Oct 13, 2011 -- 9:40PM, mountain_man wrote:

Oct 13, 2011 -- 7:55AM, fodaoson wrote:

Virgin sacrifice would deprive the virgin of the right to life and that would involve murder.

The government can't interfere since it is a RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. If the government said no, they'd be prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The right to practice religion ends if it deprives another party of  human rights.   Employment is not a constitutional right

Not being discriminated against because of race, creed, handicap, and so on. It boils down to you either give the OK for virgin sacrifice or make it OK for churches to discriminate against the handicapped. The point being that a religion or church cannot be allowed free reign to do whatever they want and claim foul when they go against the morals, and the laws, of the country.

Your way; virgin sacrifice.

My way; churches have to behave in a moral manner.

"Virgin Sacrifice would not be a "CHURCH" function. CHURCH , etymologically and theologically  , is a Christian group. Only Christian groups, organizations, sects, cults, etc refer to themselves as a Church 

The government   would not be interfering with the free exercise
of religion but would be protecting the 
life of the virgin. Religion is a spiritual exercise. Christians “ kill”  the
believer in the rite of baptism  and celebrate Christ’s death in the communion symbolically, spiritually and ritually.

“virgin sacrifice “ can be done symbolically.

Not being ADA discriminated against is not a constitutionally
stated right but a legal (by law)  derived right.

Religious practices have been defined, set and accepted by practice and by legal definitio.  Physically killing, harming, causing another suffering is not  with the   acceptable religious definition. atheist, agnostics and   many practitioners of a religion are not aware of the parameters of  religion, the doctrines and rituals of religions and how governments and religious hearchies have come to mutual  agreements. 

Oct 15, 2011 -- 9:36AM, mountain_man wrote:

Oct 15, 2011 -- 9:08AM, fodaoson wrote:

"Virgin Sacrifice would not be a "CHURCH" function. CHURCH , etymologically and theologically  , is a Christian group. Only Christian groups, organizations, sects, cults, etc refer to themselves as a Church

Word games instead of rational discussion?

Religious practices have been defined, set and accepted by practice and by legal definitio.....

Then the government can prevent a church/whatever from discriminating against a minority or the disabled.

Maybe you think of them as word games but in a discussion on-line
Words are all we have.  If you do not use
accepted meaning then it is gibberish. 
The word “CHURCH” is a reference to the Christian religion and the Christian
religion neither has nor ever had virgin sacrifices, so to use church and virgin
sacrifice is a total false issue. Certain expressions of humanism and atheism
are religious in character and nature. I find some humanists and atheists to be
as dogmatic as some Fundamental evangelicals.   

Oct 15, 2011 -- 9:36AM, mountain_man wrote:

Oct 15, 2011 -- 9:08AM, fodaoson wrote:

"Virgin Sacrifice would not be a "CHURCH" function. CHURCH , etymologically and theologically  , is a Christian group. Only Christian groups, organizations, sects, cults, etc refer to themselves as a Church

Word games instead of rational discussion?

Religious practices have been defined, set and accepted by practice and by legal definitio.....

Then the government can prevent a church/whatever from discriminating against a minority or the disabled.

get away from human sacrafice

frame the issue this way:

has the church/school ever waived the ministerial exception in the past? are there ADA ramps for entrance, ADA facilities for toilets, ADA signs for identifiction?-its all or nothing

to maintain the exception-it has to have always been followed