General Question

KNOWITALL's avatar

What does the seperation of church and state mean to you?

Asked by KNOWITALL (29884points) August 10th, 2023

As asked, all interpretations welcome.

Bonus portion:
Does the House or your local city council opening with a prayer violate the seperation?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

100 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

I usually think that money changing hands or a cleric telling parishioners who to vote for is a violation of separation of church and state.

The other stuff is a gray area. As long as people aren’t forced to join in then I don’t have a big problem with it. Younger me would be uncomfortable, like when I have dinner with a family who says grace. I just play lip service, and move on.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Religion should stay the f*ck out of politics that’s the meaning I get when saying separate church and state.

smudges's avatar

Does the House or your local city council opening with a prayer violate the seperation?

I don’t know if it’s technically a violation, but I disapprove.

edited…actually, I think it is a violation

Caravanfan's avatar

Opening with a prayer violates the Constitution. But so, IMO does the Pledge of Allegiance as said by children when it says “under God”.

elbanditoroso's avatar

There are many aspects, and I’m not going to remember all of them. But the main ones are:

1. government $$ should not go to religious institutions or to promote any or all religions
2. Civic and public forums (like council meetings, etc.) should not begin with a prayer
3. Public Schools should not be able to teach religion (although the bible as history is OK) and force prayer at school
4. Libraries can buy books on religion, based on their collection policies, but shouldn’t be forced to stock religious books by any church or other official
5. Politicians should not pledge to follow the teachings of <religion> to be elected; they should be elected on non-religious merits.
6. Religious teachings (anti-abortion, anti birth control) are not to be forced on the public.

And so on.

As for prayers starting public meetings.

- the county commission meetings do begin with a prayer. I’m against that. The invite a clergyman in (different one each month)

- the library board meetings do not start with a prayer. Neither does the Zoning board or the Budget committee.

filmfann's avatar

The seperation of church and state means the government cannot recognize a specific faith as the only acceptable religion. Violating this would lead to the kind of laws that would, for example, allow only Baptists to vote.
It does NOT mean freedom FROM religion.
After all, in God we trust.

JLeslie's avatar

Separation of church and state means to me the government can not promote or dictate a specific religion.

I do think a prayer before a council meeting violates the separation, but possibly I can look the other way if a prayer from many different religions were rotated. I still don’t like it though. I think the best and easiest way to protect religious freedom, and practice the separation, is to make government void of religion rather than trying to include all faiths.

I would say in the US the separation of church and state is closely tied in with freedom of the religion. The right to practice the religion of your choice as long as the practice doesn’t do anything criminal under the law.

Imagine if people of certain faiths felt they needed to practice in hiding in the United States of America? Just a horrible thought in my opinion. God forbid we ever see that day.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion

gondwanalon's avatar

If you want to see what separation of church from state looks like then look at China.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@filmfann tried to legitimize religious coercion above, by saying that Freedom of religion does not mean Freedom From Religion.

That’s a problem for me, because it means that any yahoo with some belief can spread it whether I like it or not. I’m Jewish, and I have to put up with all sorts of Christological crap every day. If it isn’t signs on the roadway (Jesus is Coming, Repent!) then it’s people wanting me to accept Christ, or the semiannual visits of the Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists.

Worse yet, as I wrote above, is when county or state official meetings start with prayers that begin “In Jesus Name Amen”.

Sorry, guys, I don’t want to have to be hit in the face with your christian-based religious advertising every day. I want freedom from religion. Yours.

kritiper's avatar

The church can’t tell anyone which political party to belong to, and can’t tell you who to vote for. The church has no control over any part of the government.
The government can’t tell you what church to attend, or that you have to believe in “God,” or chop your head off if you don’t comply with the government’s church.

JLeslie's avatar

Freedom of and freedom from seems to be a talking point these days. How do you differentiate that in Spanish? I think it’s a twist of words and practically a trick or secret language. I don’t think most people really understand the subtle difference if there even is a real difference. I don’t want to be forced to practice a particular religion by the government and I don’t want to be hit with other religions to the point that it makes me uncomfortable or ostracized. I especially don’t want any children to be subject to a religion being pushed on them not condoned by their parents, or to be put in a situation of feeling ostracized.

@gondwanalon What are you talking about?

LostInParadise's avatar

I interpret separation of church and state to mean that the state should stay clear of religion. That disallows having tax payers fund religiously based charter schools.

JLeslie's avatar

@elbanditoroso I just read your answer in full. Are you saying you want to prevent people from advertising about Jesus? That seems too far. Although, it doesn’t escape me that people indirectly connected to government (with their money and influence) might be some of the same people putting up billboards, sky writing, and paying for commercials on TV.

Smashley's avatar

To me, in my country, it means that Christianity specifically will always have shelter under the law. Whether it’s freedom from massive institutions paying taxes, or funneling public money to indoctrination programs, the freedom to brainwash their children, subjugate their women, cheat the foolish, embed superstitions into law, deny services to outgroups and generally exclude whomever they like, or sue small town governments, this doctrine has morphed from a good philosophy of tolerance to a dogma that generally makes the world a place filled with more hate, violence and stupidity. It, like the second amendment needs to be allowed to change with the times.

Kropotkin's avatar

It’s the old liberal idea of a secular state. If the state doesn’t promote or associate itself with a particular regligion, then the implication is that there’s freedom for all religions, and the state doesn’t interfere with people’s religious beliefs.

I think the mistake most people make with the concept is that it means a religious organisation itself can’t get involved in politics. Except they can and do.

There’s nothing stopping religious organisations from political lobbying, or giving voting recommendations to their parishioners or adherents. It doesn’t matter how unpalatable this may seem to people.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@JLeslie in an ideal world, yes. Religion should be a private belief, not a public one.

@Smashley in your response, are you giving special privileges to Christianity, but not to other religions or beliefs, including atheism? Seems like your take is “save Christianity but the hell with anything or anyone else”.

Smashley's avatar

@elbanditoroso – the concept of separation of church and state does indeed protect all religions, but only Christianity has been able to mobilize the resources to truly weaponize the doctrine.

