4 ms·

First, churches frequently rent out schools to do religious ceremonies. This has always been allowed. Second, this event happened after the game so it didn't d

First, churches frequently rent out schools to do religious ceremonies. This has always been allowed. Second, this event happened after the game so it didn't disrupt the game or anything like that. Third, separation of church and state is not in the Constitution and so it is just a general principle not any sort of binding law. Fourth, separation of church and state does not mean that a church / religious person cannot use state property. Read Jefferson's letter where he coined the phrase. It means the state cannot interfere with the religious institutions. It was a one way separation. Fifth, this was a personal ceremony, not an entire mass.

trasz 4y ago
Would you be ok with Taliban renting an American school for their religious ceremony?
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  If you mean generic Muslims then yes. The Taliban, however, is a terrorist organization so I don't support them being anywhere near America.
  - trasz 4y ago
    So your morality is based on purely political criteria?
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      No? Anybody who isn't murdering people should be able to hold a religious ceremony at a school.
      - trasz 4y ago
        Recent regulations lobbied by Christian fundamentalists result in many, many more deaths. Why are they allowed to hold ceremonies then?
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        Which regulations are those?
themadturk 4y ago
I am aware of churches renting schools for services, Sunday school etc. I attended such a church for years. No one said it disrupted the game. The separation of church and state, known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is certainly part of the Constitution. The state cannot interfere with religious institutions, and religious institutions cannot interfere with the state (making a break with European tradition, where churches were often an arm of the state, and religious institutions often controlled government), thereby making it a two way separation.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >The separation of church and state, known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is certainly part of the Constitution. Not true. Please read Jefferson's letter where he coined the phrase. Regardless, allowing a government employee to pray on government property is not establishing a state religion. None of the founders would have believed otherwise. >The state cannot interfere with religious institutions, and religious institutions cannot interfere with the state (making a break with European tradition where churches were often an arm of the state, and religious institutions often controlled government), thereby making it a two way separation. Depends on what you mean by that? People who are religious can push their religious views. Churches can push for certain policies (though they could be risking their tax exemption depending on the situation). This is fully allowed. Like I said the separation goes one way according to the guy who made the phrase.

trasz 4y ago

Would you be ok with Taliban renting an American school for their religious ceremony?

_-david-_ 4y ago
If you mean generic Muslims then yes. The Taliban, however, is a terrorist organization so I don't support them being anywhere near America.
- trasz 4y ago
  So your morality is based on purely political criteria?
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    No? Anybody who isn't murdering people should be able to hold a religious ceremony at a school.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Recent regulations lobbied by Christian fundamentalists result in many, many more deaths. Why are they allowed to hold ceremonies then?
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Which regulations are those?

themadturk 4y ago

I am aware of churches renting schools for services, Sunday school etc. I attended such a church for years. No one said it disrupted the game. The separation of church and state, known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is certainly part of the Constitution. The state cannot interfere with religious institutions, and religious institutions cannot interfere with the state (making a break with European tradition, where churches were often an arm of the state, and religious institutions often controlled government), thereby making it a two way separation.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>The separation of church and state, known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is certainly part of the Constitution. Not true. Please read Jefferson's letter where he coined the phrase. Regardless, allowing a government employee to pray on government property is not establishing a state religion. None of the founders would have believed otherwise. >The state cannot interfere with religious institutions, and religious institutions cannot interfere with the state (making a break with European tradition where churches were often an arm of the state, and religious institutions often controlled government), thereby making it a two way separation. Depends on what you mean by that? People who are religious can push their religious views. Churches can push for certain policies (though they could be risking their tax exemption depending on the situation). This is fully allowed. Like I said the separation goes one way according to the guy who made the phrase.