|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2005 04:16:48 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Extremist right-wing NAZI christian morons, yes those hate-mongerers who should have no say in government simply cause "they're religious". |
I have no problem with religious people having a say in government. I do have a problem with people injecting their religious beliefs into government. Why canât I buy my 40 ounce Colt 45 and get all good and liquorâd up on a Sunday morning? Why canât I perform sodomy with another consenting adult in the privacy of my own home?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Only atheists should be allowed to make a decision on what laws should be passed. |
Who makes that argument? Iâve never heard any credible spokesperson for atheists, as if there were such a thing, agree to or make anything like the above statement. I would likely define it as a good example of the Strawman Argument.
Originally posted by theSaj:
The irony, most of what you are accusing the so called "christian-right" of trying to force down your throats. Is in fact, merely an attempt to keep what has been implemented for decades. |
Such as the single original motto of the U.S. âE Pluribus Unumâ instead of the 1950s add-on âIn God We Trustâ? Or the original 1890s Pledge of Allegiance âone nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for allâ instead of the 1950s amendment âone nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for allâ? Or the Ten Commandment monuments placed around the US as part of publicity campaign for the opening of Cecil B. DeMilleâs film âThe Ten Commandmentsâ in the 1950s? How does the fact that these religious symbols and statements were placed on US government property in the 1950s make them unassailable? Perhaps they shouldnât have been placed there in the first place?
Originally posted by theSaj:
2. Exclusion or inclusion of religious items in government facilities or documents. Quite a challenge this one. So much "judeo-christian" aspects in our early historical documents and memorials. |
If you pick and choose, yes, I agree. I kind of the like the original unanimously ratified 1797 version of the Treaty of Tripoli wherein Article XI stated the United States was in âno way a Christian nation.â
Originally posted by theSaj:
Sure you can quote (oh wait, you can't) seperation of church and state in the Constitution. |
Who said the phrase âseparation of church and stateâ was in the Constitution?
Originally posted by theSaj:
That's right it's "no establishment". This is a very gray area for sure. And there should be a balance. Sadly, there is little agreement to balance and desires to push the pendulum to one side or the other. |
What purpose is served by placing a two ton copy of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of a federal court building?
Originally posted by theSaj:
You say, "seperation of church and state" |
Well, Thomas Jefferson said it ⦠or least wrote it ⦠or least wrote something similar to it in his letter Danbury Baptist clarifying the intention of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Originally posted by theSaj:
...and therefore no Federal funds should go to an organization like The Salvation Army because it's a church. |
If The Salvation Army can keep its humanitarian efforts separate from its religious efforts while using federal funds, there is little to which to object. There are instances of religious agencies, however, which have found it difficult to separate their religious and humanitarian efforts while using federal funds. This was one of the major concerns over the Faith Based Initiatives among its critics.
Originally posted by theSaj:
And one might argue it's an establishment of religion if a church's soup kitchen receives Federal funds. |
Only if they are unable to keep separate their religious and humanitarian missions while receiving federal funds.
Originally posted by theSaj:
However, many argue it is even more so an establishment of religion (or a restriction upon) to refuse a soup kitchen funding simply because it's in a church. |
Can they keep separate their religious and humanitarian missions while receiving federal funds?
Originally posted by theSaj:
The correct process of the Constitutional clause is NOT to not allow funds. |
I donât see the problem if they can keep their religious and humanitarian missions separated while receiving federal funds.
Originally posted by theSaj:
But that any church or similar religious or social entity should be able to seek said funds on equal footing. So a church, a mosque, a Masonic Lodge or Elks Lodge should all have equal footing for applying for those funds. |
Agreed. So long as they can keep any religious activities and humanitarian missions separate while receiving federal funds.