@janbb – the good old US of A

janbb's avatar

@Smashley Which country?

ragingloli's avatar

It means that religion is forbidden from using state institutions or resources to force, promote, or endorse religion, its teachings, rules, symbols or practices on others.

tinyfaery's avatar

I thought @Smasley was talking about the US.

janbb's avatar

@tinyfaery I assume that too but I’d like clarification to be sure.

SnipSnip's avatar

The framers wanted to be clear that America was to have no official Church, such as was present in England.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Thanks, a lot of great answers and interpretations.

I asked because local city council added prayers (Christian) back in to council meeting eith the Chief of Police leading it.
I mebtioned I felt it was a violation and Chiefs wife reminded me if the House can open with prayer it’s clearly not a violation.

I’ve also voted in the past to not give any xhurches taxpayer funds, even as a 4th of July celebration.

I was curious about your feelings, as I feel we’re going backwards after I served my terms. :(

You all know I’m a Christian but the prayer was even over the top zealous to me.

smudges's avatar

I think it’s arrogant and preferential to open with a christian prayer. So fuck those who attend who are of a different religion? It’s no different than giving ¾ of the U.S. christmas and easter days off from work, or even proclaiming them as a national holiday for that matter.

I realize that it could get way too complicated to give every religion their own days and it isn’t feasible, and I also realize that christmas, easter, lent and whatever others aren’t going away. They’ve improved a little by adding kwanzaa and of course hanukkah has been around for quite a while, but that still leaves out major populations like native americans and muslims.

We meaning whomever decides these things can’t change everything all at once, but surely we could eliminate gratuitous christianity.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL The council meeting issue came up in Memphis just before I moved from there. I found this article.

I don’t know what happened in years since.

I was shocked to learn there was a prayer being said at a government meeting. Many things shocked me regarding this sort of thing when I lived in Memphis. It was interesting to see how people reacted. I think the biggest problem is the Bible Belt states intertwined church and state so much, and many places still have such a huge majority of Christians, they feel like it is an attack on Christianity rather than preserving religious practice, which is how I see it.

I think eventually the prayer where you are will get challenged.

smudges's avatar

@JLeslie I think the biggest problem is the Bible Belt states intertwined church and state so much, and many places still have such a huge majority of Christians, they feel like it is an attack on Christianity rather than preserving religious practice…

Absolutely!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Thank you, I sent that to Chieg’s wife for context. Although as I mentioned, if government entities still do it, kind of hypocritical.

And yes the city is primarily Christian but several people liked my post as we do have many non-religious and other ethnicities here, along with pagans, etc…

JLeslie's avatar

I just want to add to the discussion that the “of” and “from” thing is regarding the basic two protections we have in the US for religious freedom.

The Establishment Clause prevents the government from making a law related to an establishment of religion, which means that it cannot endorse a certain religion or become mixed up in religious activities. This basically is the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of individual religious beliefs and some protections for religious practices.

These two parts of the law often have crossover, both things happening at once in a situation. Law suits can be argued on one, the other, or both for a single situation, depending on the situation. We have some people out there now (like Ted Cruz’s father) trying to say the constitution does not guarantee religion and government will be separate, and that to me is crazy talk. The first amendment basically guarantees separation of church and state.

It feels to me like there is a new upsurge in Christians trying to put Christianity back into government and other public situations, because it seems like there is a concerted effort to push the message that it is what our founders intended, but the people who believe this aren’t really reading the constitution in my opinion. The same people ignoring this part of the first amendment will go on and on about freedom of speech, which is also part of the first amendment.

@KNOWITALL I’m glad it helped. By now it might have been changed again. There was a lawsuit being threatened as you can see in the article.

seawulf575's avatar

Per the Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

I would say that would mean that there can be no laws that would establish a national religion, that it shall not pass laws for or against religions, that the government cannot step in to interfere with a person’s right to exercise their religion. This has been interpreted as applying to State and Local governments as well as the Federal government.

It is a bit of a balancing act to keep the two separated. Effectively, a person’s belief in God is between that person and their God. It is an opinion. Laws are for dealing with actions. But some actions rub up against the opinions and vice versa.

kritiper's avatar

I always thought the separation of church and state was somewhat of a by-product of what Henry VIII did in England some years before.

janbb's avatar

@kritiper No – Henry VIII separated from the Pope when he wouldn’t grant him a divorce and established the Church of England as a Protestant Christian country with the King as its head. England has been traditionally since then a very Christian country.

kritiper's avatar

@janbb But poor Thomas Mallory had his head cut off because he wouldn’t join Henry VII’s church.

janbb's avatar

^^ Thomas Moore

flutherother's avatar

The church represents the world of the inner person, the state the outer person. They are naturally separate and when attempts are made to bring them together trouble ensues. The state influences men’s minds in the form of “Big Brother” the Church brings to the state the infection of invincible hypocrisy.

One makes the smallness of man even smaller, the other makes the monstrousness of the state even more monstrous.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Nice @flutherother! That sums it up perfectly.

gorillapaws's avatar

The Government doesn’t get to promote any particular faith, set of faiths or no faith. no matter how badly any particular politician or group of politicians want it to. The government can’t inhibit people from practicing their religious convictions (within certain boundaries—can’t hurt other people for example e.g. female circumcision, human sacrifices).

As a corollary, the government can’t use public money or resources to promote religious ideology/doctrine, or if they’re going to allow free religious expression in a public space, they need to accommodate all faiths that request it, equally.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws In theory you are correct. In practice the separation falls flat many times.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It shouldn’t fall flat @Seawulf. It’s a no brainer. So simple

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III It sounds easy, doesn’t it? Yet I remember a few decades ago NYC was spending public funds to build stations where Muslim cab drivers could wash their feet prior to praying. The University of Michigan-Dearborn did the same.

