South Carolina Public School Hosts Evangelists at Assembly Who Preach to Students

[Londo_Jowo]

Won't happen in your lifetime as more children are born every day to families that follow a religion rather than not.

 

[JSt0rm]

Won't happen in your lifetime as more children are born every day to families that follow a religion rather than not.

i know that. Its the bug in our evolutionary system and will be our downfall one day.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Won't happen in your lifetime as more children are born every day to families that follow a religion rather than not.

Being born into a family that follows a religion has nothing to do with if a child will continue to follow it once they are an adult.
I thought that more people in general are turning away from organized religion as time goes on, not the other way around.

 

[Infohawk]

Won't happen in your lifetime as more children are born every day to families that follow a religion rather than not.

You could have said the same thing in Western Europe but for the most part (the growth of Islam aside) they have abandoned religion en masse.

I'm not saying that religion is going to disappear but your logic doesn't really make sense.

 

[woolfe9999]

Polling since the 1980's has shown trending toward secularization, but it's very slow. If it continues at the same rate, we'll be a largely secular society in, oh, 2150 or so.

 

[JSt0rm]

You could have said the same thing in Western Europe but for the most part (the growth of Islam aside) they have abandoned religion en masse.

I'm not saying that religion is going to disappear but your logic doesn't really make sense.

But here in America they make as many babies as they can to put christian religion inside their brains. He's right, they wont be gone in my lifetime. Maybe in 1000 years they will have devolved into some subhuman species or possibly technology will leave them behind when they reject it from entering their bodies.

 

[Infohawk]

But here in America they make as many babies as they can to put christian religion inside their brains. He's right, they wont be gone in my lifetime. Maybe in 1000 years they will have devolved into some subhuman species or possibly technology will leave them behind when they reject it from entering their bodies.

Remember Europe used to have more Catholics and everyone always said they're the real baby-makers. But yet as a continent they just moved away from it. Again, I'm not predicting religion's going to disappear but his logic was flawed. We don't really know what's going to happen. The world keeps changing at an ever-increasing pace. For all we know there could be a new spiritual movement.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I wonder how often this kind of blantant evangelizing occurs in our public schools.

I've never heard of it.

I have a kid in school. The only kind of 'preaching' I've ever heard of is that of PC-types, eco-zealots and the like.

------------

As far as what can be done, I think it a good idea to pursue having a judge place restrictions on that school ordering them not to do it again. That should provide some legal 'teeth' to prevent it from reoccurring. And in the absence of a court order I bet it would.

As to the event that's already occurred, it's 'water under the bridge'.

Fern

 

[Fern]

south carolina would be a 3rd world country if not for the wealth of the blue states.

That's a stupid remark.

I don't live there, but do know that between tourism (Hilton Head, Myrtle beach etc), agriculture/fishing and manufacturing (BMW etc) S.C. has a lot going for it.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

That's a stupid remark.

I don't live there, but do know that between tourism (Hilton Head, Myrtle beach etc), agriculture/fishing and manufacturing (BMW etc) S.C. has a lot going for it.

Fern

Then why cant they pay their fair share?

 

[Fern]

Then why cant they pay their fair share?

You know, this Lib BS is so annoying.

I've commented on this BS before. The report that you guys keep relying on, keep repeating is bull shit.

I've looked at that study. It's based on tax return data. As I've explained before large corporations with multiple operations spread around the US don't have to break down operations on their US tax return. You cannot look at their corp tax return and tell how much profit comes from which juridiction/state.

E.g., if you're IBM, even though you have large facilities in the Research Triangle area of NC, or down in FL, 100% of it's income (and therefor taxes paid) is attributed to NY because their HQ is there. If IBM filed it's US tax return using it's NC location it would be attributed to NC.

It's just flat-out flawed and inaccurate. No wonder you people aren't aware of the huge amount of manufacturing etc that is spread out throughout the S.E.

Banking is another good example. Their HQ's are typically in NY (not all, some large ones are HQ's in Charlotte) but the actual work is done elsewhere. Most of is done in NC with some in large centers in FL.

When 911 occurred the US govt/military sealed off Charlotte NC because that's the place that needed to be protected. That's where all the banking stuff occurs and records kept etc. Yet in spite of that, the report you mentions attributes all the bank income/taxes paid to NY state because the corp address is there.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

You know, this Lib BS is so annoying.

I've commented on this BS before. The report that you guys keep relying on, keep repeating is bull shit.

I've looked at that study. It's based on tax return data. As I've explained before large corporations with multiple operations spread around the US don't have to break down operations on their US tax return. You cannot look at their corp tax return and tell how much profit comes from which juridiction/state.

E.g., if you're IBM, even though you have large facilities in the Research Triangle area of NC, or down in FL, 100% of it's income (and therefor taxes paid) is attributed to NY because their HQ is there. If IBM filed it's US tax return using it's NC location it would be attributed to NC.

It's just flat-out flawed and inaccurate. No wonder you people aren't aware of the huge amount of manufacturing etc that is spread out throughout the S.E.