Originally posted by theSaj:
It's even more complicated when an entity like The Salvation Army (which is a church) is sued for discrimination because they wouldn't hire a homosexual employee because it goes against the beliefs of the church. Then they are sued for benefits for the homosexual's partner. I ask you...who is forcing who's morality on whom? |
Should The Salvation Army be allowed to receive federal funds taken American tax dollars and discriminate against a portion of all American citizens who pay the taxes?
Originally posted by theSaj:
3. As for the gay marriage issue. This is in fact a seperation of church and state. Marriage is a religious sacriment. The concept being a spiritual union. It was merged with the civil/legal concepts of union for simplicity's sake. Now it is causing complex problems.
The truth of the matter, they need to be seperated.
Marriage, should only be recognized by whatever faith the ceremony was performed and according to their beliefs. (ie: Judeo-Christian belief of one man and one woman; Muslim/Mormon beliefs of a man and multiple women, a pagan handfasting ceremony for 1 yr of marriage, or a wife with multiple husbands.) However, those marriages will only be recognized by those faiths. A Mormon should not expect a Catholic to accept his marriage and multiple wives. Or vice-versa.
The claim that I often hear, "what right do you have to stop two people from loving one another". Guess what...no one is. No one is stopping two gay men from loving one another. Those fighting against gay marriage are simply trying to protect their religious sacraments. |
Agreed. The government should get out of the marriage business completely and only recognize civil unions. Leave the ceremony of the marriage to religious institutions, though I believe everyone would refer to themselves as âmarriedâ regardless of church and state labeling. I personally would like to see a limit of two people within a union. From what Iâve read, it seems a more stable social arrangement. Iâd be willing to hear your arguments for multiple partner unions however.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 04:27:41 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Am I making any sense? |
Sure ... for starters, as you point out, you currently live in Canada ... : ) |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 04:34:52 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Am I making any sense? |
Sure ... for starters, as you point out, you currently live in Canada ... : ) |
Flesh out that thought...I'm not getting the implications. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 04:38:17 PM · #479 |
| Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 04:44:22 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
That being said, we have a tougher time fighting for things we believe in and our 'problems' are much much smaller for a variety of reasons. Take the good with the bad, I suppose. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:00:10 PM · #481 |
Follow the Money for the Real Story
By Molly Ivins
The Chicago Tribune
Thursday 15 September 2005
Austin, Texas - Here's a good idea: Consumer groups and progressive congress-folks have joined in an effort to stop hundreds of thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina from being further harmed by the new bankruptcy law, scheduled to take effect Oct. 17. This law was written of, by and for the consumer credit industry and is particularly onerous for the poor.
The bill was passed with massive support from the Republican leadership in Congress and from a disgusting number of sellout Democrats. While it was being considered in committee earlier this year, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) offered an amendment to protect victims of natural disasters. It was defeated, without debate, on a party-line vote.
Now, Congress has a chance to rethink some of the most punitive parts of the bill. Katrina victims who were planning to file before the new law goes into effect are out of luck - where are they gonna find a lawyer, let alone an open courthouse?
Under the new law, anyone whose income is above the state median must file under Chapter 13, a more restrictive category that requires some repayment of debt. The new law grants no exemption for natural disaster, even though it's going to be a little tough for some citizen sitting in the Houston Astrodome who no longer has a home to come up with tax statements, pay stubs and six months of income and expense data.
Meanwhile, it's an ill wind that blows no one good, so we should not be surprised to learn the first winner out of the gate on Katrina is Halliburton Co., whose deserving subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root already has been granted a $29.8 million contract for cleanup work in the wake of Katrina.
Of course, no one would suggest Halliburton and its subsidiaries get government contracts (it already has billions of dollars of Iraq rehab work) just because Vice President Dick Cheney is still on the payroll. Heavens no. The veep continues to get deferred pay from the company he once headed - $194,852 last year.
But Cheney has nothing to do with the Halliburton contracts - that, friends, goes through none other than the noted lobbyist and former head of - of all things - the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since Joe Allbaugh, who was Bush's campaign manager in 2000, announced that he was leaving FEMA in December 2002, it appears he has been busy making sure reconstruction contracts in Iraq go to companies that give generously to the Republican Party.