Then there is Minneapolis where the government “started giving out loans for Muslims to follow Sharia Law

In general, if a government agency or entity makes allowances for religious beliefs, it can do so provided they are (a) not forcing some belief on others (making children recite the Lord’s Prayer for instance) and (b) they are not singling out one specific religion. (B) is a bit harder to segregate. If you say that people should have the right to exercise their religions as they see fit (which is the First Amendment) then you have to allow all religions the same considerations. If you say Christians cannot hold prayer meetings on public property but then say that Muslims or even Satanists can, you are not being fair.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ok. Some would really have to climb those hills just to flirt with it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They said NO religion was supposed to pray on the square,including Christians

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I agree it can be tricky.

The Muslim loan is available to all business owners who qualify not just Muslims. The loan is not really promoting the Muslim religion, it’s just helping a Muslim business owner. Calling it “sharia law” is hyperbolic, it always rings like it is condoning women being stoned to death, which has nothing to do with anything regarding the loans.

I’m conflicted about schools accommodating cleaning rituals for Muslim children, I tend to not want to accommodate religious practice at schools, I know that has come up in MI, but that seems less of a problem then an actual prayer in a group where the peer pressure or feeling ostracized is very real. Washing feet as an individual ritual and I’m not sure it rises to the level of government funds for religion.

We should do nothing that mixes government and religion but it continues to be done. I think it was under Bush that all sorts of tax money was allowed to go to religious organizations and it continues. The Republicans continue to push hard for school vouchers to be used at religious schools. Maybe it’s Democrats who push to accommodate Muslims, I really don’t know honestly. Maybe that’s the Republicans too or maybe it doesn’t divide along party lines.

Are you ok with taking government money completely out of anything related to religion? Are you ok with government being completely void of religion? No more In God We Trust. No more clergy at anything political. No more attempts for government funds for religious schools.

I don’t see where one religion is being allowed prayer meetings and another isn’t? Where? If anything the Christians are the ones doing it more than any other group that might be trying to get away with it. It’s a numbers game, we have 220 million Christians, 4 million Muslims and 7 million Jews. Obviously, it is statistically more likely to be a Christian in the US attempting something religious that might be pushing or breaking the rules.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie My personal feeling is that our religious beliefs are part of who we are. I have strong beliefs myself. But I don’t force my beliefs on others. That is how I believe the government needs to operate.

For many, our morals are based in our religious beliefs. Can you imagine a government without morals? I mean, yes, we see it every day it seems, but I believe it would be far worse if you removed all aspects of religion. And honestly, I see a whole lot of churn around the idea of separation of church and state that, in my mind, is completely made up. The case of Coach Kennedy was a perfect example. The HS coach who walked over to the 50 yd line after a game and prayed to himself. Some of his team began coming out on their own volition to join him until, over time, most of the team was there. The school fired the coach for doing a religious observation on school grounds. That reasoning is nuts. It wasn’t during educational hours, it wasn’t even during the game. It wasn’t forced on the students. That one made it all the way up to the SCOTUS where they ruled in favor of the coach. The entire thing was because there are groups who do nothing but cause problems, bringing lawsuits etc if they see something religious anywhere near public property.

I believe that when public funds/resources are spent on things like operation of schools it should be allowed, provided it isn’t exclusive of any religious beliefs. The students are getting an education which it the point of school. Again, though, it cannot exclude a religious school. If there was a Satanic school that needed the school bus to pick up/drop off its students, I’m all for that as well. As for pushing religious beliefs inside those schools? They are private schools. It isn’t a surprise they are religious and what religion they are for. If parents don’t want their children to participate in things like that, don’t send them to that school or see if the school is willing to give the children an exemption from participating in certain aspects of the school.

JLeslie's avatar

^^Morals and ethics will always be a part of the government and our laws. Morals and ethics are the very things laws are based on. Even without religion we have morals and ethics. We just use the brains that God gave us for what is fair and civil and to not do harm.

Private schools can push their religion, just not with tax money. Or, shouldn’t with tax money in my book.

janbb's avatar

Edit: I realized this morning that my last answer should have been spelled: Thomas More.

smudges's avatar

So…not to open a new can of worms; this ocurred to me when I was thinking of the bible belt that @JLeslie mentioned, and I’m curious what others think. Is the team saying a prayer in the locker room at the start of school football games crossing the line? They’re supported by the state and taxpayers…

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie ” Even without religion we have morals and ethics. We just use the brains that God gave us for what is fair and civil and to not do harm.” I entirely disagree. There are way to many people that are assaulting, robbing, scamming, rioting, etc for that to be true. We have seen where cities have decided to cut back on police and to come up with things like zero money bonds, etc where the crime rates go up. In the society you believe exists, everyone would know right from wrong. The problem is that many people can’t agree on what is right and wrong. Some people believe that if they want something, it should be right for them to take it. The laws might even say it is wrong and that is where the police and the rest of the judicial system comes in. When you take away the threat of the judiciary and the law enforcement, you see that people don’t have the same morals that were being enforced…the morals that we have decided over millenia as humans are the right set of morals.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 ”“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.”

-Leviticus 11:9–12

I don’t need a book written by superstitious dudes thousands of years ago that contains self-contradictory statements and with a self-issued authority to determine right from wrong. History is littered with examples of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity and plenty of other faiths as well. Christianity allows for slavery, murdering LBGTQ people, and requires cheating women to have abortions, not to mention the prohibition on shrimp and lobsters.

There are systems of justice that are derived via reason that are much more robust. See John Rawls.

Also, the idea that morality derived from faith has worked well for humanity for thousands of years is pretty laughable. I’m not sure if you’ve ever read a history book, but humanity hasn’t exactly built a religious utopia, though there have been plenty of religious dystopias.

jca2's avatar

To me, it means that government funding/public money can’t be spent on religious institutions, religious education, and public spaces (like the lawn in front of the town hall or city hall) can’t be used for religious icons like Mary and Jesus statutes at Christmas and stuff like that. A lot of towns are getting a hard time now for having Christmas trees on town property at holiday season.

There are some schools in a county nearby in NYS where the public schools in a town that is primarily Hasidic are teaching Jewish religion, even though the school is public. There have been some court cases on the issue and from what I hear the Hasidics are using their attorneys to fight to continue. The town is called Kiryas Joel and I believe the county is Rockland County, NY, and if you google it, there are a bunch of articles online (some may be the NY Times which I can access but I know has a paywall).

