Kentucky Pastor Barred From Ministering Over Biblical View on Homosexuality..
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
That's not legal, either. The state shouldn't be bringing in anyone to preach any particular religious doctrine to kids who are incarcerated, unless parents give their permission to do so.
The "particular perspective" doesn't matter.
I think in practice it does matter. And what is an example of a non-particular religious doctrine?
In Spain? :guitar:
No point in trying to duck it. Fowl business though.
I'm going to step aside now for kmo and barb. They have serious faces on and I find that frightening.
:reals:
TracerBullet
New member
just not true.
If he is claiming that the criteria that he won't abuse or berate the children at the juvenile facility is the only thing stopping him from going there then he wasn't ministering at all. He was going there to cause harm and possibly to get some personal jollies.
Barbarian observes:
That's not legal, either. The state shouldn't be bringing in anyone to preach any particular religious doctrine to kids who are incarcerated, unless parents give their permission to do so.
The "particular perspective" doesn't matter.
Not if the Bill of Rights is still in force.
Any that are not merely the doctrines of religions. "Tell the truth." "Don't steal." "Respect the rights of others." These are religiously neutral, and don't amount to establishment.
It doesn't matter if the minister was a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, or whatever. The Constitution forbids government from giving any of them that power. It certainly doesn't allow the religious indoctrination of incarcerated minors.
Do you suppose that minister would be O.K. with a Muslim going in and preaching his faith to those kids? Would you be O.K. with it?
That's not legal, either. The state shouldn't be bringing in anyone to preach any particular religious doctrine to kids who are incarcerated, unless parents give their permission to do so.
The "particular perspective" doesn't matter.
Not if the Bill of Rights is still in force.
Any that are not merely the doctrines of religions. "Tell the truth." "Don't steal." "Respect the rights of others." These are religiously neutral, and don't amount to establishment.
It doesn't matter if the minister was a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, or whatever. The Constitution forbids government from giving any of them that power. It certainly doesn't allow the religious indoctrination of incarcerated minors.
Do you suppose that minister would be O.K. with a Muslim going in and preaching his faith to those kids? Would you be O.K. with it?
RevTestament
New member
If the kid wants counseling by a Muslim I certainly don't want the gubbermint telling them they can't talk about Muslim beliefs because that is offensive to some people(often including myself). I don't see the government as having the right to shut down free speech. After all they just ruled it is ok to pipe whatever porn the prisoners want.
But now it is not ok to for the prisoners to pipe in a minister's beliefs?
This is a clear violation of freedom of speech and religion. Some of these ministers might be the only religion these prisoners can get.
Yet the gubbermint is tell them sorry can't present your religious beliefs to those who want it, but if you want to sell some porn... well that's ok. It's ludicrous.
I suppose next the gubbermint will claim the right to censor any Bible the minister wants to sell or give?
If the kid's parents are O.K. with it, then it's legal. Otherwise, not.
"Free speech" is when you do it on your own, without a captive audience. That's not what this guy wants. He wants the government to make incarcerated kids listen to him.
If they are able to give consent and give it, then it's O.K. Otherwise, not.
Not if you want Uncle Sugar to help you do it. Sorry about that.
If they (or their parents, if they are minors) are O.K. with it, then it's O.K. That's how it works in a free society.
That's not what they told him.
They didn't tell him that, either. If your argument depends on misrepresenting what happened, isn't that a clue for you?
Yep.
Apparently, the legal consent of a prisoner is required for that, too. Darn Bill of Rights, um?
So, in practice, you truly believe that if a minister was in there saying homosexuality was OK then he'd be asked to stop?
"Homosexuality is wrong" isn't particular to Christianity, so would you say that allowing him to preach that is the establishment of multiple religions that share the same belief?
What makes something religiously neutral? That most non-religious people share the same belief?
Most people, religious or not, do adhere to the examples you gave, but if a minister is talking about it then it will be within a religious context. Is he allowed to talk about that context at all? If yes, then aren't you back to establishing a religion? If not, then what's the point of having a minister at all? Anyone can say 'don't steal'.
Are the children forced to talk with the ministers? If so, I wouldn't be in favor of that.
:idunno:
To be fair, sure.
If he was preaching that God says homosexuality is OK, he should be. It would be just as wrong as preaching that God says it's wrong, to minors in government custody. Unless their parents give consent.
Barbarian observes:
Any that are not merely the doctrines of religions. "Tell the truth." "Don't steal." "Respect the rights of others." These are religiously neutral, and don't amount to establishment.
The Constitution doesn't just bar establishment of particular religions. It bars establishment, period.
See above. The founders thought of that, too.
The lack of religious content.
If he puts it so. Otherwise not. If I tell you that drinking to excess is bad for you, that's quite different than telling you that drunkeness is a sin.
