You mean that the entire town is church property, or that the federal government building a church would be a violation of the First Amendment?
The first was Dogtowner's statement. The second is self evident.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith
- Thread starter Texas_tea
- Start date
The first was Dogtowner's statement. The second is self evident.
Werbung:
Be it a church or just a retreat facility (or a vacation spot for methodist pastors) then FEMA would have justification.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
So far I have not seen the OP supported enough for me to buy it.
But here is an interesting question you pose:
If FEMA is sent to rebuild all sorts of structures, community centers, private houses, supermarkets, bridges...then not rebuilding church would be discrimination against the church.
But if FEMA is sent to rebuild only private homes then it would obviously skip all corporate entities like a supermarket or a church.
If it sent only to build public structures then it would rebuild bridges and skip private homes.
So what is the charter of FEMA? And what is the constitutional basis of having the taxpaying people of Nebraska or all the other unaffected states pay for the rebuilding of any kind of structure in New Jersey?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Christians act against their faith all the tine
I mean how many meek peacemaking christians are there posting on this board?
They are mostly extreme tight wing war mongering money worshippers
Great advert
I mean how many meek peacemaking christians are there posting on this board?
They are mostly extreme tight wing war mongering money worshippers
Great advert
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
A gross characterization. And in fact were I to make my own characterization I see hardly anybody Christian or otherwise on this board who is a warmongering money worshiper.
Interesting question. Just what is FEMA's charter? Surely, they aren't expected to rebuild everything after every natural disaster. Buildings are supposed to be insured by their owners against natural disasters, after all.
Another interesting question is this: If FEMA is mandated to rebuild public buildings, shouldn't it be public buildings that pay taxes? Churches don't pay taxes, after all, and so shouldn't be rebuilt by tax money.
Managing emergencies doesnt sound like insurance to me.
To get back on topic for just a sec... I see that SCOTUS will be taking up the constitutionality of forcing companies to act against their relugious convictions. Remember Hobby Lobby and the contraception matter ? Stay tuned.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I have fire insurance, and my home is destroyed by a wildfire that also destroys the rest of the community, should my insurer not pay to have my house rebuilt?
You're right. We have gotten a bit off topic. I saw that one on the news tonight.
Personally, I think everyone should pay for their own contraception, along with any day to day medical expense. Medical insurance should be for the big disasters, not for the small stuff.
But, let's see what the SCOTUS has to say.
Fema federal EMERGENCY MANAGENENT agency. They manage they are nit an insurance company.
Exactly. So, why would they be rebuilding anything other than, perhaps breakwaters and levies to prevent further damage?
army corp of engineers for that. Fema could alert them.
They should build nothing.
Then refusing to rebuild a town because it is/once was owned by a religion is not discriminating against religion, is it?
Werbung:
I already indicated I had no problem with it. Then I went off on the tangent that fema should not he rebuilding anything. Im also of the opinion that there is no constitutional basis for fema
Similar threads