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 So you think all of the people committing crimes are non-religious and atheists? What about the atheists who are generous and do great things for society?

You might be interested that the countries with historically a lot of religion in government are the ones that are losing religious followers the most. Religious adherence in the US is still pretty high compared to other western countries and we mostly do have the separation of church and state for the last 250 years.

The religious fanatics in the US might get their theocracy, which will be horrible for everyone, even Christians, and then very likely eventually there will be a backlash and more people will leave the church and even little things like a president saying God Bless the United States of America might become forbidden. The fanatics will bring on the very thing they are afraid of.

It is the separation and religious freedom that protects religious practice and actually seems to promote it.

@jca2 I saw something about that a while back. I assume they aren’t asking for mandatory classes in Judaism. I think they should do the classes separate from school. My Mormon friend said the Mormon religious classes are before or after school right near school property. The kids can walk there from school.

SnipSnip's avatar

You do realize that “Separation of Church and State” is not in the constitution.

JLeslie's avatar

@SnipSnip It’s basically written into the First amendment.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie Do I think all criminals are non-religious and atheists? Not at all. The point was not to point fingers at one group or another. It was to point out that when left to their own devices, most people degrade. Logic and reason are not going to step up and make them suddenly behave.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie Here’s the link from the Times. I’m going to cut and paste the articel for those who can’t read it because of not having a subscription.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/nyregion/kiryas-joel-hasidic-school-district.html

jca2's avatar

By Jay RootPhotographs by Jonah Markowitz
Feb. 20, 2023
For years, Kiryas Joel, a bustling village north of New York City, has run one of the most unusual public school districts in America.

The village is almost entirely populated by Hasidic Jews, and the district was created to serve just one group: Hasidic children with disabilities. Most other children attend the community’s private religious schools, which stress the rigorous study of Jewish law and prayer but offer little instruction in secular subjects.

Created a little over 30 years ago, the unique public school system immediately drew concerns that a school district created for members of a single faith could never separate itself from their religious institutions.

Then, in 2009, New York auditors identified a glaring conflict of interest: Two of the school district’s board members had voted to use tens of millions of tax dollars to lease a building from a private religious school organization that they also helped run.

Since then, the conflicts have grown, a New York Times examination has found, with millions in public education dollars continuing to flow into the same religious school organization and its affiliates.

Based on thousands of pages of public records, the review showed that the small public school district is now paying more than $2.4 million a year — about 5 percent of its annual budget — to companies affiliated with the private school organization, the United Talmudical Academy of Kiryas Joel, a nonprofit that wields enormous influence in the cloistered community in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains.

ImageA young man in a black hat and long black coat stands at a street corner in Kiryas Joel.
Founded in the 1970s in Orange County by members of the Satmar Hasidic group, Kiryas Joel now has more than 30,000 residents.

The U.T.A., as the organization is known, provides schooling for most of the children in Kiryas Joel, which was founded in the 1970s by a group of Hasidic Jews who had set out to form their own religious village. (Hasidim are distinct from‌‌ modern Orthodox Jews, and others who strictly follow religious law, because many of them do not integrate their lives with contemporary society, devoting themselves instead to preserving centuries-old traditions.)

The Kiryas Joel Village Union Free School District operates one school and one early childhood education center. Records show it has an annual budget of about $40 million, with about a quarter of that money coming from local property taxes.

Rather than pay for new construction, as state auditors said it should have done, the Kiryas Joel district has leased even more space from the U.T.A., which controls more than $325 million in assets, and an affiliate. It has also paid the U.T.A. and its affiliates for the use of classroom and parking lot space and a swimming pool.

Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more. Get it sent to your inbox.
In addition, the district has used money from federal stimulus funding it received during the coronavirus pandemic to make millions of dollars in repairs to buildings owned by the U.T.A. and an affiliated nonprofit.

The decision to pay for the repairs was made by the public district’s school board. But two of its members, Harry Polatsek and Simon Kepecs, also serve on the board of the U.T.A. — the same conflict that auditors flagged more than a decade earlier. Neither board member responded to requests for comment, but the district superintendent said that they did not have to recuse themselves because the leases would last longer than the repairs.

The district is also paying one son of Mr. Polatsek, the school board president, a six-figure salary to work as a teacher’s aide and emergency medical technician. It has a multimillion-dollar contract for bus service with a company managed by another of his sons.

he district superintendent, Joel Petlin, said the school system was proud of the education it provided its students and that no district leader or board member had ever acted improperly.

The Kiryas Joel School District’s superintendent, Joel Petlin, said that it had always followed the law and that its board members had acted with integrity.

“If you think our conflicts-of-interest policies and procedures need to be tightened or improved, and you think that is newsworthy, so be it,” Mr. Petlin said. “But don’t pretend that the Kiryas Joel Board of Education is directing or misappropriating federal and state dollars to private religious schools and organizations, because that is not true.”

“In my opinion,” he added, “that false narrative creates a misperception, and as a result, it directs cynicism, animus and violence towards the Jewish community.”

Federal regulators have given the Kiryas Joel school system high marks over the years for the services it offers its students. And village leaders have said the school district is essential to accommodate Hasidic children with disabilities who cannot receive aid in the community’s private schools and might become targets of ridicule in other nearby public schools.

But the money it sends to the U.T.A. and its affiliates has done more than just secure classroom space for the public school programs. It has supported private schools that provide thousands of boys with only cursory instruction in English and math, and barely any science or social studies, setting some back for life.

Representatives of the U.T.A. did not respond to several requests for comment.

Longtime opponents of the district said the conflicts of interest that have cropped up were the foreseeable consequences of forming a government agency for a single religious group.

“When you deal with small, sealed-off groups, these sorts of abuses do occur,” said Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Committee, who opposed the district as co-director of the American Jewish Congress in the 1980s. “There’s less of a check. And so it’s not surprising that it developed this way.”

Contentious origins

The Kiryas Joel School District faced legal challenges almost from the moment that the village leaders began pushing for its creation.

