ACLU testy about Fest for Jesus in Clarksburg

stunnedchristian wrote:

cant believe the comments to this wonderful event. I will be praying for all of you that make fun of the one that sacrificed everything to save our souls. Such a sad, confused state this world is in!!

I pray that you would get a grasp of Constitutional law so you could actually comment on the issue of the thread instead of being confused.

so now your saying that we cant have a public gathering in the city of clarksburg that is religious in nature? what is unconstitutional about that? If the city wants to donate money, why would that be a problem? How is that unconstitutional?

It is not unconstitutional

stunnedchristian wrote:

so now your saying that we cant have a public gathering in the city of clarksburg that is religious in nature? what is unconstitutional about that? If the city wants to donate money, why would that be a problem? How is that unconstitutional?

No, I am saying exactly what I said and nothing more.
"A public gathering that is Christian in nature" is one thing. Funding that gathering with taxpayer money is another.
The second may (or may not, depending on the circumstances) constitute a violation of the Establishment clause, which most of us learned about in high school civics...
So I have to wonder how you are "surprised" by this being an issue. We don't permit taxpayer-funded religion in this country in most cases, so you should not be surprised.

Almost Heaven wrote:

It is not unconstitutional

Perhaps, but you need a better argument than this.

We need more praying !

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>Perhaps, but you need a better argument than this.

It has been argued a 1000 times over. There is nothing unconstitutional because there is no mandatory attendance and there had not been a denial of funds for other religions. It's amazing that this conversation is still going on.

amazedbyignorance wrote:

<quoted text>
It has been argued a 1000 times over. There is nothing unconstitutional because there is no mandatory attendance and there had not been a denial of funds for other religions. It's amazing that this conversation is still going on.

Mandatory attendance is not a test for constitutionality.
Denial of funds for others is not either.
The test is whether there is a "sufficient governmental nexus" to the religious expression.

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>Mandatory attendance is not a test for constitutionality.
Denial of funds for others is not either.
The test is whether there is a "sufficient governmental nexus" to the religious expression.

Which there would not be because it is a flat and consistent dollar amount given to all festivals without prejudice or preference.

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I am saying exactly what I said and nothing more.
"A public gathering that is Christian in nature" is one thing. Funding that gathering with taxpayer money is another.
The second may (or may not, depending on the circumstances) constitute a violation of the Establishment clause, which most of us learned about in high school civics...
So I have to wonder how you are "surprised" by this being an issue. We don't permit taxpayer-funded religion in this country in most cases, so you should not be surprised.

Ok you are saying since the Jesusfest has people talking about Jesus and God along with preaching that we (the city of Clarksburg)
should not support it with some funding. If that is true then we need to stop our support of the Greek Heritage Festival, Black Heritage Festival and the Italian Festival they all have some sort of sermon going on during their festivals.

Why are people so discriminating against christain celebrations? It's not like we are dancing naked in the street in front of peoples children.

Remember KJV Luk 10:16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

The Prince of this world satan has always been in a fight with God over peoples souls. He uses anything he can to keep others away from God.

People try to use "separation from Church and State" as a reason to stop any church activity. That was not why that was set up for, that was written so the church could not run the government; ie like in early England and Rome, and so that the government had no say in what church we went to like they tried to do in England. This country was founded on God and his principles and in order to fix the problems that we have now in this country we need to get back to those principles.

“Fairs and festivals its not taxpayers money,” Watson explains.”It’s money we fund all fairs and festivals regardless of what the subject manner is. It is usually open to the public. And doing so that money does not come from property tax money. It comes from what I call devil’s money which is gambling money from video lottery and table games that the county has received.”

wvtuck wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok you are saying since the Jesusfest has people talking about Jesus and God along with preaching that we (the city of Clarksburg)
should not support it with some funding. If that is true then we need to stop our support of the Greek Heritage Festival, Black Heritage Festival and the Italian Festival they all have some sort of sermon going on during their festivals.

You know, whenever I see a reponse to a post that starts with "OK you are saying..." it usually goes on to say something I never said at all. Your post is no different.

You do not seem to understand that there is a special problem with public funding of religious events. There is a LAW specifically against it. It is OK in some contexts but not in others.

This is nothing new. This is basic American high school civics. Having a ceremonial prayer that is coincidental MAY be OK as ceremonial deism, depending on the context (for example, in a public school the level of scrutiny is much higher). Having a festival that is PER SE religious is something else entirely.

Are you really not able to see this distinction, and have never heard of the Establishment clause???

hwyangel wrote:

Why are people so discriminating against christain celebrations? It's not like we are dancing naked in the street in front of peoples children.

Expecting Christians to obey the same laws as everyone else is not discrimination.

wvtuck wrote:

People try to use "separation from Church and State" as a reason to stop any church activity. That was not why that was set up for, that was written so the church could not run the government; ie like in early England and Rome, and so that the government had no say in what church we went to like they tried to do in England. This country was founded on God and his principles and in order to fix the problems that we have now in this country we need to get back to those principles.

This post is ignorant horseshit.

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
Expecting Christians to obey the same laws as everyone else is not discrimination.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx...

It costs the city more money to maintain control over events that tend to get out of control. Christain oriented festivals tend to be family oriented and free to everyone, just like forth of july, easter, christmas or high school parades. And they clean up after themselves.
No one gets sexually molested, drunk, or insulted.

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
This post is ignorant horseshit.

why is this comment ingnorant. This country was founded on Christian beliefs, all you have to do is some research to fimd this out. Its a shame that there are so many godless people today. They, along with the religious cults and sects make so many people confused and lead so many people away from God.

jesusislord wrote:

<quoted text>
why is this comment ingnorant. This country was founded on Christian beliefs, all you have to do is some research to fimd this out. Its a shame that there are so many godless people today. They, along with the religious cults and sects make so many people confused and lead so many people away from God.

First of all, this country was (and is) demographically Christian by a comfortable majority.

LEGALLY it is nothing of the sort, and you people just do not understand the difference. You don't even grasp the very basics of civil rights: to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

Whatever your opinion of society is is really irrelevant. The law is the law. That you do not understand it does not invalidate it.

So your comment is both ignorant as well as irrelevant to the issue.