Time for some political discussion...

There is always the Supreme Court Decision of Holy Trinity Church vs U.S of 1892 where the Supreme Court rules that

http://www.moseshand.com/questions/p11x.htm

 

I have a question for the 'Christian rightwing' out there. If it is ok for the US to be declared a 'Christian Nation', why is there such a fear among the Bushies that Iraqi elections will install an Islamic government in a 99.9% Muslim nation? This has me totally puzzled. :roll:

 

The first quote is much more widely-known, but the only source I could find for it is in 2000 Years of Disbelief by James A. Haught. If I had access to the Bibliography, I could tell you the exact reference. Note: The book is a collection of quotes from famous people.

The second quote is from The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797. It was written by George Washington.

 

I just want to make a note that separation of church and state was very important (at the time) not only to non-believers but to people of Christian faith as well. Mostly because, just like today, not everyone was a Christian.

The Christians of the time wanted to prevent Jewish society and (especially) the Anglican church from influencing the government as much as anyone else. The most important aspect of this was in the form of governmental monetary support.

At the time, many churches were supported by taxes (in other countries--especially France and England). In order to be fair, the "founding fathers" wrote separation of church and state into the Constitution to prevent belief systems from extorting money out of non-believers. It was just as much about foreign taxation as it was about forcing beliefs on others.

It was an interesting position for the Christian church at the time because they were so used to getting mandatory aid from the locals that they had trouble converting from a tax system to a donation-based system for collections. They always took collections, they just never used them as their sole source of income.

Of course, the churches were up in arms over this. So to prevent them from protesting (too much), the founding fathers wrote into the constitution that churches didn't have to pay taxes. That same bit of the Constitution is the foundation for non-profit tax law to this day.

Now, knowing that, do you still think Bush's plan to give federal funds to faith-based organizations is a good idea? Not only will these groups not have to pay taxes, they will also get free money from our tax dollars (going back to our pre-Constitution days). I also suspect that since the presidential administration will be in charge of who gets what amount of money, that Bush's religious organization will get the most money... Despite what you and I believe.

Like I said before, no matter how many ways you slice up tax dollars for faith-based groups, you cannot make it fair to every American. Then there's also the fact that it is in direct violation of our Constitution. President Bush obviously doesn't think the Constitution was written properly.

 

riskable wrote:

Doing a search on the internet this is what I found.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm
Does not look like George Washington wrote it.

 

Ahh well, I didn't know that. I know that it was written during George Washington's Administration (Joel Barlow was in it?) and it was signed by him as well.

 

Good to hear that George didn't write that.

What I find hard to believe is that people are so against faith based groups receiving federal funds to do charity work. Hmmm.....I guess the artistic groups that my money funds don't have any statements associated with them political or otherwise. I think it is only fair that faith based groups not be EXCLUDED as they have been in the past based on what they believe. How many hospitals, drug rehab, food shelters, etc have faith based groups started? Who do you think would have a better idea of what their community needs, the government, or people of that community that actually have values and faith in a higher calling? I just don't see any problem with helping them help others.

The Bush administration caution that you see on a Muslim government in Iraq, could easily be explained by the extremist groups that have splintered from that faith. It only makes sense to try to avoid that type of situation. I think, and pray, that the Christian faith has learned its lesson that love is that only way to reach others.

Atoyot

 

It's not about helping others, its about funds--and the Constitution. If you were an atheist/gay/lesbian/transgendered person and your tax dollars were going to fund, say, the Salvation Army, you'd get pretty damn pissed off. The same rules don't apply to faith-based groups. They can discriminate who gets what, however they like.

The separation of church and state must stand... Or we'll be going back to what life was like before this country was founded (churches taking mandatory tax dollars from every citizen). If you're not affiliated with such groups, there's no reason why you should have to pay for them.

Absolute faith corrupts just as badly as absolute power.

 

Just wanted to point out that the South was saying something similar when the civil war broke out. Who should determine whether slavery is right or wrong? The community that has slaves, or the Federal government?

It's the same damn argument. The Federal government needs to be the middle ground for all of us. They shouldn't give a damn what your community believes or wants to do. That's your state/local government's job. Regardless of what your community wants, you still have to follow the Constitution... And giving money to faith-based groups is against it.