In the 1980s, the leaders found a ready partner in George E. Pataki, the Republican assemblyman from Peekskill who would later become governor. Mr. Pataki co-sponsored a bill to create a breakaway school district for the village, and it was signed into law by Gov. Mario M. Cuomo in 1989.

The new district drew swift condemnation. The leader of the New York State School Boards Association filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate it on the grounds that it represented an unlawful mixing of church and state, touching off legal battles that would span the 1990s and land in the U.S. Supreme Court — which ruled against the district in 1994.

But the Legislature passed more bills to create the district, and, eventually, opponents stopped fighting it.

When it was created more than 30 years ago, Kiryas Joel’s school district drew concerns that a public school system established for members of a single faith could not disentangle itself from their religious institutions.

In 2009, auditors with the state comptroller’s office found that the district had signed a 30-year lease with a subsidiary of the U.T.A. for the district’s public school building, even though it would have been cheaper to borrow money and build a new school. (Mr. Petlin, the district superintendent, said the auditors underestimated the construction costs.)

The auditors also noted that Mr. Polatsek and Mr. Kepecs had failed to submit a required disclosure that they held seats on the boards of both the public school district and the U.T.A.

In 2011, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Education concluded that the district had violated federal conflict-of-interest rules and misused funds for impoverished schoolchildren by tapping the money to pay the same lease the comptroller had flagged. The district was ordered to refund more than $276,000 and refrain from using that pot of federal money for future payments.

Since then, the board members have disclosed their ties to the U.T.A. every year. They have also vowed to abstain from votes involving the organization. But the official rebukes did not discourage the board from using public money to benefit the private school company in the years that followed, The Times found.

In 2009, state auditors cited the Kiryas Joel school board for leasing a building owned by a company controlled in part by two board members.

Records show that the business of the public school district and the private school organization has been intensely intermingled over the past five years.

Some of the spending that benefits the private schools, such as that for transportation, textbooks and remedial help for low-income children, is required by state and federal laws. But with other payments, the district appears to have gone out of its way to send funding to the U.T.A.

In many Hasidic private schools, girls receive more secular education than boys do.

To track the more than $2.4 million flowing to the private school system and its affiliates, The Times reviewed thousands of pages of school board meeting minutes and other documents and found:

The payments include about $1.4 million for leasing buildings; $640,000 for operating a universal pre-K program; $330,000 to rent classrooms in the private boys’ and girls’ schools; and $19,000 to run a breakfast and lunch program, records show. About another $400,000 flows to the U.T.A. from district contractors.

The district sent still more money to the U.T.A. after receiving more than twice its annual budget — some $95.3 million — in federal pandemic relief funds, qualifying for that sum based on the large numbers of low-income children in the village, including those in private schools.

Among the expenses the district planned to cover with pandemic funds were about $2 million in lease payments over a 15-month period — transactions similar to the ones the federal auditors had flagged as inappropriate when made with federal dollars meant for impoverished students. (The rules governing stimulus spending are looser, and the rent payments were permissible.)

Records show the district also used the federal money to pay for utilities, classroom furniture and photocopiers at the U.T.A. About 99 percent of the first $8.8 million the district received from the stimulus was used in the U.T.A. and other private schools, an internal memo shows.

The district also told the state it planned to spend as much as $108,000 in federal stimulus money over the next three years to rent a pool from the U.T.A. at a rate of $200 an hour.

“We were given so much,” the district’s deputy superintendent, Josh Kamensky, said of the federal pandemic funds at an October board meeting. “It’s really hard to spend all that money.”

Through it all, Mr. Polatsek and Mr. Kepecs have maintained their seats on the school district and U.T.A. boards — and helped run an affiliated organization that does still more business with the district.

Image
Three men in dark clothing seated at a conference table listen to a man standing at a lectern.
Two community leaders, Harry Polatsek, right, and Simon Kepecs, center, continue to sit on the boards of both the public school district and the religious organization that runs the community’s private schools.

On a Thursday in October, a Times reporter attending a district school board meeting watched as both men voted to spend about $5 million in federal stimulus money to replace the heating and cooling system at an early childhood education center owned by the U.T.A.-affiliated company, which Mr. Kepecs and Mr. Polatsek co-founded. Both men still sit on its board, records show.

After The Times inquired about the board members’ ties to the education center, Mr. Kepecs and Mr. Polatsek publicly disclosed their roles at the nonprofit, acknowledging a potential conflict of interest and pledging to abstain from future votes related to leases or contracts with the organization. In January, they recused themselves from a new vote related to the heating and cooling repairs.

The district has also been generous with employee salaries and benefits. Among the workers on its payroll is Aron Polatsek, the board president’s son, who earns $178,000 a year as a “teacher aide/E.M.T.,” records show. Mr. Petlin said the salary was justified because Aron Polatsek performs additional duties as a parent liaison and had worked at the district for more than 20 years.

The school system has also awarded a $4.6 million contract to a village bus company, Focus in Chinuch, managed by another son of Mr. Polatsek, Joel. That company, in turn, has donated about $300,000 a year to the U.T.A. over a recent four-year period “to promote religious education,” tax documents show.

Records show Mr. Polatsek abstained from the vote on the bus contract renewal in 2020. A representative of the bus company said Joel Polatsek worked as an operations manager at the firm and had no independent decision-making authority.

Mr. Petlin, the superintendent, said any questions about board members’ relatives were “misguided.”

“Our leases and contracts are based upon our needs for space and for the services that we are mandated to provide,” Mr. Petlin said. “Hiring and promotions at the Kiryas Joel School District are based upon merit, not by someone’s last name.”

Mr. Petlin, the superintendent, said the Kiryas Joel public school system cared deeply about its students and took pride in serving them.

Susan C. Beachy contributed research.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 It seems like a problem to me. What do you think?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws The John Rawls theories are just that…theories. Look at reality. People of all walks of life steal from each other, they kill each other, they lie about each other, they try to get more than each other – often at the idea of By Any Means Necessary.