Banking is another good example. Their HQ's are typically in NY (not all, some large ones are HQ's in Charlotte) but the actual work is done elsewhere. Most of is done in NC with some in large centers in FL.

When 911 occurred the US govt/military sealed off Charlotte NC because that's the place that needed to be protected. That's where all the banking stuff occurs and records kept etc. Yet in spite of that, the report you mentions attributes all the bank income/taxes paid to NY state because the corp address is there.

Fern

These companies with HQ's in NY and branch offices elsewhere, I assume their employees' federal tax payments are recorded in the employees' home states, not whatever state the corporate HQ is in. It's only the corporate tax that is distorted here. But I thought corporate taxes only accounted for about 10% of the federal revenue base? This effect that you're talking about can cut either way, but it's reasonable to assume there are more corporate HQ's in certain blue states overall than in red states. Still, the maximum effect is to distort only a portion of the corporate taxes which in turn is only 10% of the revenue base. In other words, I doubt this effect you describe biases the results by more than a couple percentage points. These discrepancies between taxes paid and benefits received are vastly larger than that in many cases, so I think the core point holds.

In short: your point seems to be entirely valid, but its statistical magnitude isn't large enough to affect to the general trend shown in the data in a way that would alter the overall conclusion drawn from the data.

 

[Fern]

These companies with HQ's in NY and branch offices elsewhere, I assume their employee's federal tax payments are recorded in their own state. It's only the corporate tax that is distorted here. But I thought corporate taxes only accounted for about 10% of the federal revenue base? This effect that you're talking about can cut either way, but it's reasonable to assume there are more corporate HQ's in certain blue states overall than in red states. Still, the maximum effect is to distort only a portion of the corporate taxes which in turn is only 10% of the revenue base. In other words, I doubt this effect you describe biases the results by more than a couple percentage points. These discrepancies between taxes paid and benefits received are vastly larger than that in many cases, so I think the core point holds.

See bolded above.

No. Taking data from withholding reports filed by employers won't help. It doesn't say what state the employee is in etc. Other than the mailing addresses on all returns/reports, there is no state data reported to Uncle Sam.

The info that goes to states is done on separate state forms. And even if you looked at those records for the 50 states it would not help a whole lot; it won't show how much federal payroll tax was paid-in for the employees because state forms don't require that. States don't need it.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

See bolded above.

No. Taking data from withholding reports filed by employers won't help. It doesn't say what state the employee is in etc. Other than the mailing addresses on all returns/reports, there is no state data reported to Uncle Sam.

The info that goes to states is done on separate state forms. And even if you looked at those records for the 50 states it would not help a whole lot; it won't show how much federal payroll tax was paid-in for the employees because state forms don't require that. States don't need it.

Fern

so how would we go about finding this information? I'm ok with this info being wrong and I know you specialize in taxes but I think I need more then you posting on the forums. Sorry. I take you as a pretty stand up guy but I want to see it.

 

[1prophet]

This story is from September but I didn't see anything posted about it.

Summary: South Carolina public middle school invites a "Christian rapper" and other evangelists for school assembly. Students are preached at and asked to sign up for church membership on school grounds. One evangelist is on tape essentially saying he doesn't give a shit if it's unconstitutional because Jesus is more important.

Although this is reported by the ACLU, the link contains a video of the event made by its organizers:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief/shoc-king-disregard-constitution

According to the ACLU, the same group is planning on going on tour to various schools in the region.

What is the appropriate remedy for this sort of thing? A court cannot enjoin an event once it has already taken place. Perhaps the school administrators who approved this should be fired, but that doesn't feel like an adequate remedy. The people doing the preaching can't be punished since the First Amendment places no restriction on them, only on the public institution that invited them.

Appropriate remedy? Whatever remedy the ACLU and the courts recommended during this incident should be fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y

 

[JSt0rm]

Appropriate remedy? Whatever remedy the ACLU and the courts recommended during this incident should be fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y

Well that settles everything.

 

[davmat787]

I agree, I just really don't know what other remedy a court could provide. Free de-jesusification programs for the kids?

Just have the kids watch some midget fetish porn, Republican candidate debates, and Saw XVI and the effects of this tragedy will be reversed and the children will be made whole again. :awe:

 

[woolfe9999]

See bolded above.

No. Taking data from withholding reports filed by employers won't help. It doesn't say what state the employee is in etc. Other than the mailing addresses on all returns/reports, there is no state data reported to Uncle Sam.

The info that goes to states is done on separate state forms. And even if you looked at those records for the 50 states it would not help a whole lot; it won't show how much federal payroll tax was paid-in for the employees because state forms don't require that. States don't need it.

Fern

I thought I understood your point before, but now I'm a bit confused. Can you please link to where the methodology is described?

 

[WelshBloke]

You could have said the same thing in Western Europe but for the most part (the growth of Islam aside) they have abandoned religion en masse.

I'm not saying that religion is going to disappear but your logic doesn't really make sense.

