Say Anything Blog

It does prevent the free exercise of religion by telling them what they can believe/practice. Sure, you can say it only removes funding, but what if they rely on that funding? What if they have to turn away students who have government grants? Saying that it doesn’t prevent free exercise by saying “it only prevents them a little” doesn’t work. Look how hard the left fights prohibiting abortion a little.

In any case, it does discriminate against people on the basis of creed. I can’t turn anyone down for a job based on their religion, but the government can turn down a student for an education because he wants to go to a school who believes the Bible? I have to declare shenanigans on this one.

That needs to be fought...if not on behalf of the institutions, then on behalf of the individuals.

Sure, you can say it only removes funding, but what if they rely on that funding? What if they have to turn away students who have government grants? Saying that it doesn’t prevent free exercise by saying “it only prevents them a little” doesn’t work.

Well, I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree.

The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.  Nothing says they have to fund it

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

That is a really important point, Rob.  Government money is not a given.  Colleges have become dependant on government tax dollars to subsidize their programs.  Fact is that this leads to tuition costs that continue to climb and consequently, subsidies like Pell Grants, etc., continue to climb right with tuition rates.  The net is that for poor folk, they don’t pay any more with rising tuition costs than they would otherwise since essentially their education is free.  On the other hand, rich folks must pay these rising costs out of pocket.

Net is that when you are paying for college out of pocket, either you can afford to send your kids to community college for most upper middle class folks with more than one kid, or you are super rich and send them to top shelf private universities.  There is no more middle ground.

Here is what the Governor did… he effectively told poor Christians that we are no longer going to subsidize them attending private schools.  If these private schools really believe in this “Jesus” guy that was willing to die for his beliefs, then surely they will not hire some flaming transexual and will simply refuse funds.  It is the fact that these universities are on the government dole that is the problem.

When you depend on government for your survival, then you have to do what the government wants you to.  These religious schools, day cares, and “other” organizations either stand on their own or deserve to be out of business.  Sure they help lots of people, but they have to play by the rules.

Now if it were me, I would board up shop and move to another state and tell Blue State California to go F* themselves.  Now let’s see how beholden to their spiritual beliefs these folks are and how beholden to the almighty dollar they are.  Either they get enough in tithes to survive or they don’t.  Or if they give up their beliefs to keep their doors open, they are exposed for what they are.

It will not force anybody to “condone homosexuality” rather it says that if you receive state funds you have to treat everyone equally.  I don’t think that will be such a hard thing to do. People choose their creeds which you can’t say about sexual orientation.

You know Clint, this provides these good Christian institutions the opportunity to say that they believe in smaller government, capitalism, competition, survival of the fitest, etc.  Further, that they believe that the only way to run their institution is outside of the government dole since being dependant on government stops them from running their college as they see fit.  Or it provides them good reason to leave California.

There is no in between.  They have no “right” to government subsidies to practice their religion.  The government should not be subsidizing education, period.  And if students want to attend a private university, they should pay for it themselves. 

If you don’t like, move out of California.  And if you haven’t moved from California yet, what have you been waiting for?  That is the beauty of the market.

But as to the rest of us that don’t live there, weighing in on what we think of this, it ain’t our business.  It highlights the Liberal Agenda, but individual states have the right to determine how their STATE TAX DOLLARS are spent.  This does not affect FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS so programs like Pell Grants, etc., are safe.  Just not welfare dollars for daycares, etc.

Justin B,
What exactly is a “flaming transexual”?  I know a few Trans people and I’ve never heard them described that way.

You know, this brings up another important point about state’s rights.  I think this needsto be a 10th Amendment issue and California should be allowed to do exactly what they are doing… but at the same time, so should South Dakota with determining what medical proceedures can be performed and under what rules in their state.

Ultimately, these issues will be decided by nine people in DC and both should be decided the same way.  The voters of an individual state elect their officials and vote on referendums to handle issues like these.  Neither the funding of state education or welfare or aid programs, nor the regulation of medical proceedures is delineated as a Federal issue in the Constitution and under the 10th Amendment, these issues both belong to the states themselves.

I think I mixed Flaming Homosexuals with Transexuals.  Would you like me to describe what a homosexual is versus a flaming homosexual?  I can… watch an episode or two of Will and Grace and compare Jack to Will or better yet watch an episode of Christopher Lowell.

Transexuals are people whose personal gender association is completely with the opposite sex.  Whether surgically reassigned or not, these folks that are glaringly obviously not right, would appear different.  I guess an obviously sexually confused individual with extreme behaviour would be a flaming transexual.

Does that work?

Justin B,
So which are you, a Flaming Heterosexual or just a Heterosexual?  Not trying to be rude, just trying to understand your point of view.

So which are you, a Flaming Heterosexual or just a Heterosexual?

“Flaming Heterosexual”, as a term, doesn’t exist. A couple of classifications do exist for the flamers of the straight kind though. There are ”metrosexuals” and ”emos” (short for emotional). The metrosexuals tend to be of ”Generation X”, while the emos are those who are just now becoming adults. You can find them at the mall, with the guys wearing pink shirts and garter belts.

Hope that helps.

Lik:

I’ll take your word for it.

I assure you, The Whistler, that my view is an outsider’s view. I tend to be a normal guy in areas of fashion, bathing, and whatnot.

I marvel today at how the late-teens and early 20-something guys can get away with wearing so much pink or so much black eyeliner and still call themselves straight. These people have always existed in various subcultures and groups, but they weren’t in such numbers just a short time ago.

