"'The Constitution is now where near so specific about religion that it forbids passing laws that I support as a result of my religious beliefs, Amos.'

"Actually, that is exactly what it prohibits. And the Supreme Court, in it's decisions down through the years, has broadly and narrowly interpreted the 1st, but it has never waivered on the use of religion, even the religion and religious based traditions of the country's founders and framers of the constitution."

Poppycock.

"'At that the Supreme Court of California just ruled a Catholic charity was not a religious organization for the purpose of exempting it from hiring laws. If it isn't a religious organization for that, it isn't one for the purposes of withholding Federal funding either.'

That wasn't what the ruling said. The ruling said that religious organizations can't discriminate in hiring in ways that violate the constitution, which simply holds them to the same standards as every other employer."

On the contrary, the court acknowledged the law allowed churches and other related religious institutions to hire as their religious beliefs dictate. The ruling was based on the notion that the charities weren't religious instititions.


"Why can't we have JUST ONE LOUSY THREAD where we can discuss the extremely negative aspects of religion in politics and public life, from a secular perspective, without being beaten down by the Mudcat religious?"

I'm sorry, Guest, you should have told us you were just looking for validation for your views and didn't want an exchange that involved the people whose views you were trying to exclude from the public debate. Next time tell us when you start the thread. We assumed that when you included religion in the thread subject we were entitled to an opinion. As it was, you were no more beaten down that I would have been for posting a thread about the extremely positive apsects of religion. I didn't set the tone for the general conversation at Mudcat, I adapted to it.