Thin skinned Americans

[billvon 3,107]

>Check THIS out.

I don't have a problem with that, actually. If the service that the government funds is a) available to everyone, b) indeed a public service and c) not limited to one church or group, then why not? (Assuming, of course, there was sufficient oversight to make sure there were no abuses.)

The constitution says that we cannot make a law "respecting an establishment of a religion." My interpretation of that is we cannot pass any laws that respect any one religion over another, over a secular power, etc. We can, of course, regulate _all_ religions in many ways - a fire inspector can certainly condemn a church as long as he uses the same standards for all churches without the pastor hollering "Separation of church and state!" Similarly, I see nothing wrong with a law that says any group can get funding to perform public services X, Y and Z as long as it is open to _all_ groups regardless of religious affiliation (and as long as it meets the requirements set forth by the government.)

[quade 4]

(Please forgive me, my head is a little fuzzy right now, but I'm going to give this one a shot anyway.)

So then, you don't have a problem with an Islamic group getting tax money to feed the poor and I don't think I would either unless it then frees up other money used to fund terrorist activities.

The problem, as I see it, is that you don't know (can't know really because of tax-exempt status) where the money is going to be used and for exactly what purposes because so many religious organizations could be into so many different thing -- like defending child molesters for instance.

Now, if somebody really wants to donate money to a religious cause, I see nothing wrong with that, but I certainly don't want my tax money being given to organizations with very little oversight as it is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Dumpster 0]

I wonder-
What is the guy who took this whole thing to court doing right now? Is he walking the streets woth his head held high or is he hiding in his house/apartment/condo/whatever? Is he getting lots of positive press coverage, or is he hiding from the media?
Are his kid(s) going to school and receiving lots of respect, or getting thier asses kicked in the parking lot 'cuz thier dad is pereceived as an a$$hole? Or did dear old Dad have to take them out of school altogether? Does Dad even have a job anymore? And just think of the lagacy he has left his kids-

The woman who won the court cases that got prayer taken out of school - remember that, some of us? How ironic her son became a Baptist minister- She didn't think her son should be "forced" to pray or hear any mention of God, either-

Bill you got it right on all counts!

Time to excercise my right to go to the store, pick up a 12-pack of any beer I choose, and sit in my backyard listening to the kids and live the good life-
I love being a capitalist American pig!!

C-Yas!!!
-Lenny

Easy Does It

[Jessica 0]

Quote

What is the guy who took this whole thing to court doing right now? Is he walking the streets woth his head held high or is he hiding in his house/apartment/condo/whatever? Is he getting lots of positive press coverage, or is he hiding from the media?

This guy is a FRUITCAKE. He's pleased as punch about all this, and his next project is to try to eradicate all gender-specific pronouns from the English language. I shit you not.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[billvon 3,107]

>The problem, as I see it, is that you don't know (can't know really
> because of tax-exempt status) where the money is going to be
> used and for exactly what purposes because so many religious
> organizations could be into so many different thing -- like defending
> child molesters for instance.

Uh, Paul, your taxes pay the public defenders that defend child molesters now - and it is your taxes that will pay for either their incarceration or their treatment, depending on the outcome of the trial.

I agree that you need accountability. If you want money, you should have to detail what you will do with it, and there should be sufficient oversight to make sure that that's what _is_ being done with it.

[Dumpster 0]

You're probably 100% right on that, Jess! No doubt he's a real legend in his own mind! after getting rid of all gender-specific pronouns, the next will be any reference to any form of race or nationality whatsoever, unless it's his-

Easy Does It

[quade 4]

I'll bite the tax-money bullet for public defenders since that's also a part of the U.S. Constitution, but I don't really want to have it go to defend the conspiracies over at the Catholic Church.

I think there's a difference.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Dumpster 0]

I absolutely agree there- What really burns my ass is that the "priests" seem to be somewhat above the law- and no one thinks that is wrong- If it were a "layperson" you know damn well they should be thrown right in jail, but since it's a "priest" it's all kid gloves - Bullcrap! Lock 'em up!