Yep. And therein lies the difference. It's religion that can't be established, not promotion of ethical behavior.
It doesn't matter if the minister was a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, or whatever. The Constitution forbids government from giving any of them that power. It certainly doesn't allow the religious indoctrination of incarcerated minors.
And since minors can't give consent, we're back on the same page. If the parents are good with it, then it's O.K.
Do you suppose that minister would be O.K. with a Muslim going in and preaching his faith to those kids? Do you suppose he'd be O.K. with another minister going in and preaching that homosexuality is a good thing?
If he's anything like the people supporting him here, he wouldn't be. They don't want a place at the table; they want the only place at the table.
PureX
Well-known member
Rev, as a side note: when I see people using terms like "gubbermint" I think of an ill-mannered 10-year-old flicking his boogers at his baby-sitter because he doesn't think he should have to have one.
I say this because anyone over the age of 10 understands that some form of organized, authorized government is absolutely necessary to the smooth function of any society of human beings. So that although we may disagree with some of the things our governments do, we certainly can't disparage them as a general phenomena. Just as anyone over the age of 10 also understands that a 10-year-old does still need a baby-sitter.
RevTestament
New member
I think your analogy perfectly illustrates my point for using gubbermint. That is why I am using the term, because I don't think gubbermint should be acting as our baby-sitter, which is what they are doing here when they are stopping free speech and religious freedom because it might hurt the feelings of some sexually confused minor. They are saying we need to protect this poor inmate from free speech and deny their right of access to it. I am poking "fun" at the ironic hypocrisy of a government which says it is ok for inmates to watch porn under the guise of free speech even though there is plenty of expert psychological evidence for its damaging nature, while at the same time denying the right of that inmate to seek counseling regarding religious views on homosexuality. That is sign of a very sick gubbermint.
We didn't form our government with the intent to "Baby-sit" us from harmful speech or information. On the contrary, we instituted a bill of rights which gave us the freedom of speech to guarantee us the right to access all kinds of information in order to allow us to choose for ourselves what is good or helpful. This right to information is one of the things that has helped our country grow, and be a desirable place to live - exactly because we don't have a gubbermint slapping our hands and saying now don't be listening to any of that Protestant stuff about "God." This is the type of Gubbermint Russia and then China had, and just look how "happy" their people were until that began to change.
Now to be fair we do expect a certain policing function of our government to keep the peace, but that is basically to stop the rights and freedoms of others from being infringed upon. Keeping religious views on homosexuality from prisoners goes way beyond that basic function tho imho, and as I see it is infringing upon those freedoms and rights. Now if they are scared about somehow establishing a religion by hiring a minister, what is the point of hiring a minister at all? Either hire a minister and let them do their job, or only allow volunteer ministers.
PureX
Well-known member
The fact that you don't understand this is exactly WHY you do need the government to act as your "baby-sitter". Just as the 10-year-old who flings his boogers at his baby-sitter doesn't think he needs a baby sitter, even as he behaves like a 10-year-old who clearly does need a baby-sitter.
They are minors, and they are incarcerated. So their rights to free speech are extremely limited, and their access to the speeches of others is even more limited. They are being denied lots of things. For obvious reasons. And it is the responsibility of the JDC to determine what they have access to and what they don't. Not you, not God, not the Bible, and not that preacher. This shouldn't be so difficult to understand.
No, but we certainly did establish government with the intent that it protect us from each other. And that includes protecting us from unwanted religious indoctrination. And protecting our children from religious indoctrination whether our children think they want it or not.
Children don't get to choose for themselves what is good and helpful, for obvious reasons. So their parents and must choose for them. And when their parents can't or won't do that, the state must. Because someone has to, and we've collectively determined that it can't be you, or me, or God, or the Bible, or that preacher. So, the state it is. Hopefully with our knowledge and approval.
Children in Juvenile Detention don't get to choose much of anything for themselves. Including what "information" they get access to. It was their poor choices that got them there. Why can't you grasp this? If we were talking about sex education, I bet you'd be all for denying them access to THAT information!
Well, you are clearly biased far beyond the point of most other Americans.
What I think is amusing is that you think any of this matters. Like those kids are all there because they were contemplating being gay. Which is completely absurd.
So is your only problem that the parents didn't (assuming they didn't) give consent? If so, then I think we're on the same page.
I'm aware.
Religious content defined how?
If an atheist with a secular humanist viewpoint talked to the children and explicitly used their worldview then would you have any problem with that?
Right, a minister can go in and simply say "don't steal", etc. with no other context around it but I think that starts to get pointless. I think part of the reason for having the minister there is that it isn't a simple ethical behavior divorced from any other context. Anyone can give a simple ethical rule to live by.
