Gothamist: "Pay to Pray" Goes On The Block Tuesday

nola's gay

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:49:57 -0500

Nola is just some stingy moron that hates waking up early to feed the meters because he can't afford to garage his jalopy.

nola

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:40:17 -0500

The "high demand city property" has been purchased with and is maintained by taxpayer money. We already fork over enough money to the spendthrifts in city hall. Every group tries to get "special favors" from the city. The Constitution does not prohibit that. Too bad you didn't pay more attention in junior high civics class. And using an irreverent nickname in lieu of a real argument is classic hipster stuff, but if you don't have the facts on your side what else can you do?

your sister's gay boyfriend

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:30:58 -0500

I am so not a hipster type who wants to show how cool and independent I am by slamming the church at every opportunity. I am merely your sister's gay boyfriend. Screwing people six days a week? Please. You're paying chump change so to use high-demand city property and benefit from the turnover. And it is a church-state issue when church leaders are pressuring the council to change a specifically to meet their congregation's needs and to receive special treatment that no other religion gets. If churchgoers simply must drive to worship and park on the street, why not just set a longer limit, at least on Sundays? And designate some handicapped-only spots for people who actually need to park close to the church. That way, not only would they not have to feed the meter, they also don't have to worry about non-church parkers taking up prime spots from Saturday to Monday. See, I do care about you Cranky Christians. Your sister's gay boyfriends are all about compassion.

nola

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:07:37 -0500

The city isn't running deficits because they don't collect enough money. The city is in a semi-permanent state of fiscal crises because they spend too much. I'm not in favor of sticking it to the taxpayer once again - let the city cut spending. And there is a particularly good reason for keeping the meters free - six days a week of screwing people is enough. It is also true that if you attend a church service you need to run outside in the middle of the service to feed the meter. It's difficult to debate church and state issues with someone who doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Our government is forbidden from establishing a state religion. Retaining a long tradition of not charging on Sundays does not even approach this standard. The only people this policy offends are hipster types who want so show how cool and independent they are by slamming the church at every opportunity.

your sister's gay boyfriend

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:16:25 -0500

I figured the literal interpretationist in you would jump on the "broke" thing. I should've written "the city has bounced from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis and has a $3 billion deficit", but I thought "fucking broke" would get the point across. Sorry. Speaking of fiscal crises, you're right that the city has only been charging on Sundays since 2002, because that's when they came to their senses and realized that there wasn't a particularly good reason for keeping the meters free on a busy shopping day. I'm sure church attendance hit an all time low after 2002 while the population in hell multiplied. Well, either that or churchgoers "muddled through". Violating the Constitution? That's probably an exaggeration (hey, I didn't say it), but why are we giving Christians (and people who want to park their cars in the same place from Saturday night to Monday morning) a special treatment? The only reason you've given so far is "it wasn't the case until recently". If the government is instituting a policy to appease leaders of a single religion, and no others - how is that not muddling the line between church and state? And if it's Christophobic to make worshippers pay the city to use (gasp!) city property , why do we allow the MTA to charge fares and tolls to churchgoers?

nola

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:20:00 -0500

The city isn't broke and it didn't start charging on Sundays until recently. And if you think not charging on Sundays violates the Constitution you are even more clueless than I thought.

your sister's gay boyfriend

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:50:41 -0500

His mind clouded by his hatred for the separation of church and state, Nola neglects to mention that the city is pretty fucking broke and it would be the height of dumbfuckery to abandon income from Sunday parking.

nola

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:23:56 -0500

Gothamist neglects to mention the fact that collecting on Sundays is a new phenomenon. Somehow the city scraped by for decades without sticking it to drivers on Sunday, so I'm sure they will muddle through without the extra income. If any of you Christophobes are concerned with the city's finances just send them a little extra with your next tax return.

DAVE

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:09:37 -0500

"retarted"? are you in the 4th grade? grow up.

areacode212

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:04:46 -0500

Just stick the quarters in the freaking meter. Why are so many Manhattan Councilmembers supporting this? This is definitely more of an outer borough issue than a Manhattan one, since over here, there are tons of churches accessible via walking or mass transit--I would guess that most Manhattan churchgoers don't drive to church anyway.

bestbuy

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:47:20 -0500

pc richard and city council is a bunch of morons. No memter Sundays provides ZERO benefit for the city, local merchants or church goers. The only ones benefiting are those that took the parking space on Saturday night and get to sleep in on Sundays!

your sister's gay boyfriend

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:27:44 -0500

pcrichard - congrats on missing the point. We're all screwed by no meter Sundays. Well, all of us except churchgoers who are either too lazy to walk to worship God or too stingy to put in three quarters a week to practice religion. No, we all benefit when parking spaces have high turnover and the city gets revenue on a busy shopping day. What is no meter Sunday but state sponsorship of a single religion? I hope NYCLU gets on this case.

A

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:50:04 -0500

I agree with the point that waiving meters only on Sundays is biased. If we back away from the actual convenience for church-goers, just how many people are actually driving to church within the city on Sundays? I think back to the classic social study where people were asked how often they went to church and then church attendees were actually counted. Needless to say, people like to think that they attend church on Sunday but they really don't. There are 8 million people in New York. Assuming 1,000 people per building (a generous number considering the size of many the building), does the city have 8,000 places of worship? Just like the people interviewed in the study who want to be perceived as going to church, councilmembers like to be perceived as being religious to their constituents.

pc richard

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:36:11 -0500

oh come on, all of us benefit from no meters on sunday.

DC

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:20:58 -0500

The "pay to pray" complaint is so shamelessly biased towards Christians! Not all religions have services on Sundays, you know. I think don't think it's fair to say that only Christians don't have to pay for parking to go to church. One could argue that if Christians will not have to 'pay to pray' than neither should jewish, muslim, buddhist, sikh, hindu faiths, etc. This would be a loss of a lot of cash for the city...