Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

Thanks, I wasn't aware that there were non-christian Chaplains. I am a veteran myself, so it just goes to show one doesn't necessarily know all about a subject even having been immersed in it (the military).

That said, I think that hiring trained mental health counselors would do just as well, especially after seeing what you've said about the types of issues your friend's father fielded. He was likely exercising his psychology skills much more than his theogolical skills, so what's the point of having the religious connection really?

I forsee a day when military chaplains will be a thing of the past.

As far as last rites go - I don't think that a Muslim's family would be too thrilled about having a Rabbi or a Priest performing last rites on their family member. Perhaps they check the dog tags though (hopefully) before performing any religious rites - which then brings about the issue of equal representation, and which is where I see a consitutional issue.

If prisons can't get religious funding from the taxbase because it can be viewed as a breach of the separation of church and state, why should the military?

And all this time I thought our laws were based on the Code of Hammurabi. Thanks for clearing that up!

The chaplains are there for last rights - if requested. As well as hearing confessions, etc. They take care of the spiritual health of the troops that wish it. They do not enforce it on those who don't wish it.

I really don't see the difference between this and the prison issue, to be honest. Obviously, they are there to serve the religious needs of the troops who so desire it, I am not questioning that, and I more than realize it's not enforced. I am asking why it's any different than state-funded religious programs (and chapels) in the military. On chapels, I was at several bases during my stint, and I never saw a non-Christian chapel, although that was a while ago, and they may have them now.

Show me where in the founding documents it says the government can't assist religions.

I'm not talking about the "government" assisting religions. IM TALKING ABOUT !ME! ASSISTING RELIGIONS! I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR IT! THOSE ARE NOT MY GOVERNMENTS TAX DOLLARS!! THEY ARE MINE!! I WORKED FOR THEM I PAID THEM!! I DONT WANT EM GOING TO YOUR IMAGINARY FRIENDS NETWORK FUND!!

"Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and typically considered (along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values." ---wiki

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- A judge has ruled that a Bible-based prison program violates the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause by using state funds to promote Christianity to inmates.
----end

Is the judge going to far? Or is he right?


Briana Dawson

.......

........ it can be interpreted as a clause to prevent the favoring of one religion over another, thereby keeping the government out of religion and vice versa.......
........

There is no separation, only a protection of religions from a biased government.

There can be no bias against religion, that's all the constitution guarantees. The fact some activist courts have bastardized the rule of law means little to me. There was a time the courts said women can't vote, and that blacks were not fully human, so courts make mistakes.

I'm not talking about the "government" assisting religions. IM TALKING ABOUT !ME! ASSISTING RELIGIONS! I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR IT! THOSE ARE NOT MY GOVERNMENTS TAX DOLLARS!! THEY ARE MINE!! I WORKED FOR THEM I PAID THEM!! I DONT WANT EM GOING TO YOUR IMAGINARY FRIENDS NETWORK FUND!!

That's how I feel about funding Planned Parenthood, you will get used to it.

That's how I feel about funding Planned Parenthood, you will get used to it.

Lemme guess... your one of those "no sex education in schools" kinda guys, right?

Schools are for learning how to do school work, not have sex.

If religion is a thing for the home, shouldn't something much more personal be for the home?

You don't want kids to have religion information pushed on them by the schools, as it should be with sex information.

Schools are for learning school subjects, not how to have sex.

You're serious? You think sex ed is about teaching kids how to have sex? Wow.... just wow

I pray to all the various heathen Gods that you never breed.

Yep, they even show the proper way to put on a condom. You didn't know? Wow, just wow...

At least you are praying.

If religion is a thing for the home, shouldn't something much more personal be for the home?

You don't want kids to have religion information pushed on them by the schools, as it should be with sex information.

Schools are for learning school subjects, not how to have sex.

That is not the same as teaching kids *how* to have sex. Proper condom use is, I believe, appropriate for schools, especially since there are puritans out there who are in denial of their teenagers having sex. You'd be amazed at how many people *don't* know how to put condoms on correctly... would you rather fund more abortions or safer sex? Abstinence-only programs simply do not work as well as you'd like to believe.

If religion is a thing for the home, shouldn't something much more personal be for the home?

You don't want kids to have religion information pushed on them by the schools, as it should be with sex information.

Schools are for learning school subjects, not how to have sex.

Yup, Bridget says Hi, and can't believe you guys decided she's a saint.

Yes, yes, I know, kids will have sex anyhow, we must teach them HOW to do it more safely.

Also, kids will drive drunk, so we must teach them how to drive drunk in a safer manner.

Kids will do drugs, we must teach them proper use of a crack pipe, we all know what happened to Richard Pryor. If he had been trained how to smoke cocaine properly his face wouldn't have been so badly burned.