“Are leftists so in love with big government that they think government not funding something is akin to banning it?”
YES! That’s what makes them leftists. That’s the whole game.
Only when colonists tried to form a nation, and met with others who practiced different religions (or none, like Thomas Jefferson), did they put freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Stossell has made an error and/or a lie of omission in his commentary. The first paragraph above is precisely the reason that the First Amendment uses the wording "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting establishment..." - the power to establish (or not) a state-sponsored religion (within the borders of an individual state) was left to the individual states.
ping
Birth control not your bosses business? Then don’t ask him to fund it
There is no Freedom of Religion in America since they banned Jesus from the public schools and public square. There is no ability to transmit our culture and Traditions to the majority of children since the suppression and demeaning and demonizing of our heritage and beliefs and culture.
They (government) demean and denigrate the Christian Faith and Traditions for the majority of the day, for the majority of students (on purpose), while Satanism and Atheism and paganism is promoted and endorsed by the State 24/7.
Everyone has a Faith.....everyone has an ideology—every curricula promotes a “belief” system-—and the only religions which are allowed in the public square and to be promoted 24/7 is that of Atheists, cults, Satanists (sodomites) and Mother Earth worship.
3000 years of Ethics are being flipped-—that ideology based on Natural Law like our Constitution (which is in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs only). All other “faiths” are irrational to the extreme and discard science and Reason and Rule of Law (Higher Law based on Justice/God’s Laws, the Queen of Virtue). Laws that promote Vice (theft/welfare/etc.) are Stalin’s ethics and are unconstitutional always..
Freedom of religion means freedom from Islam.
Can I say “amen” to that?
If memory serves, Stossel is a bit anti-Christian on some issues, but he appears true to his libertarian ideals. Even if he disagrees with what some of us believe, he still supports our right to believe and practice it. I can definitely live with that (as I support his right to not believe in Jesus should he desire that).
why would he use an example that had nothing to do with our founding?
Catholics barely existed in America at it's founding, less than one half, of one percent, and they didn't start arriving until generations after the founding, so this leaves a false impression.
Good for John Stossel, who is Jewish, yet objectively understands the value of religion for the society as a whole that is majority Christian..
We could open a real can of worms if we stated that the Founding Fathers ONLY meant those religions practiced in the states at the signing of the Constitution.
No new ones allowed.
But then, the libs would try to force the same thing for the complete first and Second Amendments.
NEVER trust a liberal or Democrat.
Except that the federal government DOES indeed essentially subsidize religion through the tax exemption policy. It's part of the reason groups like the Church of Scientology can continue to rake in vast sums of cash pushing all its nonsense. It's also made the Christian "megachurch" business extremely lucrative.