I'll give the same answer I did before....:idunno:
If I had to guess then I'd guess no, and I think you're right that some people want to have the only seat at the table, but there's no point in guessing and it's not my primary point. Pretend this minister was OK with others coming in as well as long as he still had his place at the table and could preach his true beliefs. If nothing is forced, the parents consent, and the state allows an open seat to anyone willing, then where's the problem? (it could get a little shaky if the only people around are of a single viewpoint)
If the problem is having any religious content at all, ever, then I'm back to not really seeing the point in having a minister, whatever the stripe, talk to the kids. They could have an attorney go in and talk about the law. But the first time the kid starts questioning things and going deeper then you start getting into the 'why' of the matter and then you're into someone's worldview of ultimate things and that's when a minister (or a secular humanist) is useful but that content wouldn't be allowed.
Barbarian observes:
If he was preaching that God says homosexuality is OK, he should be. It would be just as wrong as preaching that God says it's wrong, to minors in government custody. Unless their parents give consent.
Pretty much. Adult prisoners, if they have the option of going to a meeting or not, aren't being abused if they hear things that some might object to.
Religious doctrines.
If you mean "there really isn't a god, or at least we can't know if there is one", yeah, that would be objectionable. Unless parents explicitly approved.
Barbarian observes:
If he puts it so. Otherwise not. If I tell you that drinking to excess is bad for you, that's quite different than telling you that drunkeness is a sin.
Yep. And therein lies the difference. It's religion that can't be established, not promotion of ethical behavior.
It doesn't matter if the minister was a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, or whatever. The Constitution forbids government from giving any of them that power. It certainly doesn't allow the religious indoctrination of incarcerated minors.
Still not a problem if the prisoner freely consents. Children cannot give consent.
Barbarian asks:
Do you suppose that minister would be O.K. with a Muslim going in and preaching his faith to those kids? Do you suppose he'd be O.K. with another minister going in and preaching that homosexuality is a good thing?
If he's anything like the people supporting him here, he wouldn't be. They don't want a place at the table; they want the only place at the table.
No problem, then. However, it appears that the facility just rounded up kids and brought them to the minister for indoctrination. Then ( :shocked: ) they discovered he was preaching something they weren't comfortable with. And out he goes. That's not the way it should have been.
It's well-established that prisoners have a right to exercise their religious beliefs. But no one has a right to a captive audience to promote their own religious beliefs. So ministers preaching to consenting prisoners is not a problem.
So suppose a specific minister, say a fundamentalist who wants to promote hatred of homosexuals, or a Muslim who wants to preach death to Christians, would like to minister to some people who consent to hearing him. Do they have a right to be there?
The courts say that absent a compelling interest in security or safety, they do.
If he was preaching that God says homosexuality is OK, he should be. It would be just as wrong as preaching that God says it's wrong, to minors in government custody. Unless their parents give consent.
Pretty much. Adult prisoners, if they have the option of going to a meeting or not, aren't being abused if they hear things that some might object to.
Religious doctrines.
If you mean "there really isn't a god, or at least we can't know if there is one", yeah, that would be objectionable. Unless parents explicitly approved.
Barbarian observes:
If he puts it so. Otherwise not. If I tell you that drinking to excess is bad for you, that's quite different than telling you that drunkeness is a sin.
Yep. And therein lies the difference. It's religion that can't be established, not promotion of ethical behavior.
It doesn't matter if the minister was a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, or whatever. The Constitution forbids government from giving any of them that power. It certainly doesn't allow the religious indoctrination of incarcerated minors.
Still not a problem if the prisoner freely consents. Children cannot give consent.
Barbarian asks:
Do you suppose that minister would be O.K. with a Muslim going in and preaching his faith to those kids? Do you suppose he'd be O.K. with another minister going in and preaching that homosexuality is a good thing?
If he's anything like the people supporting him here, he wouldn't be. They don't want a place at the table; they want the only place at the table.
No problem, then. However, it appears that the facility just rounded up kids and brought them to the minister for indoctrination. Then ( :shocked: ) they discovered he was preaching something they weren't comfortable with. And out he goes. That's not the way it should have been.
It's well-established that prisoners have a right to exercise their religious beliefs. But no one has a right to a captive audience to promote their own religious beliefs. So ministers preaching to consenting prisoners is not a problem.
So suppose a specific minister, say a fundamentalist who wants to promote hatred of homosexuals, or a Muslim who wants to preach death to Christians, would like to minister to some people who consent to hearing him. Do they have a right to be there?
The courts say that absent a compelling interest in security or safety, they do.
Tinark
Active member
I think I understand your point of view and agree. The juvenile detention center shouldn't have anyone ministering any religion of any kind there, with the following exception: as an appoved guest by the guardian of the child and only under the privledges that any visitor of the child is allowed.
Looks like the Chiefs' home end zone.
lain: Only with more people.