Now, aren't you ashamed of yourself for thinking there's something wrong with that? Besides, Allbaugh is now with a big-time Washington lobbying firm, where he also represents Shaw Group Inc., and - voila - Shaw Group, too, already has a $100 million emergency contract from FEMA for housing management and construction and a $100 million order from the US Army Corps of Engineers for Katrina repair.
Congress has appropriated $51.8 billion in emergency funding for recovery costs, and it's estimated that the final costs could top $100 billion.
Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, told Reuters: "The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests."
Now, Ms. Brian, get a grip. Not all the money goes to big, politically connected firms.
Michael ("You're doing a heckuva job") Brown liked to spread federal money around. In fact, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) was so annoyed by Brownie's distribution of largesse in Miami after Hurricane Frances that he urged President Bush to fire Ol' Brownie last January. What upset Wexler about the $30 million in FEMA checks to cover new wardrobes, cars, lawnmowers, vacuum cleaners, furniture and appliances was that the hurricane did not affect Miami. It landed 100 miles away.
Some of you may have heard me observe a time or two - going back to when George W. was still governor of Texas - that the trouble with the guy is that while he is good at politics, he stinks at governance. It bores him, he's not interested, he thinks government is bad to begin with and everything would be done better if it were contracted out to corporations.
We can now safely assert that W. has stacked much of the federal government with people like himself. And what you get when you put people in charge of government who don't believe in government and who are not interested in running it well is ... what happened after Hurricane Katrina.
Many a time in the past six years I have bit my tongue so I wouldn't annoy people with the always obnoxious observation, "I told you so." But I did.
Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:18:17 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Would you like to live there? |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:21:55 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention. |
That's a shame...Texas has been pretty damned good to Molly or else she wouldn't have made the bulk of her life and career here. I've always read her columns and books and have admired her wit, her realism, and her fire. This statement alone disappoints me to no end, though. That kind of generalization is just plain disrespectful to anyone else who lives here...what if I wanted to run for president? My sons? She really has lost a fan this time. I'm sure she doesn't care (or any of you for that matter), but it's still a really crappy attitude for her to take.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:22:12 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Would you like to live there? |
Everyone wants to live in Canada. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:25:37 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Would you like to live there? |
Everyone wants to live in Canada. |
I don't!
:)
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:27:37 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Everyone wants to live in Canada. |
I don't!
:) |
Huh? Why not? ;0)
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 18:28:40. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:39:07 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
that reflects the political movement of liberalism, ie reduction of state involvement in individual lives." |
Here in the states, Liberalism usually coincides with much greater influence and involvement of individual lives excepting the case of abortion in which it's opposite and wants no involvement of government. It also tends to want no involvement of anything or anyone influenced by religion or religious beliefs with government. However, this does not work in a "government for the people by the people". And thus, what the mass of people believe is what the government usually passes to a point.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Since I also have been called a " left wing liberal" in an insulting "tone" in threads, I would also appreciate an answer to LB's question? |
Yes, such terms did get tossed around. I myself began tossing them too after being on the receiving end. So I answered LB's comment above in reference to your comment below.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
Silent Majority whose middle ground is left unheard. Whether they will eventually rise in revolt and return the idealogues to academia instead of public office is yet to be determined. |
True, and sadly for the most part Americans are fairly apathetic about politics. But what has largely happened in recent times is that a large group of apathetic conservatives awoke and said "enough was enough" hence the large shift in voting. (It was not only President Bush who won, but conservatives have gained strong presence in the Congress and Governorships as well.)
