gates of hell prevailing in California

That's the primary danger of accepting taxpayer money from the federal government. That's why Baptists have historically stood for separation of church and state. With taxpayer money comes federal oversight and control... and that's the way it should be.

Churches and religious organizations should be supported by likeminded people, not from taxpayers.

 

If an organization doesn't want to deal with government controls, then it shouldn't take taxpayer money. That's why the idea of school vouchers for religious schools is such a terrible idea.

 

IMHO

I would agree with this decision if they gave all taxpayers the right to not pay taxes based upon conscientious objection to abortion . . .

Then it would be fair.

 

Preach it brother!

 

Your absolutely correct hill! This is what some just don't understand. We want God in our lives, homes, and Churches, but some want a government void of Him?

God I want you to be in my life. God I want you to be in my home. God I want you to be in my Church. But God I want you to stay out of my government! And God I don't want my elected officials to recognize you! This as some would say.

The reason you get such legislation as found in California with this, Is directly because God's authority was rejected!

Absolutely scary! It will only get worse as long as we stick our head in the sand and simply scream religious freedom!

I think God would prefer we simply stand for Him in all arena's!:thumbs:

 

It would be nice if America was to go back to the way we were in the 50's . . .

Oh well.

 

I think there should be separation of church and state in order to avoid a theocracy. Theocracies have done wonders for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. There are small groups of Christians who would love to establish a theocracy in America and eventually the world. Have you heard of dominionism? :type:

 

But my tax dollars would also go to your vouchers. Should I be allowed to stipulate that my tax dollars not support your kids' school since I would have no say in what your kids were taught? If you take my money, you have to take my interference.

 

It would not be your tax money Daisy. It would be a part of my own tax money. Instead of paying (lets just pick a number) $6000 for public education. I would pay $3000 and put $3000 into educating my kid on my own.

So there would be one less kid in the school. But they still get $3000 of my money. SO they are ahead money. They still get $3000 BUT dont have to spend it on my kid.

 

Then I should be able to "take my interference" and interfere with communist college professors & doctors that murder embryos.

 

But I would have to make up your missing portion for the years your kid is in private school.

 

But the government school wouldn't be having to spend any money on his kid.

We should have a complete separation of education and state.

 

I agree with Squire, I think this will be appealed in the corts. I don't believe he can single out one criteria without throwing out all exclusions for any learning center. There are many schools, esp in cali that have criteria to be met to get in.

I also don't think this is an attack against Christianity per se, it is more Arnold trying to get votes from a reprobate group of people. Once the court overthrows this mess he will still look good for trying. I'm in favor of vouchers but believe you should be able to use it at the school of your choice. As long as they have some kind of certification, it should be allowable.

I believe we need God in our government because the government has such an impact on our everyday lives. Where I try to respect others choices of religion, I still believe Jesus is the only savior and everyone needs him even if it's via government proxy.

 

We do need balanced laws.