Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.


There is also nothing in the constitution that precludes religion and
higher education.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.




You are getting really dumb.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


Again, what is an 'official' religious student organization. Is it 'official' only because
California used the word? This is twice you've used it, but apparently you do so only because the
state of California did.

Your argument is meaningless. No one has suggested any of the students are being forced to do
anything religious.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:35:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.




You are getting really dumb.

Yup.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.


Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded
group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several
completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but
trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****.
If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more
conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era
decision gets a haircut.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.


Do you have *any* indication that's what California is talking about? No. California is saying the
'official' religious group must not exclude members or officers who are of a different persuasion.

Again, what is 'official', Krause? Perhaps I'm not entitled to an answer, eh?

On 2/1/17 12:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.


Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded
group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several
completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but
trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****.
If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more
conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era
decision gets a haircut.


Try to keep up. I stated *my* preference.

On 2/1/17 10:26 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 2/1/17 12:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.


Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded
group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several
completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but
trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****.
If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more
conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era
decision gets a haircut.


Try to keep up. I stated *my* preference.


Try to keep up. It should be obvious to you by now that no one
cares about your preferences.


Obviously, you do. You keep commenting on them. But, hey, if it weren't
for me and the occasional post from Donnie, you'd have nothing on which
to comment here, dumb as you are.