[Dark Helmet]

"The gates of hell are prevailing against the church,"

"Gov. Arnold Tosses Out School Moral Codes."

"People of faith are suffering under Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s not the lesser of two evils, he’s doing evil.”


Now THAT is a drama queen. If anything he is the one that is going to have trouble at the gates


The Raw Story | Religious right fumes after Arnold signs gay rights bill

[spacefreak]

This is a lot more than a "gay rights bill". Nice try on the misportrayal.

Here's a bit more on the new law, since your link was a weak, selective rehash of this article...

---------------------

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions, critics note...

"Today's disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants," concluded Thomasson's organization.

CCF said the change also will affect any program or activity at the local level that gets any state funding from programs including Medi-Cal, State Disability Insurance, CalWORKS, food stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, child support services, veterans services, home loan assistance programs and others.

And as bad as the single bill is, the CCF said, several other "sexual indoctrination bills" are heading to the governor. One would prohibit textbooks or school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on a certain list of sexual choices.

Another would allow the California superintendent of public instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any district that does not adequately promote the State Department of Education's "model policy" promoting transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality in its school policies.

Still another would spend state money promoting transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

This is a lot more than a "gay rights bill". Nice try on the misportrayal.

OMG me and that story are pulling a FOX news and spewing propaganda!

Still, doesn't change the reason behind this crapola:

"Schwarzenegger is... [trampling] religious freedom at the bidding of liberal activists from San Francisco and West Hollywood."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists,”


DRAAAAMA QUEEEEEENS

[Chuckit]

Trampling religious freedom? Accepting government funds always places you under a higher standard of conduct. Nobody forces them to do so.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah isn't this exactly the same situation as Bush's stem cell veto, except now the christian right is on the other end of it?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

"Today's disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants," concluded Thomasson's organization.

If I read this correctly, it sounds to me like nobody is being "forced" to do anything. Faith-based organizations are still able to discriminate based on sexuality. But, if they choose to continue to discriminate based on sexuality, they can no longer expect the government of California to fund them.

Basically, it sounds to me as though the government of California wants to stop funding religious discrimination.

[Chuckit]

That's what he said. If they want to discriminate, they can't accept students who are there on California's dime.

[voodoo]

Arnold will make peace with the right by executing another prisoner. Then they'll all kiss and make up

V

[Spliffdaddy]

"...if the institutions have any students who get state assistance."

Um, yeah, that's pretty much none of the students.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

This is a lot more than a "gay rights bill". Nice try on the misportrayal.

Here's a bit more on the new law, since your link was a weak, selective rehash of this article...

---------------------

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions, critics note...

"Today's disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants," concluded Thomasson's organization.

CCF said the change also will affect any program or activity at the local level that gets any state funding from programs including Medi-Cal, State Disability Insurance, CalWORKS, food stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, child support services, veterans services, home loan assistance programs and others.

And as bad as the single bill is, the CCF said, several other "sexual indoctrination bills" are heading to the governor. One would prohibit textbooks or school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on a certain list of sexual choices.

Another would allow the California superintendent of public instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any district that does not adequately promote the State Department of Education's "model policy" promoting transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality in its school policies.

Still another would spend state money promoting transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles.

This is a good thing. If I was a citizen of California I would not want my taxes to go to organizations that were practicing discrimination against my fellow citizens. Does anyone on here want their tax money being given to organizations that would discriminate against their fellow citizens?

As for the state imposing their views on private groups, any one of these groups is free to refuse funds from the state if they don't like the conditions under which they get money from the state. Right? I haven't read any other articles about this but this legislation isn't forcing groups to take money, is it? If taking state money remains voluntary with this legislation then those groups that oppose the requirements associated with this new legislation are still able to refuse to accept the funds and hence not need to follow these requirements. Right? So, what is the big deal?

[Chuckit]

They don't want to reject students on Cal Grants, but they don't want to have to completely pay the students' way either. I kind of see it to a certain degree. In the end, though, the bill seems fair to me. It does ultimately come down to them wanting to be able to get money from the government without living up to the government's standards.

As for business owners, boo hoo. Either run your business well enough that you don't need handouts from the state or learn not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They don't want to reject students on Cal Grants, but they don't want to have to completely pay the students' way either. I kind of see it to a certain degree. In the end, though, the bill seems fair to me. It does ultimately come down to them wanting to be able to get money from the government without living up to the government's standards.

As for business owners, boo hoo. Either run your business well enough that you don't need handouts from the state or learn not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

That's the way I see the issue. As the old saying goes, whoever builds the sand-box gets to make the rules.

