http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=10&seqnum=86 Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.
It is bad. Not only does it use our tax money to support religion (whose? yours? mine? someone else's?). It means public schools can teach bible in science class and it's legal because otherwise fundamentalists are being denied benefits. It means employers can decide that employees can't use birth control if they oppose it. There have been a number of court cases where someone claimed an exemption from a law based on their religion. In one, a restaurant owner defended barring African-American customers because his religion taught that segregations was God's plan. He lost. In another, a Christian school said they should be allowed to pay female teachers less than male because their bible said men were head of household. They have the legal right to preach that, but pay has to follow secular law. More recently, Bob Jones University was in court over denial of federal student aid to study their because they not only banned interracial dating and marriage, they prohibited even speaking in favor. They said that this was their religious teaching. They lost. Currently a maker of heating/air conditioning, a private for profit, secular employer, is going to court insisting they have the right to prohibit employees from using their health insurance for birth control because their religion opposes birth control. That is still pending. Looks like this law is a way to make all of the above legal.
A church gets bombed. The police show up. That's using govt. money INDIRECTLY. And I am really sure that any law that refers to the 1st amendment includes all the judicial rulings that flush out its current interpretation.
So I looked a bit deeper at this. At issue is the 2004 florida supreme court ruling that school vouchers are unconstitutional because some parents might use them to send their kids to a sectarian school. I don't see the separation of church and state issue here, regarding the 1st amendment. The govt. is not telling people to use the vouchers to send kids to a particular religious institution's schools. If the state is going to mandate (truancy laws) kids must go to school, then giving them and their parents a choice seems fair. As for the rest, I think people are reading far more into the intent. And I did read the actual language of the proposed change.
Seems fair that if the state is going to mandate kids be in school that families should be allowed to choose what type of school they will be attending, no?
Here are the anti-American zealots who are pissing on the Constitution with this blasphemy: Joint Resolution by Plakon and Precourt (CO-SPONSORS) Adkins; Ahern; Baxley; Bileca; Burgin; Coley; Corcoran; Costello; Drake; Ford; Gaetz; McKeel; Metz; Perry; Renuart; Snyder; Tobia; Van Zant; Weatherford
No, not with my money. You want to teach your kids religion, pay for it yourself. Public money is for education, not theologication. The two are not related.
Seems fair that if the state is going to mandate a military that families should be allowed to choose which wars they will be taxed for, no? Seems fair that if the state is going to mandate a police force that families should be allowed to choose which laws they will be obey, no?
The bombing a church argument does not hold water. A crime, statutory crime, is committed. It does not matter, legally, if the object was a religious or secular institution. If a person is attacked and killed because of his/her religion, it is not state support of that religion to prosecute the murderer. Quite the opposite, it is equal protection. Unlike, say, when murders of Jews were ignored by or often carried out by state authority in Europe.
So you're willing to make exceptions. Keep going with that logic. The equal protection logic, too (govt. can't protect secularism at the expense of other religions!)
I've always interpreted the separation of church and state as the government will not endorse an official state religion (e.g., the Church of England). If the government chooses to put up a Christmas tree, a Menorah or anything else, I don't really have a problem with it. Completely separating church and state is in reality an embrace of athiesm, a religion all its own.
Because not worshiping the zombie telepath is worshiping the evil science, DUH! You're either with us, or with the concept I fear!