Also, as for what "their community needs", I would definitely not leave that up to a religious organization. I shudder to think what a Roman Catholic Church-run community would implement into their laws. Things like banning the sale of contraceptives, banning abortion, and kicking gays/lesbians/trangendered people out of town.

The consequence of religion is mental barriers towards acceptance and tolerance.

 

And as the South made that augment and lost, the pro-choice people are making the same aurgument, but in this case it is a matter of life and death. I wonder what would happen it the federal government decides that abortion is illegal?

In regards to the gay community comment, the same aurgument can be made of the government's funding of the NEA and such people as Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe. People of faith had their tax money go towards something that was a direct slam against them. The NEA chose who the funds would go to, so in effect they discriminate.

As for claiming that the constitution prohibits the funding of faith based groups, I don't see it. I guess if you want to read things into the documents that founded our country, I should be able to have fully automatic weapons and missle launchers since the 2nd amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Balance is the key, and extreamism on either side only results in destruction.

The consequence of antireligion is mental barriers towards truth and reality.

Atoyot

 

The pro-choice people aren't making a localized argument. They're making a stand for women's rights nationwide. If you want to know what would happen if abortion was illegal, take a look down the nearest dark alleyway where the guy with a coat hanger promises a bang-up job.

By outlawing abortion, you make a market available for illegal abortions... And they won't be able to do the job properly. You can forget anesthetics. Forget getting a fair price.

I had to do a google search to refresh my memories of those artists mentioned... Looking at the two pieces, they're definitely ART.

The first one isn't even remotely controversial in any way but a name. If the artist didn't name that "Piss Christ", people would've mistaken it for a bad picture of a cross.

The second artist has a number of interesting photos of what I would constitute as "inturpretive gay pornography". One of my art professors showed one of his photos to our class in college and made the statement, "Whether you like it or not, the human body is a beautiful thing." Some people find it offensive, some find it interesting, some get turned on by it. That is art!

The fact that both of these "controversial" artists received federal funding is really not for, or against, any particular religious group. Because for every controversial artist that portrays something anti-religious, there's a hundred more depicting religious artwork.

Besides all that, not long after the artwork in question created controversy, Congress passed a bill declaring them obscene and refused to fund any artist that was controversial. In 1990, that same bill made it to the Supreme Court and was found UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Let us clarify, shall we? The Constitution states that the government may not endorse any religious group. Wouldn't you consider giving tax dollars to religious organizations to be in direct violation of that? An extreme violation?

As for the right to bear arms, where'd you pull that out of? The right to bear arms is very clear... We can bear arms. But a lot has changed since that was written. Imagine an America where everyone had the right to own a nuclar missile launching station. No one thinks that's right. How we as a nation move forward into the future with this amendment is very tricky. Personally, I don't have a problem with people keeping automatic weapons in their homes. An automatic weapon is difficult to conceal and no one is going to go walking around town with an AK-47. However, as weapons get smaller and smaller, I think we need to take another look at what we're letting people carry around.

My personal wacky method of gun control would be to only allow non-drinking, non-drug-using Americans to bear arms. Everyone would have to get randomly tested once a year... And if you have a gun license, and you're caught drinking *OR* doing drugs at *ANY* time, you're banned from bearing arms for an extended period of time.

It's a good way to keep guns in the hands of only those who are responsible.

Truth and reality have nothing to do with religion. Religion is based on faith. In order to have faith, you must not have conclusive evidence. Otherwise, that's not faith, that's trust. As in, you trust in the evidence given. It's the difference between believing that lightning is God's anger and trusting the science behind physics.

Besides, being pro-choice isn't anti-religion. Being for proper contraceptive education isn't anti-religion. Supporting the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people isn't anti-religion. Being against tax dollars going to faith-based groups isn't necessarily anti-religion either.

It may be against *YOUR* religion, but not mine. That's why we have separation of church and state.

 

What type of argument is that? That is like saying that rape is caused by there not being legalized prostitution. What about what is right and what is wrong?

Making up hypothetical futures about what might happen just doesn't work as an argument. If we want to see fact of the results of the policies or ideologies of secularism, we can look to the superbowl and the flashing that everyone on TV got. I love the human body and don't mind nudity, but a sexual display involving nudity on one of the most watched events is over the line. Sure makes those who state that there is an agenda to cram this down our throats seem creditable.