Besides, who here really wants their state government to give money to groups that discriminate against other citizens of the state? I can't believe there is anyone on here who would be that extreme in their beliefs.

[Spliffdaddy]

Hell, I don't want the state government to give *anybody* money.

[Chuckit]

I'm generally against the state giving out money, because it's usually of such limited use that it's really wrong to use public funds for that kind of stuff. But education is pretty important and it seems to me that it is generally something that has to be propped up by the state.

[Kevin]

We need a "Yet another Religious thread started by SWG" image.

Any takers?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Justice Hugo Black

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

So, if there's a religion active in CA which allows (or even promotes) homosexuality, could this new law be a breach of the constitution?

Oh, and for the record: I'm with Spliffy on the issue of government handouts.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, if there's a religion active in CA which allows (or even promotes) homosexuality, could this new law be a breach of the constitution?

Not unless you can show that this law was intended specifically to promote that religion. The First Amendment forbids religious discrimination or favoritism, but it doesn't forbid laws that simply happen to be closer to one religion's tenets than another. That would be completely unworkable. I can't kill someone and say in my defense that my religion required me to kill him — the law against murder is a secular law, and it's simply an unfortunate (for me) side effect if it comes into conflict with my religion.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Not unless you can show that this law was intended specifically to promote that religion. The First Amendment forbids religious discrimination or favoritism, but it doesn't forbid laws that simply happen to be closer to one religion's tenets than another.

OK, get ya.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

This is a lot more than a "gay rights bill". Nice try on the misportrayal.

Here's a bit more on the new law, since your link was a weak, selective rehash of this article...

---------------------

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions, critics note...

And what's wrong with that?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin

We need a "Yet another Religious thread started by SWG" image.

Any takers?

I'd say my "This thread is ripe for a gay/christian flamefest" image is more appropriate, but even I've tired of that one already.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, it actually was funny, like, the first 20 times.

[- - e r i k - -]

Funny 20 times? Maybe I ought to post it 16 times more then

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

I'd say my "This thread is ripe for a gay/christian flamefest" image is more appropriate, but even I've tired of that one already.

Considering I am supposed to be the religious thread starter it is interesting I am excluded from it

[ink]

California = The rest of the US 20 years later

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

I'd say my "This thread is ripe for a gay/christian flamefest" image is more appropriate, but even I've tired of that one already.

not really more appropriate. As most of these threads are started by the same person.

He needs his own image.

I wonder what is worse, Christians fuming about gays, or the gays in here fuming about Christians.

[Doofy]

I can see this backfiring.

What happens if the all the now-completely private Christian/Jewish schools start to seriously outperform state schools? I'm guessing that they'll be accused of being elitist because they won't be accepting poor students who need state funding.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I wonder what is worse, Christians fuming about gays, or the gays in here fuming about Christians.

I'd say they're about equal ... except that gays can't really adversely affect the lives of Christians.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I can see this backfiring.

What happens if the all the now-completely private Christian/Jewish schools start to seriously outperform state schools? I'm guessing that they'll be accused of being elitist because they won't be accepting poor students who need state funding.

They won't be accused of being elitist; they'll be accused of being sexually discriminating. But, as a completely private school, that'll be their right. And, they probably will outperform state schools, as most private schools do, since only the wealthy and successful students with non-state scholarships will be able to attend. And, I've no doubt that California will see the emergence of several large scholarships emerge, possibly even from the federal government, for these schools.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I can see this backfiring.

What happens if the all the now-completely private Christian/Jewish schools start to seriously outperform state schools? I'm guessing that they'll be accused of being elitist because they won't be accepting poor students who need state funding.

Private religious schools in the US generally outperform public secular schools already. This is due to mroe rigorous expectation of the students from the school and the parents as well as a much lower student teacher ratio than in public schools. The parents who value quality education for their children know all this. The question that will emerge now is whether or not private religious schools can keep those high standards if they refuse government funds?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The question that will emerge now is whether or not private religious schools can keep those high standards if they refuse government funds?

I'm betting "yes". Private Christian schools with no state funding here tend to seriously outperform secular state schools.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Spliffdaddy]

Private schools outperform public schools because the teachers are better.

[RAILhead]

I'm religious and I'm right, but I'm not fuming.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

This is a good thing. If I was a citizen of California I would not want my taxes to go to organizations that were practicing discrimination against my fellow citizens. Does anyone on here want their tax money being given to organizations that would discriminate against their fellow citizens?