Originally posted by "thatcloudthere":
But you're perpetuating it...so many of you are, by 'aligning' yourself instead of discussing issues. Media does it, celebrities do it, and many average citizens are doing it...aligning themselves and then fighting or letting others do the fighting for them. |
Very true:
And funny you should mention this pairing
"Michael Moore vs. Pat Robertson"
Today I wasn't thinking we should lock "Pat Robertson and Louis Farrakhan" in a room together...and never let them out.
[/quote]
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
is that the "liberal scientists" are (at least putatively) open to change based on new rational evidence; religious fundamentalism does not permit the adjustment of one's views, or for that matter, the "live and let live" conservatism on which basis the US was largely founded. |
Both live by their demigogues. Scientists are historically known for being some of the most unaccepting individuals when it comes to change. As a whole, many tend to be some of the most prideful and strong willed people in the world. Almost every scientist to radically change our understanding was ridiculed and many fought for decades before their views became accepted. Many not till their deaths.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
and which believes it's the Federal governments mission to regulate people's individual choices about what they eat, drink or smoke, and with whom they may have consensual sexual relations. |
THIS IS ALMOST LAUGHABLE!!!!
First off please state an example...
Most of the one's I can think of (eat, drink, smoke, etc.) regulations tended to all be pushed by liberals.
The "consensual sexual relations" besides regards to minors they have overall not pushed for any such legislation. If you're referring to abstinence. And the idea abstinence should play a larger and predominant role in our sexual education. Yeah DAMN RIGHT!!! I think we should push and encourage abstinence as much as possible before we give 5th graders condoms.
I find most of the regulations stem from "socialist" agendas as opposed to conservatives.
Originally posted by "thatcloudthere":
So don't you think that it would be helpful for citizens to stop "signing up" under far left or far right and to begin having intelligent discussions? |
I have long said we need to disband the party system altogether. I believe the web and media now are sufficient to allow a candidate to represent him or herself individually.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
This law was written of, by and for the consumer credit industry and is particularly onerous for the poor. |
Why is it so onerous? Because it makes it harder to simply rack up debts on a credit card and then walk away from it and all the responsibility - because it forces people to "pay their debts". I do believe the credit industry is fully entitled to re-compense.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
Under the new law, anyone whose income is above the state median must file under Chapter 13, a more restrictive category that requires some repayment of debt. The new law grants no exemption for natural disaster, even though it's going to be a little tough for some citizen sitting in the Houston Astrodome who no longer has a home to come up with tax statements, pay stubs and six months of income and expense data. |
And just what do you suggest GeneralE, that we allow everyone to go debt free? And first off, they have to below the state median income. (So in the bottom half.) If you're in the top half of income makers you must pay at least a portion according to your means.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
Meanwhile, it's an ill wind that blows no one good, so we should not be surprised to learn the first winner out of the gate on Katrina is Halliburton Co., whose deserving subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root already has been granted a $29.8 million contract for cleanup work in the wake of Katrina. |
OMG, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton!!!!
Well, considering Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world to offer their specialization in clean-up and hazardous materials. Yes, they often do get the contract. Few companies are in the field. And fewer as capable.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
just because Vice President Dick Cheney is still on the payroll. |
Okay, been over this. We've shown that he is NOT on the payroll. Been over this over and over and over. But guess....well...gee....we'll go over it again and again still. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:44:31 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
No, I don't beleieve the Democrats (especially of late) represent all my ideals either. As a party, the Greens probably come closer, but they're not really welcome at the political table right now. I'd prefer to pick the best parts of which all the sides have to offer, but I'm too lazy to start my own party. |
So if that is the way most people feel (and some end up voting blue and some vote red), nobody is being truly represented. Fine, that's the way democracy works and it's the same here in Canada. But! In the USA, people are so "aligned" (is my use of the word making my point?) with one party or the other, and those parties seem to have taken such extremes, that the country is hurting as far as political morale goes.
So don't you think that it would be helpful for citizens to stop "signing up" under far left or far right and to begin having intelligent discussions?