Easy Does It

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

c) not limited to one church or group

I'd like to take that a step further and say not restricted from any church or group. But already we don't abide by that. For instance the US gives aid to charity groups in foreign countries that provide sex education regarding aids and pregnancy prevention, except of course if they even mention that abortion is an option (not even performing them, just educating people on their LEGAL options). Not to open that whole can of worms, but someone decided to restrict who gets money because they talk about something that they find morally offensive even though it is completely legal.

I personally don't want public funds (my money) going to groups who are preaching a religion that I don't agree with while they're feeding you. I'd rather give my charitable contribution to groups that I choose because I believe in their cause, rather than have my money go to someone who conflicts with my beliefs.

[billvon 3,107]

>I personally don't want public funds (my money) going to groups who
> are preaching a religion that I don't agree with while they're feeding
> you.

Your money supports public radio; they have commercials for companies that you may or may not agree with. ("Funding for this was provided by Qualcomm, the leader in digital wireless communications. The future is now at Qualcomm. For more information on Qualcomm contact blah blah blah.")

Your money supports public transportation in many places. Those buses and trains have ads that push alcohol, television and tobacco.

I can't see the difference between being exposed to cigarette ads on publically-funded transportation and being exposed to a religion while getting free food. Many commuters (in NYC for example) do not have the option of taking another form of transportation. In both cases, you can simply ignore the ads if you want. If you think that is an unfair imposition on someone, to have to ignore something - refer to the original post,

> I'd rather give my charitable contribution to groups that I choose
> because I believe in their cause, rather than have my money go to
> someone who conflicts with my beliefs.

I agree that it is better to donate directly. However, we have not reached the point where that is sufficient to care for the poor, and we are not (fortunately) a society that is content to let the hungry die. Therefore, some money goes to feeding them, and I am glad that happens. I think that any group that is good at doing that should have access to the money to do it - whether they are white, black, religious, secular, all-male, all-lesbian, whatever. They must, of course, follow the rules that go along with getting the money. But once they get it, who cares if they try to sell the people they are helping a religion, or a type of soft drink, or a magazine subscription? As long as they can say no, then there's no problem.

[billvon 3,107]

>I'll bite the tax-money bullet for public defenders since that's also >a part of the U.S. Constitution, but I don't really want to have it go
> to defend the conspiracies over at the Catholic Church.

But it's OK to use it to support a president convicted of serious crimes? (Nixon) It's OK to use it to bomb weddings in another country? It's OK to use it to create sites so polluted that there is effectively no way to ever clean it up? (Hanford)

All those are screwups. They happen; they are fixed. People go to jail, the system is changed, the equipment is upgraded. Same with any church, any organization in which someone commits a crime. You send the guilty partys to jail. Ministers and priests of all religions (and people in many governmental positions) have been murderers, and pedophiles, and rapists. And like it or not, your money will continue to go to support that same government, and provide basic services for those same religions.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

his next project is to try to eradicate all gender-specific pronouns from the English language

Well, rest easy. There is no Constitutional argument to support the eradication of gender specific pronouns. Perhaps someday we'll pass the "Equal Responsibility Amendment" and then we can waste away on that topic.

FallRate

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I can't see the difference between being exposed to cigarette ads on publically-funded transportation and being exposed to a religion while getting free food.

One is passive, the other not. And there's a different effect on people when screwing with their religious beliefs as opposed to a cigarette ad. I'm not saying all or even most charity groups take advantage of their almost captive audience, but I've personally witnessed/experienced charity organizations, supposedly only there to feed people but in actuality actively trying to convert the hungry people coming to them for help to their faith. And I've seen some of these hungry people walk away hungry because their faith conflicted with that of the group and didn't want to be subjected to it.

The main thing with all of these discussions comes down to the fact that peoples personal religious beliefs can be very very powerful. And to many of these people it is a moral crisis for them to be the captive audience of someone preaching what to them is heresy or even evil.

Personally, if I'm hungry, I'll eat. Hell, I've eaten with Hara Krishners when I didn't have any food and listened to them try to convert me to their ways.