Weirdly enough religion is taught in all schools in the UK. Its a compulsory part of the curriculum. It has to include teachings about most religions though, so its very much "some people believe this" type stuff.

I wonder if in some part thats a reason for the lower levels of religious people in the UK. If you are exposed to many religions its hard to accept one as "The Truth".

Maybe religious types should be carefull about wanting to have religion in schools in the US, it may not turn out as they want. :hmm:

 

[dmcowen674]

South Carolina Public School Hosts Evangelists at Assembly Who Preach to Students

What is the appropriate remedy for this sort of thing?

Keep voting Religious Republican obviously.

 

[Double Trouble]

You know, this Lib BS is so annoying.

I've commented on this BS before. The report that you guys keep relying on, keep repeating is bull shit.

I've looked at that study. It's based on tax return data. As I've explained before large corporations with multiple operations spread around the US don't have to break down operations on their US tax return. You cannot look at their corp tax return and tell how much profit comes from which juridiction/state.

E.g., if you're IBM, even though you have large facilities in the Research Triangle area of NC, or down in FL, 100% of it's income (and therefor taxes paid) is attributed to NY because their HQ is there. If IBM filed it's US tax return using it's NC location it would be attributed to NC.

It's just flat-out flawed and inaccurate. No wonder you people aren't aware of the huge amount of manufacturing etc that is spread out throughout the S.E.

Banking is another good example. Their HQ's are typically in NY (not all, some large ones are HQ's in Charlotte) but the actual work is done elsewhere. Most of is done in NC with some in large centers in FL.

When 911 occurred the US govt/military sealed off Charlotte NC because that's the place that needed to be protected. That's where all the banking stuff occurs and records kept etc. Yet in spite of that, the report you mentions attributes all the bank income/taxes paid to NY state because the corp address is there.

Fern

Thank you! The stuff like "California pays in much more than it gets!" based on horribly flawed methodology gets very old. It's also dumb in the sense that even taken on its face, it has no bearing on anything. So state A gets more back than it pays in. So what? Can you somehow translate that to mean something useful?

 

[dank69]

Thank you! The stuff like "California pays in much more than it gets!" based on horribly flawed methodology gets very old. It's also dumb in the sense that even taken on its face, it has no bearing on anything. So state A gets more back than it pays in. So what? Can you somehow translate that to mean something useful?

IF the data isn't flawed, and that may be a big IF, it reflects on the conservative values and their effect on the economy. Conservatives love to rail against liberals with statements such as 'higher taxes will kill jobs' or 'God will punish those sinners for taking prayer out of schools.' Meanwhile, if the data is to be believed, typically the red states rely on federal handouts that the blue states pay for.

I, for one, would be very interested to find out if Fern's allegations are correct.

 

[woolfe9999]

IF the data isn't flawed, and that may be a big IF, it reflects on the conservative values and their effect on the economy. Conservatives love to rail against liberals with statements such as 'higher taxes will kill jobs' or 'God will punish those sinners for taking prayer out of schools.' Meanwhile, if the data is to be believed, typically the red states rely on federal handouts that the blue states pay for.

I, for one, would be very interested to find out if Fern's allegations are correct.

Since Fern hasn't returned to the thread for the moment, I am looking into this as I think it's an important topic. Apparently the numbers come from the Tax Foundation, a conservative leaning think tank.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

I find it hard to believe that a right wing think tank would use a methodology horribly flawed that leans the data in a left wing direction. However, Fern is better than most posters here in terms of honesty, so I'll keep looking to see if I can find a description of the methodology.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then why cant they pay their fair share?

Maybe it's because they're poor State with median income ranking 43rd in the US.

Do you have a point here? Or do you have something against poor people in general?

 

[woolfe9999]

From the Tax Foundation:

The tax collection data released by the Department
of the Treasury does not allocate the
federal tax burden among the states. Instead, it
simply shows where the taxes are collected. For
example, data on federal excise taxes on alcohol
and tobacco show high tax collections in the
states where the alcohol is distilled and the tobacco
grown. Clearly, the taxpayers in these
relatively few producing states do not bear the
entire burden of the taxes on the products they
manufacture. In order to show more precisely
who ultimately bears the burden of federal levies,
the Tax Foundation has developed a tax
incidence model which apportions the federal
tax burden among the states.

They seem to be describing the problem identified by Fern, and are claiming they use a model that corrects for it. The details of the model are probably in one of their research papers. What seems clear is that they haven't just taken the flawed data and ignored its shortcomings.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

What's interesting about the Tax Foundation is, given its conservative leaning, they oppose progressive taxation because, they say, it causes this very problem, that some states pay more than they receive, and some states pay less than they receive. They claim it's "ironic" that the blue states are getting the shaft since dem politicians favor progressive taxation. I think their point is that dem pols who favor progressive taxation are arguing against the interests of their constituents. Of course, the inevtiable correlary is that red state pols argue against the interests of their constituents when they *oppose* progressive taxation. Fascinating.

The true "irony" here is that this "talking point" of many liberals ultimately comes from a conservative source.

- wolf