Sorry, but this is America, and I don't have to accept drug users, murderers, rapist, pedophiles, or abuse. Maybe the Roman Catholic church became too acceptant and tolerant and that is the reason for the continued ignoring of the sexual misconduct of a few of their priests.

Atoyot

 

So true! I agree prostitution should legalized -- though I wouldn't compare rape to abortion. However, while reducing incidence of rape is one reason to legalize prostitution, two stronger reasons are safeguarding the women who work in the business and the prevention and control of venereal disease.

You make a valid point. It's great to find such a liberal-minded group.

 

I agree. We're one of the few industrialized nations without legal prostitution. If we did legalize (and regulate) prostitution, there would be fewer STDs, less abortions, less rape, and a lot less of women being treated poorly or even killed due to their desperate profession.

 

Actually, I wasn't making a hypothetical future, I was referring to history. Back in the day, abortion was illegal in the good ol' USA. In order to get one, people would go to Canada (if you lived nearby), Mexico (*shudder*), or get a back-alley abortion (a la coat hanger).

As for what is right and wrong (regarding abortion), that's a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't think that men should have any say whatsoever in this regard. Men neither get pregnant, nor go through anything like an abortion, so it's impossible to form a fair opinion on the matter.

Then there's the "other people's children" syndrome. The vast majority of people against abortion never got one or knew anyone who had one. Therefore it's mere speculation that they believe it's the wrong choice. Either that, or they just blindly follow whatever their religion tells them.

Note: "Other people's children" is a syndrome that effects parents who believe that their child would not get into trouble with <insert random social problem>, but they worry about the "other kids". Example: "My child can handle saying no to drugs, it's those other kids I worry about." So they go ahead and vote for something like a zero-tolerance policy at their local school. 3 months later their kid gets kicked out of school forever for having a small amount of marijuana in their locker.

Using drugs, murdering people, pedophelia, and raping are against the law. What does that have to do with religion? I don't know of any religions off the top of my head that allow those things. However, I can name a few incidents of each where the purpretrators used religion as an excuse to perform their attrocities.

Also, I'm glad you pointed out the sexual problems of the Catholic church. Pedopheliac preists aren't their only plague right now. They're also against contraceptives, cloning technology, stem cell research, and a whole lot of other things that are meant to grow and enhance society as a whole.

 

Geez riskable, lighten up. How can you have a content karma with all that pent up emotion? Why not just say you're spiritual and not religious and leave it at that.

 

Thanks to all involved for expressing their thoughts. Clearly, a lot of effort was expended. With any of these hot button issues, it is helpful to contain the discussion to one "button" only. That way, there remains the slim hope that some sense of agreement can be realized.

But geez guys, separation of church and state, gun rights, abortion, rape, pedophilia... What's next, film reviews of Mel Gibson's Passion Play?

:roll:

 

Ahh, but that wouldn't be a discussion. That would be the "declare your beliefs" thread.

For those who are curious, I'm actually a Secular Humanist who was raised as a Roman Catholic. I went to Sunday School and a Catholic high school. I was actually quite a devout Roman Catholic until high school where I encountered many nuns who were intolerant, ignorant, and were constantly up in arms over the school's teaching of evolution (and eventually got the biology teacher replaced).

It was that experience (high school) that made me question my beliefs. I didn't just question that, I questioned EVERYTHING (which is a good thing to do as a kid). Over the course of many years, I viewed the bible as no different from various mythologies, and I viewed God(s) as an invention of man to explain the unexplained. It was really my history classes that jaded me away from religion. The more I learned about humanity's past, the more I felt that religion gets us nowhere and in fact, slows progress.

Nowadays we have a better way to explain things: Science.

I have nothing against people worshipping whatever they want. As a matter of fact, I would fight for everyone's right to do so. However, when superstition gets in the way of the advancement of mankind, I can get more than a little upset.

That is why I dislike Bush so much. He's trying to force his religious beliefs on all Americans... as if he's giving the middle finger to all atheists, agnostics, gays, lesbians, transgendered people, pregnant teens, and especially science.

Then there's the whole WMD, budget crisis, illegal invasion of other countries, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, and taking steps to invade even more countries. He also believes he requires absolute power to stop terrorists (Patriot Act 1 and 2) and doesn't even believe in evolution! All this from one of our most religious presidents ever.