I mean, here in Canada, I don't know if most of my friends vote liberal or conservative or something else but I do know where they stand on certain issues. They don't hinge everything on one 'viewpoint' or another.
Am I making any sense? |
Yes but I'm Canadian too! I like what you're bringing up. U.S. Politics are so dramatic because it's always Good Vs. Evil (depending on wich side you are leaning and wich side you believe to be Good or Evil) In Canada, it's very different. The different partys agree on a lot of things using common sense, the whole country (the vast majority anyway) agrees that religion has no business in politics wich leaves us (Canadian) to agree on what must be done, the partys are there to offer different ways to do them. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:51:02 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Marriage is a religious sacriment. The concept being a spiritual union. |
That is nonsense and arguments built off those ideas are nonsense. The institution of marriage has been around far longer than man made religions, especially christianity. Human babies take a long time to mature to self sustainable age. The main reason for marriage is to keep the parents together to raise the child, who requires years of care and training.
In Wikipedia terms; "Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but marriage has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Marriage is usually conceived as a male-female relationship designed to produce children and successfully socialize them."
I'm sick of hearing this; itâs a false assumption.
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 18:52:35. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:52:16 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Yep, sound like my response to Mike. Still working my way up the thread! ;-) |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:54:18 PM · #491 |
I would think the wedding ceremony itself is the religious sacrament, whichever kind of ceremony you choose to have depending upon your own religious beliefs and preferences. The marriage itself then follows along the lines set forth in that particular ceremony. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:00:04 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
This law was written of, by and for the consumer credit industry and is particularly onerous for the poor. |
Why is it so onerous? Because it makes it harder to simply rack up debts on a credit card and then walk away from it and all the responsibility - because it forces people to "pay their debts". I do believe the credit industry is fully entitled to re-compense.
|
Firstly, do not quote "me" when what you are referring to is an article by someone else which I posted for educational purposes. Just because I post it, I do not contend that I agree with every single word in any such article -- it represents the author's and publisher's point of view.
I think the point is that the law now places more stringent repayment requirements on poor people -- the vast majority who go bankrupt because of a medical emergency (or natural disaster) -- than it does on corporations who supposedly have a board to exercise fiduciary responsibility. Why should a corporation get off stiffing the creditors, when some worker hurt on the job isn't? The issue isn't one of evading responsibility, but who gets away with how much.
Corporation $300 million in debt? No problem, wipe it out, probably ultimately at taxpayer expense.
Minimum-wage worker with 2 kids and a $30,000 hospital bill? Sorry, you can work the rest of your life to pay it off. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:06:14 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Would you like to live there? |
Everyone wants to live in Canada. |
I don't.....not even close....at all.
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 19:07:29. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:10:50 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Would you like to live there? |
Everyone wants to live in Canada. |
I don't.....not even close....at all. |
It's true that our winters can be pretty tough...
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 19:11:20. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:12:22 PM · #495 |
| aaaaah, we love yall anyways |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:14:00 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Would you like to live there? |
I've considered it at various times of my life. I'll certainly consider it again if the US continues down the road to theocracy. Otherwise, it's too cold for me most of the time.
BTW: Perhaps now is the time to remind people of Robert A. Heinlein's uncanny prescience about the current political state of the USA -- his "Future History" series of stories and novels flatly predicts the rise of Fundamentalist Theocratic rule in the USA (in the context of a long series of plitical/technological changes).
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 19:14:34. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:22:40 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
that reflects the political movement of liberalism, ie reduction of state involvement in individual lives." |
Here in the states, Liberalism usually coincides with much greater influence and involvement of individual lives excepting the case of abortion in which it's opposite and wants no involvement of government. It also tends to want no involvement of anything or anyone influenced by religion or religious beliefs with government. However, this does not work in a "government for the people by the people". And thus, what the mass of people believe is what the government usually passes to a point.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Since I also have been called a " left wing liberal" in an insulting "tone" in threads, I would also appreciate an answer to LB's question? |
Yes, such terms did get tossed around. I myself began tossing them too after being on the receiving end. So I answered LB's comment above in reference to your comment below.