As for the state imposing their views on private groups, any one of these groups is free to refuse funds from the state if they don't like the conditions under which they get money from the state. Right? I haven't read any other articles about this but this legislation isn't forcing groups to take money, is it? If taking state money remains voluntary with this legislation then those groups that oppose the requirements associated with this new legislation are still able to refuse to accept the funds and hence not need to follow these requirements. Right? So, what is the big deal?

I was simply posting a more comprehensive description of the law than the weak-ass blog post that started the thread...

My position? I understand the need for tolerance and non-discrimination. However, I don't see why, if a poor parent wants to send their child to a private school (like a catholic school), they are unable to under this law.

Many folks sit here and try to project their views on others. But in the case of those poor parents, they are the ones being hurt. I know plenty of people who went to catholic schools, and they turned out OK - very tolerant and all that. Some are even gay.

Additionally, this law extends to all public monies. A poor kid who wants to go to a catholic university such as Loyola Marymount can not receive assistance from the state for tuition, books, or housing.

Ultimately, it hurts parents and the children by taking away their freedom to decide where they can pursue their education based on the religious views of the desired institution. I think that's garbage.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

If I read this correctly, it sounds to me like nobody is being "forced" to do anything. Faith-based organizations are still able to discriminate based on sexuality. But, if they choose to continue to discriminate based on sexuality, they can no longer expect the government of California to fund them.

For one, poor parents and students can no longer consider attending catholic schools if they need public assistance. So it sure sounds like they are being "forced" to go elsewhere if they need financial aid in any way.

[Chuckit]

There are lots of other sources of financial aid in California than the state government. It's ridiculously easy to get financial aid around here if you need it. When I was in school, I received two scholarships just for being one of two people who applied for each.

[spacefreak]

So because you got the scholarships, every other poor student in the state who aims to attend a catholic school will also get 2 scholarships that are not from the state, and these will cover all the necessary costs?

Please post a link to this guarantee.

[Chuckit]

So every poor student who aims to attend a Catholic school would get a Cal Grant for that, and it would cover all the necessary costs? Please post a link to this guarantee.

My point is just that this does not cut off funding — it merely puts fairly reasonable stipulations on one source of funding.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

My point is just that this does not cut off funding — it merely puts fairly reasonable stipulations on one source of funding.

There's nothing reasonable about those stipulations. And it may be one source (the state), but many channels (like cal grants, meal assitance, transportation vouchers, etc).

I want to say that I agree with not having the state directly fund such institutions. That's fine. It's the assistance to students with regards to THEIR choices that I disagree with.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'd say they're about equal ... except that gays can't really adversely affect the lives of Christians.

Sure they can.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sure they can.

How?

[Kevin]

Anyone can adversely effect anyone life. You don't have to be gay or Christian to do so.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

There's nothing reasonable about those stipulations.

There's nothing reasonable to require institutions to be non-discriminatory if they want to receive money?

[Kevin]

Wouldn't that be pushing beliefs onto people?

[- - e r i k - -]

If you want to call tolerance a belief, then yes.

[Doofy]

Tolerance? Like the tolerance CA had for its smokers? That kind of tolerance?

Or tolerance as in "Arnie requires votes from SF"?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

If you want to call tolerance a belief, then yes.

Well I wouldn't call forcing a belief on someone tolerance.

[- - e r i k - -]

Hehe. Your debating skills are purely based on spin. Doesn't work Kevin.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'd say they're about equal ... except that gays can't really adversely affect the lives of Christians.

What a burn.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

For one, poor parents and students can no longer consider attending catholic schools if they need public assistance. So it sure sounds like they are being "forced" to go elsewhere if they need financial aid in any way.

Huh?!? You make it sound as if the only way poor parents can afford Catholic schools is if the state pays. Why should the state use secular public funds to subsidize education at a religious private institution? Let the local church or arch-diocese that runs the religious school provide the necessary scholarships to the poor students who want to attend their schools.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

For one, poor parents and students can no longer consider attending catholic schools if they need public assistance. So it sure sounds like they are being "forced" to go elsewhere if they need financial aid in any way.

I'm not really surprised that MacNN can erupt in a debate like this based on such a poorly written article. I tried to figure out what bill the original article was referring to. I couldn't find any info on the governor's home page or the assembly's. I think it's referring to SB 1437, which does the following:

SB 1437 would ban teachers, textbooks, instructional materials or school activities from reflecting "adversely" upon people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

And note:

SB 1437 applies to public school teachers, not those on privately funded campuses.

It seems like there's a lot of FUD being spread by the anti-gay crowd again unless I missed something.

Link