When you ask people to describe the type of society they would like to live in…what the attributes were, what sort of things they are looking for, etc…you will get one answer. If you suddenly put that same group of people into that society, it would degrade quickly. You would find that people would see that some work very hard and others are mainly lazy, some are always getting the dirty jobs while others opt only for the easy, clean jobs. You would find people demanding that they deserve more than they are getting and definitely more than someone else. Eventually you would hear much of what we hear today…someone claiming that someone else had more opportunities or that society was excluding them for some reason.

In theory it sounds really good. In practice you start to see that human shortcomings will always come forth and foul up the works. And the other part that his theory doesn’t actually lay out is what the morality is based on. What people want? That changes by the day and is extremely situational.

You brought up the bible. ” Christianity allows for slavery, murdering LBGTQ people, and requires cheating women to have abortions, not to mention the prohibition on shrimp and lobsters. You obviously have no clue as to what Christianity is all about. You have a hatred based on ignorance. Yes, many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But then many atrocities have been committed in the name of Socialism and Communism. And aren’t Socialism and Communism in part what Rawls was describing? Look at Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. They did deplorable things. So by your reasoning that would poke a hole in your idea that Rawls was better than a religious basis for morality.

Christianity (and Islam and Judaism and many others) lay down what is and isn’t acceptable. And most of what these beliefs are laying down condemn things like murder and abortion. When people commit atrocities in the name of one of these religions you can pretty much track it back to someone corrupting the message…trying to change the morality that is laid down. And that is the human shortcomings that try changing what is considered moral.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 You think your kids can’t learn right from wrong from you and your wife and other adults in their community and by observing how being good is good in itself?

Organized religion can be a good vehicle for teaching morality, but when people follow without question it gives the leaders too much power. If you get a bad leader the followers are trained to jump off the cliff when told.

For children, their God is their parents or whomever is raising the children.

From what I can tell you basically do think religion is necessary to have a moral and ethical society, which to me means you are set up to think atheists would be counterproductive in our society.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Are you equating socialism and communism with atheism? That’s part of the problem in the Evangelical community. Many of them think atheists are communists, which is completely wrong. Some communist countries outlawed religious practice, but it doesn’t work in the reverse. That doesn’t mean atheists are all communists.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I see that it doesn’t automatically create a problem…..except when good people have their back against the wall

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie Please note I’m not pushing any religion for anyone. I’m merely saying that religions almost universally come with pretty defined lists of what is acceptable and what is not. Trying to separate that out from government is almost impossible. The ideals are there and cannot be legislated out.

I’m not equating socialism and communism with atheism though there have been many instances of countries with those political structures trying to eradicate all religion or targeting specific ones. Socialism and communism were merely brought up because a lot of the tenets of Mr. Rawls (as described by the link provided by @gorillapaws shows) come down to socialism and communism. He was trying to say that those tenets are a viable way to establish morality in a society without religion. He was saying that Christianity (and many other religions) have led to many atrocities in our history on Earth. I merely pointed out that the standards he was pushing have likewise brought out many atrocities. In fact some still are bringing out atrocities.

smudges's avatar

ok, this is too weird…every time I come to check out the new answers, within seconds it says that @Blackwater_Park is typing a response, but one never appears. It only lasts for about 3 seconds, then disappears, then within about 1 minute, it reappears again. It just happened again. Anyone else see that?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I saw that too!

smudges's avatar

^^ LOL Good, I’m not crazy! Well, I am, but…you know.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 There’s just so many inaccuracies in your statement. 1. I’m a baptized Christian, and while I’m probably not the most faithful of the bunch, I certainly don’t hate Christians.

2. John Rawls was not Communist or Socialist, though his later writings apparently started heading in that direction. Most of his work was from a capitalist perspective with a solid safety net (how the US used to be after the FDR years and before Reagan started the multi-decades journey of shredding the social safety net.

3. Communism and Socialism aren’t moral theories, they’re theories of economic markets. It’s weird to put them on a scale with religion. It’d be like asking: “Where are are you between 1 and 10, with 1 being an avocado and 10 being a Dorian column?” how does that even work?

Response moderated
seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws No, Communism and Socialism are not moral theories. They are, indeed, economic theories. But as with all things, they bring their own version of what is right and wrong to the society. They do not exist solely on what the money will do. So yes, they do significantly impact the morality of their societies.

But they were brought up as a comparison. You condemned religion as a whole. “Look at all the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion!”. Yet the comment I made was that mankind will devolve into mayhem without religion. Communism frequently has no religions and Socialism has limited. And I was showing that without religion, immoral behavior comes out and is oftentimes worse than anything done in the name of religion. When the conversation is a difference between church and state, you have already put economic and political on a scale with religion. Your posted views often see religion as an avocado and Communism/Socialism as a Doric Column.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “Communism frequently has no religions and Socialism has limited.”

I think what you’re pointing out is that historically, totalitarian Communist/Socialist regimes have banned religion to maintain power (Atheism isn’t baked into the economic theories). In other words, it’s entirely conceivable that you could have a Christian Theocratic Socialist state. Marx viewed faith as a symptom of the problems inherent in Capitalism not as a thing that should be banned to maintain a power chokehold on a population. You’re conflating the outcomes of dictatorial regimes who didn’t actually follow Marx with the theory itself. All of this, however is entirely moot as Rawls was a Capitalist and believed in a free market until later in his life when he saw that money was being used to subvert democracy and the interests of the people.

Furthermore, a major problem with using faith to base a society’s morality is deciding which faith, and most importantly, who will interpret that faith? To again pick on Christianity (not out of malice but mostly out of convenience since it’s prolific and reasonably well-understood by most of us), there are hundreds of different variants of Christianity. That fact alone would indicate to me that there is a ton of ambiguity in the Bible and a lot of room for interpretation. Then you throw in things like Popes and guys who claim to find golden tablets left by Jesus in North America and it becomes entirely unclear who’s morality we’re going to follow. One thing’s for certain though, under a Christian religious state, we would need to burn down all of the Red Lobster Restaurants.

JLeslie's avatar

Let’s be clear that separation of church and state, a secular government, protects religious practice. The separation and protections in the US constitution make it so the secular government could never require atheism in the United States, unless someone changes the constitution. We would never be like Communist Russia or North Korea where religion was forbidden.

