limit what the city is allowed to do. Saying "I have a 'choice': to go to your religious shelter or be arrested for sleeping outside" is a problem.