. |
I am not totally sure I understand what you are saying here about liberalism in the US. Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that liberals in the US want involvement of government in the life decisions of individuals( except abortion when they want people to decide for themselves.)? They also want a complete separation of state and church?
This is completely different in my opinion to the meaning of a liberal in the UK. Definitely a source of misunderstanding if you refer to any Brit as a liberal.
Another reason to be careful how we phrase our thoughts in posts.
P
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:41:06 PM · #498 |
Responses to milo655321:
I have no problem with religious people having a say in government. I do have a problem with people injecting their religious beliefs into government. Why canât I buy my 40 ounce Colt 45 and get all good and liquorâd up on a Sunday morning? Why canât I perform sodomy with another consenting adult in the privacy of my own home?
First off, you're mixing oranges and apples. You're talking about blue laws passed ages ago. I myself, am what you'd call one of those religious people. Or right-wing conservative fascist (as I've been termed by some). But I am adamantly opposed to the alcohol restrictions. I actually point it out as a "true" example of a seperation of church and state scenario.
In fact, I once wanted to have communion with friends. Wanted to buy wine. But could not because of those laws. But those have very little to do with anything of our day. It's much akin to the laws in Boston that make it illegal to take a bath. (All them there doctors thought it would lead to sickness.)
But the first part that you said is an oxymoron.
"I have no problem with religious people having a say in government. I do have a problem with people injecting their religious beliefs into government."
This thought might work in a dictatorship, monarchy, etc. But not in a Democracy. What you just said is. Our government is a "by the people". In otherwords, that which our government establishes is by the beliefs of the people. To forbid a person to act on their beliefs simply because they're religious is in fact to forbid religion.
Why are they religious? because they're a group that believes "in like fashion". Take L.Ron Hubbard's religion. What makes them a religion? Because they believe in like fashion and according to a certain thought and ideology. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's still a belief. It may not be a regulated religion or a belief but it is one. And it fundamentally affects one's decisions and outlook on life.
Would it be fair to say: "I have no problem with atheists having a say in government. I do have a problem with people injecting their atheistic beliefs into government."
???
Only atheists should be allowed to make a decision on what laws should be passed.
Who makes that argument? Iâve never heard any credible spokesperson for atheists, as if there were such a thing, agree to or make anything like the above statement. I would likely define it as a good example of the Strawman Argument.
YOU DO! You just said it in your post. You just said a religious person should not have the right to make governmental decisions based on religious beliefs (which is their beliefs). You just said they should not have the right to make decisions on laws. And if the religious can't than it must be the atheists.
Is the issue really, that "religious people should not be allowed to vote and make decisions on laws based on their beliefs" or is it simply....you don't like the reversal of decisions via the established system?
I find it funny, that liberal judges have re-interpreted much of our law and made decisions that are constitutionally supposed to be in the hands of the legislature. I find it also funny, that the liberals are now saying that "conservative values" makes a judge ineligable to sit on the supreme court. However, this wasn't an issue when their judges who were much more liberal were appointed? I find it funny for them to say "only the left half are eligable to be a supreme court judge, the right half is not eligable because they're in the right half".
Such as the single original motto of the U.S. âE Pluribus Unumâ instead of the 1950s add-on âIn God We Trustâ? Or the original 1890s Pledge of Allegiance âone nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for allâ instead of the 1950s amendment âone nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for allâ? Or the Ten Commandment monuments placed around the US as part of publicity campaign for the opening of Cecil B. DeMilleâs film âThe Ten Commandmentsâ in the 1950s? How does the fact that these religious symbols and statements were placed on US government property in the 1950s make them unassailable? Perhaps they shouldnât have been placed there in the first place?
