What is it that some

[Theophylact]

people just don't get about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."? (The New York Times; FRYYY)

"There is no hostility here toward the content of this pamphlet," Mr. Simon said. "It may be an appropriate pamphlet to be circulated by some churches, but not everything that can be circulated by churches is appropriate or constitutionally permitted to be purchased and circulated by governments."

[CERuppel]

Theo: How about some more info for those of us without memberships?

Also, it is the 'respecting' part that is most often the sticker. The law is that congress cannot set up a state religion, or some such.

However here it seems to be that the church is putting out something that is against the law. Now that is a fish of a different color.

A church can't kill and claim it as a tennet of the faith, for example. (Thankfully!) But some things that bend laws are allowed as long as they are not forced on the public. (Having trouble coming up with anything more than the peote (sp?) of some native american ceremonies, anyone else?)

What I'm saying is that the law may have been right in this case, or it may have been wrong. I would need more details to decide.

[Theophylact]

CERuppel, membership is free. I didn't post the whole story, because that would be abusing the copyright.

For those who didn't read the story, the state of Florida purchased, from a church group, pamphlets titled "A Christian Response to AIDS".

Some relevant quotes from the article:

The brochure asks: "How would Jesus respond to a person with HIV or AIDS?'' and promises that "Jesus is our Hope.'' It quotes several Bible passages throughout.

"One of the most striking things may be that there is not a single word about prevention," Mr. Simon said of the brochure. "What is the point of the Health Department purchasing and distributing this if not to stem the spread of the illness?"

Mr. Simon said that a document his office obtained from the state showed that the Health Department bought 13,482 brochures for $4,500 and distributed them from January 2000 to April 2001.

"The state did not purchase an Islamic response to AIDS or a Jewish response to AIDS," he said. "I don't think the appropriate response is for the State Department of Health to run out and create, write or purchase those pamphlets."

In short: Taxpayer money was used to purchase and distribute a sectarian message without medical value.

[Knothead]

Huh! That's pretty wild...Most likely, this is the work of some gung-ho religious type-person who feels that the "word of God" supercedes state law. We've all seen people like that.

Please note, I don't say that in a mean or jeering way, I don't mean any offense.

The thing that disturbs me, apart from anyone presuming to know what Jesus would think of an AIDS sufferer, is that there is reportedly no info about avoiding infection. What is THAT about??

[alondra]

for once, I agree with the ACLU.