It all amuses me. People-watcher that I am and all.

I will take his(likwidshoe)word for it too.  He seems to know much more about the subject than I.

Is there any way to hold this discussion without falling victim to using the words “condone” and “promote?” This bill doesn’t ask institutions to condone or promote anything. Instead, it just tells them not to bash. I.e., you don’t have to say “homosexuality is good,” but you can’t say “homosexuality is evil/bad/immoral etc.”

Yes, it impinges on absolute freedom of speech and religion, in that it puts a limit on what can be said, but it doesn’t force them to do anything. Many other laws place limits on speech and religious practics. Heck, they just arrested a Church of Latter Day Saints polygamist today. We also put a limit on what Christian Scientists are allowed to do.

So, “fail to condone” is not an issue. More like “fail to shut up.” Next time you’re arrested for making a bomb threat, just try arguing that your free speech is being infringed upon. You don’t have to say you have no bombs, but just don’t go around saying you have one.

I wonder of the same Christian groups that are raising a fuss about this bill would be just as upset if a similar bill withheld funds from any private school that actively portrayed Christians as evil and immoral or a danger to society. What, withhold funding from the Stratford Al-Quaeda Academy? Horrors. Bit of an exageration, and not a perfect example, but you get the idea.

This bill is a greater threat to freedom of expression than Political Correctness, and that’s saying a lot.  Since when does 3%-5% of the population dictate to the other 95%-97%?  This is monstrous, and govt blackmail, to boot.  Due to the infection of PC in our society, White, Christian Conservatvie Men have fewer free speech rights than everyone else, and now we are going to add heterosexuals to that list?  Homosexuals are free to express their opinions about sex and their own sexuality, but heterosexuals aren’t?  This smells very bad.  What’s next, public dress codes?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I marvel today at how the late-teens and early 20-something guys can get away with wearing so much pink or so much black eyeliner and still call themselves straight.

They get lots of pussy. Apparently girls like guys who cry over Fallout Boy songs. Cuz they’re soooo in touch with their emotions.

No shit! So wearing a pink shirt with onions in the top pocket (so I can cry at meaningless movies) will get me “pussy”?

I think I’ll pass. I’m at that period in my life where I will settle for nothing less than a lady.

They get lots of pussy. Apparently girls like guys who cry over Fallout Boy songs. Cuz they’re soooo in touch with their emotions.

I cry every time I watch the ending of Field of Dreams. 

I don’t know that it’s ever endeared me to a woman, but I do.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’ve been reading the comments here and thinking about this article all afternoon, and I’ve been having a hard time coming to an agreement with myself about this issue. I realized that this is because of the way the issue has been framed.

I don’t think there is any question that the bill impedes the rights of free speech and religion of these schools. It is a carrot and stick routine- if you want the money, then you have to behave the way we want.

HOWEVER, I feel that it is equally true that if the state of California gives funding to a religious school that speaks out against a group because of their sexual orientation, then the state is, in effect, supporting and endorsing the school’s view. Both situations are completely unacceptable. Which is why I was having such a hard time with this.

I don’t think that religious schools, delivering thier faith’s tenets as part of the curriculum, should be getting state funds in the first place. That is where I think the real problem lies.

I don’t think that religious schools, delivering thier faith’s tenets as part of the curriculum, should be getting state funds in the first place.

Right, the parents should be getting that money to educate their children wherever they think best. 

That is where I think the real problem lies.

Exactly.

Andrew,

The basic premise of the GI Bill is that in exchange for a certain amount of military service, the discharged veteran was entitled to money from the government for his/her education.  The choice of where that money is to be spent is left to the veteran, as long as the school of choice meets minimum accreditation, whether the couse of study was vocational, professional, or academic was of no concern, nor was the religious or secular affiliation of the school.  A course in automotice repair and bodywork sponsored by the Quakers is as acceptable as a 2 year Associates program in Office Management offered by a Catholic school, or a course in cinematography endorsed by the NEA and taught by Ginger Lynn Allen.

The point is that if the money goes to the student or parents, then they are “free to choose” how best to spend in in pursuit of their education.  What California needs is a voucher program.  Thus education funding without the guilt.  Which is why the NEA and other unions are dead set against vouchers.  They work.

Andrew: “I don’t think that religious schools, delivering thier faith’s tenets as part of the curriculum, should be getting state funds in the first place. That is where I think the real problem lies.”

Why should just religion be excluded?  Ever hear of Ward Churchill?  At least religion teaches a moral code of behavior, which is better than Marxism or any other atheist ideology.  Why should taxpayer money favor one set of values and exclude another?  That is the essence of freedom of speech.  You would exclude only religious teaching from freedom of speech, and permit all others, even a tiny minority position like homosexuality.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Bat One- I agree wholeheartedly. IF state money is being given directly to the student or family to fund education as some sort of compensation, then of course they should be able to apply said monies however they wish. I should have clarified- I was speaking only on state money being given to the schools, directly.

Robert- well, I specifically mentioned religious schools since that was the context of the discussion, but to look at it more broadly, I feel that if a school - any school- is getting PUBLIC funds, then they must serve the public equally. And yes, that includes homosexuals, and marxists, communists, devout christians, and even republicans. Institutions operating with PUBLIC funds must be a forum where all ideas can be freely discussed, and none are advocated over the others. PRIVATE institutions can teach or preach whatever they like, condemning or excluding this idea or that as they please, so long as they fund themselves.