I have never heard atheists in the US talk about having a government that would forbid religious practice. Countries that did and do this the people had to practice in secret in fear in basements and and keep the knowledge of the services in a small group. That is not the US at all.

Some religious people compare not being allowed to do a prayer before a meeting to not being allowed to freely practice ones religion. When I talk about freedom to practice, I mean the churches are open, people can have religious symbols in their houses, the government does not condemn any religions, people don’t have to fear arrest because they practice or believe.

A lot of American Christians seem to have no idea what it is really like to not be able to practice or declare your religion. There certainly is horrible oppression against Christians in some parts of the world, but absolutely not in the US and no inkling of it.

gorillapaws's avatar

@JLeslie “There certainly is horrible oppression against Christians in some parts of the world, but absolutely not in the US and no inkling of it.”

You don’t think Christianity is oppressed\ in the USA?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws Nice try. But isn’t it interesting that pretty much all the Socialist/Communist regimes end up in the same place? Kinda hard to justify separating the hatred of religion from the regimes and the economic beliefs that are inherent in those models. You do some mighty fine mental gymnastics to try doing it though.

As for the variations in religions (not faiths), you are right. There are a whole lot of Christian churches and many have variations on their beliefs. But let’s be honest….Any Christian religion believes that it is wrong to kill, to steal, to commit adultery, to bear false witness, etc. That is the start of a moral ethos of a society. There are many others that are in there, some are more variant and some are more agreeable. Love your neighbor as you would yourself. Good feeling. Homosexuality is a sin. More disagreeable.

But again, we are looking for a basis for morality. Mankind living by the same set of morals because they believe they are the right way to live is naïve to the point of being ludicrous. Just looking around the world you can see that. Slavery continues to exist. Genocide exists. Piracy exists. Rape, theft, assaults, murders…all are done throughout the world. And many things like this are sanctioned by one government or another. So much for the belief that people do what is right because we all know what is right.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “Nice try. But isn’t it interesting that pretty much all the Socialist/Communist regimes end up in the same place?”

We could play the same game with Capitalist societies too. They tend to drift towards hyper-capitalist Neo-feudal corporatist societies where the elite externalize their costs onto the people and exploit them, destroy the planet all while controlling the political process to prevent bona fide populist candidates from appearing on the ballot.

“Any Christian religion believes that it is wrong to kill, to steal, to commit adultery, to bear false witness, etc.”

As do secular moral theories. These ideas are uncontroversial. It’s the moral dilemmas on the boundaries where we want the theories to do the heavy lifting. Is it ok to kill in defense of another? What if they’re not in danger of death, but serious bodily injury? What if it’s just unwanted touching? It it ok to steal to save a life? Is corporate welfare a form of stealing? Should adultery be punished criminally? by stoning as the good book requires? what about stoning people for trying to convert people away from Christianity? Sorry, but the Bible has some psychotic morality in it. I’ll go with secular moral theories. I like Rawls, personally, but there may be others even better.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws You keep claiming that secular moral theories hold those same moral values. Tell that to the Uyghurs in China. Tell that to the millions killed by Stalin in the Soviet Union. Tell that to the groups in Africa that still are practicing slavery to this day. It just doesn’t hold up.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “You keep claiming that secular moral theories hold those same moral values”

Yes. Because they do. Read Kant, John Stuart Mill, Rawls, Aristotle.None of the examples you list were based on those systems of morality. Furthermore, you’re still dodging the central concern with a Religious based morality: Who elects the priests that make the decisions or do we just trust the church to pick its own leaders? Which flavor of religion do we follow? do we rely on prayer to settle moral disputes?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws Each of those came out with theories. NO society ever existed with those systems of morality. To claim they work is unproven. However, as I have pointed out, people don’t all believe the same things to be moral or not. That sort of disproves all their theories. In fact probably the closest that we have seen that follows secular morality is Communist China which shoots a hole right in your claims.

As for religious based morality, I have repeatedly stated that I’m not pushing a given religion. I’m pointing to religious beliefs. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism….all have similar morals listed. The point is that they have them listed. And the funniest part (at least to me) is how hard people fight against that concept.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , High rates of violence correlate with religious belief. Link Those nations that are least religious have the lowest crime rates. The same holds for states within the U.S.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “NO society ever existed with those systems of morality. To claim they work is unproven.”

Um.. these are used constantly in creating laws and in evaluating right/wrong in many legal systems, including the US. Plenty of judicial opinions and legal scholarship refers to secular moral theories. I think you’re speaking on things you’re not familiar with on this one.

Meanwhile in the religious moral society do they stone adulterers and adulteresses to death? Why or why not? How would that religious society decide?

MrGrimm888's avatar

I would think that our founding fathers understood the countless problems with organized religion, as far as how it affects a population.

Putting aside the fairy tale that our founding fathers were trying to make something pure and resistant to corruption, unlike other governments.

There are countless examples of nations essentially being ruled by radical interpretations of religious beliefs.
Pakistan comes to mind, as far as current examples of what happens when religions (or some people pretending to be a religious figure for their own gain,) dictate their society’s laws, and lifestyles.
Can you imagine seeing massive lynchmobs in the streets, hanging atheists or someone who said “goddammit” in a US town?

A great long-term example of when religion goes wrong for a government, is Italy.
The Catholic church surpassed the leadership of the official rulers, and was also an excuse for expansion. (AKA colonization of regions not Catholic.) Is there any question, today, who has more power in the world between Italy or the Catholic church?

So.
Governments have many purposes. The biggest purpose, is to control the citizens under their claims of power.
Unfortunately. That’s also how organized religion works…

And so, when considering what type of relationship the new republic was to have with religion, the founding fathers did not want a religion (at least one that wasn’t their’s,) to have more sway over the people than the pre-established design of power structure they constructed when they crafted the constitution…

The founding fathers had the wealthiest of people in mind, when they set the rules…

Is it hard to appreciate the fact that Christianity was/is pushing it’s agenda OVER the desires of the masses?