I actually don't fight for these as adamantly. Although numerous government buildings had judeo-christian religious icons, ten commandments, etc. before the 50's. And I'll even grant you the money. Might even grant you the pledge. Though I believe there are enough religious comments in memorials, government buildings, cemetaries since the inception of our country. That to rip them all down seems a bit ludicrous. Much akin to fanatical witch hunt.
I for one would not advocate their destruction for the sole reason that they are historical.
But I can accept and understand this argument. And I believe the fight over this is because many christians feel as though (especially thanks to the ACLU) that the intent is not just to bring a balance but to bring an exclusion. (ie: students suspended for reading their Bibles quietly alone in the playground or for a group of believers on a Volleyball team to pray and ask God that everybody have a good game and no one from either team get's hurt.) When these things become illegal or a contention. Then the pendulum is not simply correcting itself but swinging to fanatical polar extreme. And I believe this is why so many of these issues arise. Also, because most people grew up with such. And so it feels odd to see it go. Even if it might be the right thing to do.
If you pick and choose, yes, I agree. I kind of the like the original unanimously ratified 1797 version of the Treaty of Tripoli wherein Article XI stated the United States was in âno way a Christian nation.
I actually agree....I do not believe "America" is a "Christian nation" but I believe America is a nation where christians, muslims, jews, mormons, hindis, etc can worship freely. And promote and share their beliefs.
Who said the phrase âseparation of church and stateâ was in the Constitution? [i]
Numerous people I've encountered. And numerous lawyers, TV shows, etc. have quoted it as an established legal and binding clause when it is not.
[i]If The Salvation Army can keep its humanitarian efforts separate from its religious efforts while using federal funds, there is little to which to object. There are instances of religious agencies, however, which have found it difficult to separate their religious and humanitarian efforts while using federal funds. This was one of the major concerns over the Faith Based Initiatives among its critics.
See here is the issue. I used to volunteer as a Salvation Army. At the time I didn't even realize they were really churches. They ran a soup kitchen on Sunday. They received food from the various city "food banks" who receive funding via municipal, state & federal programs.
A group of us college age kids would help out. We'd serve meals. We'd help prepare the food. We'd sometimes talk with the ones who wanted to talk. Often about day-to-day and oridinary life situations. But also, at times we'd talk about ourselves, what we believed and how it helped us. Now, some would say that the soup kitchen needed to be shut down. That is using government funds to spread religion. However, if you looked at the Federal funds as compared to the private donations of money and time it gets much more blurry.
What did the government donate? uncooked food...
The Salvation Army? kitchen, a cook, a building, warmth and a soup kitchen
A bunch of christian volunteers? labor, a friendly environment, conversation
So should Federal monies be excluded from The Salvation Army and similar entities simply because they are religious? Let me ask you a question....where did the Federal monies come from? From the citizens...many of whom are in fact religious.
So, should all the religious stop paying taxes? I mean, if we (and the programs we support) are ineligable to receive Federal monies....perhaps we should not pay Federal taxes? No taxation without equal representation...
My point being "Only if they are unable to keep separate their religious and humanitarian missions while receiving federal funds." is not a reasonable statement. Because there is no way that said funds can be said to be kept completely seperate.
Likewise, I have been to many events where I have had to listen to Democrat speakers rant against Republicans and conservatives. "Hey wait a minute, I thought I was at a gathering to celebrate female felons who have worked hard to return as successful and productive members of to society?" Why is political and philosophical rants allowed. My tax money pays for this? If I could count the number of times I've seen such crap and get a $1 for each time I could buy a new car....and not a KIA either.
"I donât see the problem if they can keep their religious and humanitarian missions separated while receiving federal funds."
First off, because there will never be a way to "keep" funds seperate enough to satisfy everyone. Someone will always object.
For example: in many colleges and schools "Christian Groups" are not allowed. You can have a "Homosexual Group" a "Native American Group" even a "Upside Down Tiddly-Winker Group" or any other "student organized and run" group. But if you have a "christian group" guess what. You're ineligable for activity funds. Why? Because these colleges receive government funding. Thus, some see money given to a christian student group as a violation of the concept of "seperation of church and state". Now wait a minute....those students paid activity fees. And the activity money is supposed to fund varying student groups (many of which are extremely political). But a christian group (even though membership is open to all students) is not allowed.
So how can you take an activity fee from said christian students. Give money from those student's activity fee to groups that promote beliefs extremely counter to those of the christians. And then tell the christians they are ineligable to receive those same funds.
My friend, THAT is an "establishment violation". You just established a prohibition. And you might say that you did not...that those students are still free to exercise their religion. Are they? They just had $$$ taken away and were unable to access it in return. The result? is far from "free exercise"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It works BOTH ways...
I think a big problem, is that our government was NEVER intended to run the social programs we do today. In it becoming the big financier it created a "breakdown of seperation". You see, you cannot "tax" me for social programs. Then at the same time tell me that if I am running a said social program I am ineligable to receive any funding because of my religious faith. If that is the case, then likewise, the government is ineligable to tax me for social programs (except by brute force of strength...in this case the IRS).
Should The Salvation Army be allowed to receive federal funds taken American tax dollars and discriminate against a portion of all American citizens who pay the taxes?
They should be allowed to receive funds for particular offerings (ie: a soup kitchen, or aid provision) which must be open to all citizens. But they should not receive daily "operating funds" for their church (offices, staff, pastors, etc.) of which are restricted based on their religious beliefs.
If there are monies ear marked for soup kitchens. As long as the soup is given then any group (religious or otherwise) who can perform the function should be eligable to compete(recieve) said funds.
Agreed. The government should get out of the marriage business completely and only recognize civil unions. Leave the ceremony of the marriage to religious institutions, though I believe everyone would refer to themselves as âmarriedâ regardless of church and state labeling. I personally would like to see a limit of two people within a union. From what Iâve read, it seems a more stable social arrangement. Iâd be willing to hear your arguments for multiple partner unions however.
Kudos, I am glad that you see that this is indeed the "right" way for it to be done. I think it quite interesting that logically speaking we have two people on both sides saying it is right.
I will say, I think you should consider re-visiting your "two people" rule. There are quite a few who argue for successful examples and in fact added stability in multi-parent homes. There is furthermore, often more economic stability and workloads more evenly distributed. It used to be in most cultures that a family often lived in the same house as grandparents. So it was very much akin to having two moms and two dads. The results actually tended to be quite good on the average. We've lost that family structure. There are many (although very few christians) who argue that multi unions could offer similar family benefits and stability.
Now mind you, you've got a "christian" arguing the view of the polyist right now. So it's kinda a comical reversal. But IMHO, the government should not exclude on that basis either.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 07:46:30 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by "MadMordegon":
That is nonsense and arguments built off those ideas are nonsense. The institution of marriage has been around far longer than man made religions, especially christianity. Human babies take a long time to mature to self sustainable age. The main reason for marriage is to keep the parents together to raise the child, who requires years of care and training. |
Uh...yeah...so um...."gay marriage" what children? what reason?
Religion is law (see root word "lig"). Even if you look at the earliest examples of marriage. When did it become a legal (religiously) binding event? at first it was just "mate" "reproduce" and "raise" right? why did there have to be a law to bind it?
The aspect you are talking about "co-habitation and raising a child" does NOT require a marriage. I know plenty of people doing it without marriage.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
than it does on corporations who supposedly have a board to exercise fiduciary responsibility. |
With regards to the ease of businesses going bankrupt and keeping their $$$. I will adamantly agree with you. It should not be so easy. But I do not believe individuals should be waived their obligations to debtors.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 08:52:43 PM · #500 |
| Maybe we can all have breaks and have laughter here. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 08:07:34 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 08:07:34 AM EDT.
|