I don't really think it's that hard to ask:
-Don't preach me your religion when I'm at school.
-Don't preach me your religion when you're feeding me because I'm homeless.

Why can't education and food just be basic human rights without polluting it with religious propoganda? If the government wants to give money to charities, fine, give it to the secular ones. There are plenty of homeless shelters and soup kitchens that don't have a religious affiliation. And if there isn't one available in a particular area, use the money to open one.

[Iflyme 0]

Yes, I do! Some of the funniest stuff ever on tv!

[billvon 3,107]

> And to many of these people it is a moral crisis for them to be the
> captive audience of someone preaching what to them is heresy or
> even evil.

Man, we really have become a nation of wimps if being exposed to an idea someone disagrees with is some kind of "moral crisis." It used to be that hearing a different idea was a good thing. Now it's grounds for voluntary starvation.

[bbarnhouse 0]

*pinches herself*
No I'm not thin skinned......but ,but I'm not fat I'm big boned!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Man, we really have become a nation of wimps if being exposed to an idea someone disagrees with is some kind of "moral crisis." It used to be that hearing a different idea was a good thing. Now it's grounds for voluntary starvation.

Bill, I do agree with your view on this on a personal level. However as a society we are required to be empathetic to the least common denominator. Religion and belief is a very powerful emotion. If someone feeds you and tells you that food was provided by a god that you don't believe in, and that your consumption of the food is part of a ritual paying homage to that god, that would be a moral crisis to some people.

It's obvious that some people are offended by the associations between the government and religion that we've been discussing. My question for you is; what argument is there for not keeping these two things completely separate, other than not being perceived as a "wimp"?

[billvon 3,107]

>Bill, I do agree with your view on this on a personal level. However
> as a society we are required to be empathetic to the least common
> denominator.

You cannot. You cannot be empathetic to a radical feminist who objects to the word "history" because it contains a male pronoun, or to the use of masculine and feminine pronouns in the english language. It may irk her to no end that people use pronouns to divide the world into two sexes. It would be foolish to claim that we must therefore abolish all pronouns and change the language.

Pronouns bug you? Deal with it.

You cannot be empathetic towards a man who has a house next to a church and has a "moral crisis" every morning because he must see an ancient device of torture (crucifix) on the top of the church every morning.

Crosses bug you? Deal with it. Or move.

>Religion and belief is a very powerful emotion. If someone feeds >you and tells you that food was provided by a god that you don't >believe in, and that your consumption of the food is part of a ritual
> paying homage to that god, that would be a moral crisis to some
> people.

"Moral crisis?" Is it a crisis that you can't get on a NYC subway without someone who has "found god" yelling about his relevations on the steps to the station? Do those commuters, people who must listen to this guy in order to use public transportation, experience moral crises every day?

How about the preachers who come to your door, stand on the steps of your home and hand you pamphlets? Does that constitute a moral crisis? Must we change the first amendment so that people are not exposed to ideas that upset them?

>It's obvious that some people are offended by the associations
> between the government and religion that we've been discussing.
> My question for you is; what argument is there for not keeping
> these two things completely separate, other than not being
> perceived as a "wimp"?

You can't keep them separate. The government runs the US, we have churches in the US. They take up space. Public utilities provide them with power. The US tax code has provisions for them. Police enforce the law on and around them. Building inspectors certify that churches are safe.

Fortunately there is no law that says that the US government can have nothing to do with churches. The only stipulation is that we can't make laws respecting one religion over another, and I think that's a good way to handle it. Note that this includes respecting an atheist charitable society over a christian charitable society.

[MrHixxx 0]

Points of interest...

"Under God" was not in the original pledge. It was added in the 50s.

The tenants of capitolism are hardly consistent with Christianity. In America, we are for the most part self interested idolators, unless our oil supply or some other resource is threatened. I recommend that we change it to "One Nation, against all gods" to accurately reflect the separation of church and state and our real position in world affairs.

-Hixxx

death,as men call him, ends what they call men
-but beauty is more now than dying’s when