Regardless of one’s interpretation of “separation,” there’s WAY too much attempted Christian assimilation going on in the US right now.
It’s backward thinking, and can only hamstring those who don’t believe in some imaginary made up “god,” and ultimately the human race as a whole…

Great opinions above…

MrGrimm888's avatar

^In short. I believe that religions are in competition for control of the same people governments would try to “govern.”.. So there’s a conflict of interest…

Both entities have self interest in mind. Neither care for their flock. The general public are just numbers, to both.

Put even more briefly/bluntly, if you put faith in either a government or an organized religion, know your roll. You are a number, a pawn, a “worker” bee. All expendable.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Of note…
I went to an AA meeting a few years ago. Looking for help…
They started with “the lord’s prayer.( I think that’s what it’s called.)..

I was out the door before they finished… Just another religion, scavenging for lost souls (victims.)... Trap avoided.

(If that works for others, that’s great. But then they’re indoctrinated at a time they were most vulnerable to a scam.)... How convenient…

Is it convenient, that Bible’s are in most Hotel rooms?
Is it convenient that religions target the weakest of society, to help them in exchange for their “soul?”..
Is it convenient that so many religions have all of the answers, because they base all answers on fairytales?..

I can’t/won’t speak for all atheists. To me? It’s not even funny anymore.
Private beliefs are one thing, book banning, reduction of women’s rights, dehumanizing entire spectrums of people, and so on, is intolerable… And. Frankly. Un-American and embarrassing…

Pandora's avatar

To me, it means that politicians should not make laws based on their religious faith. But what is good for the General public to keep people safe and improve the nation.

The church or faith cannot dictate how the Nation is run.

Tax dollars should not go to religious institutions nor should religious institutions donate to campaign
.
And if churches want to tell their parishioners how to vote and pressure them on how to vote or get kicked out then they should pay taxes like every other business.

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 There are atheist AA meetings if you want to give those a try. They have them in person and on zoom. You can try a few until you find the one that’s s good fit.

smudges's avatar

I just want to point out that even atheist AA meetings ask/require/suggest that you name something as a higher power – a dooknob is a famous one. I tried those groups and my issue was the fact that they wanted me to give my power away.

The group that finally helped me had no higher power other than oneself. I got myself sober, not belief in a non-existent being or an inanimate object. I’m the only thing that had the power to do so.

More power to those who believe in (a) god if it helps them. One of the problems with AA is they tell people that they can’t do it if they don’t have an hp, which is bullshit and, I suspect, keeps some people drinking.

seawulf575's avatar

I believe the point of acknowledging a higher power in AA is to take yourself out of the equation. If you are an alcoholic and believe you can change all by yourself without any help, you would be the huge minority in humanity. It is a way of humbling yourself, getting your ego out of the way.

JLeslie's avatar

@smudges I figure it takes a few tries to find what is going to work for people. A lot of group things can feel like going to church even if they don’t mention God and they don’t do a prayer. The organizers don’t realize how off putting it is to some people, it feels so normal to them. It’s like going to a big Amway meeting, if you have ever done that. It feels like a mega church. Plenty of people respond positively to it, so it continues. Many of the social clubs here do the pledge of allegiance before they start, and I actually am fine with the pledge, but it feels super odd and uncomfortable to me in that setting.

smudges's avatar

@seawulf575 That may be, but what it actually does is relieve people from blame, from responsibility, from having to do the work and change. That’s also the reason that I disagree completely with calling it a ‘disease’. Obviously, not all people are like that.

It is a way of humbling yourself, getting your ego out of the way.

Yes, so they say. I’ll leave it at that.

smudges's avatar

@JLeslie You’re right, many people don’t like the group things, especially if there’s a hint of religiosity. AA works for some people and that’s good. But it’s definitely not the be all and end all that it thinks it is. Judges are finally ‘getting it’ and when they require someone to get help or go to meetings, they are beginning to offer them a choice of what type of group they go to as well as offering AA.

seawulf575's avatar

@smudges I’m not sure it really does relieve people from blame, responsibility or from having to do work to change. They don’t say that higher power made you the alcoholic you are. They lay that blame directly on the alcoholic. They continue on talking about all the things the alcoholic has to do to continue to get clean. All the higher power is there for is to give the alcoholic the understanding that they are not alone and that they have someone there helping them along the way…someone they can talk to and get help from.

.

JLeslie's avatar

I perceive the higher power as being not alone also. In addition to that I think it is to try to help people not be so controlling. Trying to control things in life can lead to a lot of sadness, frustration, and anger. Jesus take the wheel sort of thing. AA uses the serenity prayer “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference…” That is basically a prayer to try to stop controlling things you can’t control and to move forward from disappointments.

The problem is, people who are uneasy in groups that are organized like a church meeting aren’t going to like it. Atheists aren’t going to get the benefit of not feeling alone from being told God is with them, but they can feel less alone in the group setting.

smudges's avatar

@seawulf575 I’m not saying you’re wrong. I probably wasn’t clear. I’m not saying that it does relieve people from blame…I’m saying that’s how some people take it, unfortunately.

seawulf575's avatar

@smudges Understood. And that is often the mistake many Christians make. They believe they can live however they want and then just pray and God will make their lives perfect with no action by themselves. That is not how He works, IMO.

smudges's avatar

@JLeslie A lot of group things can feel like going to church even if they don’t mention God and they don’t do a prayer. The organizers don’t realize how off putting it is to some people, it feels so normal to them. It’s like going to a big Amway meeting, if you have ever done that. It feels like a mega church.

I was agreeing with you in my post, in fact, I said…“You’re right, many people don’t like the group things…”

Atheists aren’t going to get the benefit of not feeling alone from being told God is with them, but they can feel less alone in the group setting.

Right, I agree, but not if they’re uncomfortable in group settings, which is what you already said.

JLeslie's avatar

@smudges We agree, I was just expanding on it.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@JLeslie Yeah, I know.
That was a few years ago. I have found that dying slowly of liver failure for over two years, has more illuminating…

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Is your liver failing, or you mean in general?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^It was. I have new one now. I haven’t drank since 2020.

I apologize for derailing the thread…

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther