I recently heard Faircloth interviewed by Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry. Good to hear he is making the rounds. Can't wait to check out the video.

He hits really hard on preferential treatment of religious daycares and camps. Case in point, last night CNN had a segment on a religious "challenge/rehab" camp in Montana. No state inspections, no accreditation, teachers don't have to be accredited. People (adults now) complained and were interviewed that they were placed in choke holds and two were raped by a fellow camper as there was no supervision. The camp director says don't want your kids here? - don't send them here.

Bizarre. If it's not state giving preferential treatment that a secular camp would not get, I don't know what it is.

Bizarre.

Dagny does not understand the First Amendment.

I don't think the First Amendment allows choke holds and rape.

Sean Faithcloth had some other speeches I have seen on this same subject. I am surprised we even need to talk about regulations for child care and camps. Even churches have to have safe minimum seating capacity for fire code, but not religious child cares. Which brings an interesting point - churches don't pay any taxes (including local property taxes) yet are entitled to fire and police protection. Besides the point...

The problem with unregulated religious child cares and camps is that every state has its own rules and there are powerful lobbyists on the religious side that would claim that even regulating the ratio of kids (including new borns) to teacher/nanny is infringing on the religious freedoms. The argument is so absurd that only a religious person can make it and brush off any safety concerns for a child and adequate education. Religious parents who place their kids into these camps are entitled to know they are unregulated at minimum. At best, they should exercise due diligence themselves, but lack of critical thinking in these parents who put their kids in fundamental camps/child cares prevents them from knowing the Objective Reality about these establishments.

Lack of accreditation of camps/child cares, lack of certification of teachers, safety inspections, etc. is something that cannot be tolerated for a secular care or camp.

Sooner of later there has to be a massive and spectacular case with these child cares and camps like happened in many states with medical neglect by religious parents whose kids would die from otherwise preventable diseases while they were praying over it. Only then politicians (including right wing Republicans) act.

Bizarre. No other ways to describe it. Bizarre. Irrational. Weird.

I wasnt' talking about choke holds and rape, and you know it.

And I don't think you understand the First Amendment either.

I saw the CNN piece. Disturbing.

I don't have a problem with a tax-free church as it applies to religious services. But when a church starts providing secular services - hospital, school, daycare, etc - they need more regulatory oversight.

Free exercise of religion does not excuse one from following the law. Whatever regulations are applied to secular camps (like Boy Scouts, for instance) should apply to camps run by religious organizations.

So, Mike, can you explain what the original article had to do with the First Amendment?

Just curious... Does St. Lukes, or any other Catholic run hospital, not have to ensure its doctors are board certified? Do they not have to comply with state and federal health regulations?

That depends on the law. It is not necessarily true that whatever regulations are applied to a secular group should apply to religious groups; for example, a secular group might not allow opening prayers or Bible Study. Or, there might be additional taxes. (Atheists would love to tax churches..."The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy.")

The article has very little to do with the First Amendment, in my opinion. It just made pronouncements on what religious groups must do.

Do you assume THE STATE is always in the right, Jack?

Mike writes, "The article has very little to do with the First Amendment, in my opinion."

So the remark you made that "Dagny does not understand the First Amendment" wasn't really relevant to the post he made. That's what I thought, although I wonder, then, why you bothered to make the remark.

Of course it was relevant. The remark encompassed a number of Dagny's remarks...it was not just limited to the article. That was you assumption; you are conflating a number of posts.

I would ask Dagny, but he dodges ALL my questions.

I see. That was not obvious - I took the remark to apply to the immediately proceeding post.

They practice Objective Reality, so they'd have to be certified. Any person can ordain himself in a subjective reality way as a minister, call himself a pope, messiah, etc, start a church and run it, also have child care, start a camp, and be under no jurisdiction, no certification of any kind is needed. Lawmakers who enable this practice subjective reality which sooner or later will result in kids being hurt specifically because of this.

There was a piece on CNN today about a church that ran a kidnapping drill on a kid without the kid knowing it. A gun was involved, grabbing a kid and shoving her in the car. The pastor was saying this was a practice for missionary work. Bizarre. Weird.

I caught a few minutes of the Discovery Channel show about doomsday preppers. This guy "tested" his daughter by kidnapping her and handcuffing her in the back of a truck. She failed the test because she didn't have her set of lock picks on her, "like she always should." Freakin' pyschos.

If they practice Objective Reality, why does Medical Malpractice kill over 100,000 people a year?