Author Topic: Church and state separation, part Deux (Read 2237 times)

StSanta · « **Reply #60 on:** January 31, 2001, 08:51:00 AM »

Eagler, we're talking about a blurring of the separation, and possibly a violation.

Your argument could be used on the 2nd amendment. Not to keen on it, eh?

.

Love etc and whatnot; it's the constitution we're talking about.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

leonid · « **Reply #61 on:** January 31, 2001, 09:30:00 AM »

I guess what worries me most about the 'faith-based' proposal put forth by Bush has to do with a certain aspect of certain religions. Namely, proselytizing.

The main religions of the world could be summed up as: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. Of these five religions only 2 practice proselytizing, Islam, and Christianity. Of these two, Christianity has the much more aggressive approach(at least in modern times). Proselytizing is a part of the core teachings in both Christianity and Islam.

What is to stop Christian 'faith-based' organizations from following their religious beliefs, and beginning the process of active conversion of their clients? And how will the Bush administration respond to any such violation of the 1st Amendment, especially when considering that many of these violators might very well plead they were answering the call of a 'higher authority'?

funked · « **Reply #62 on:** January 31, 2001, 12:22:00 PM »

Leonid please explain to me how it violates the constitution for volunteers to exercise their free speech rights while helping people?

StSanta · « **Reply #63 on:** January 31, 2001, 01:27:00 PM »

funked, it's part of the "freedom of religion" concept. This includes "freedom from religion".

Take a man that must get his food from a Christian charity. Pretty hard for him to avoid religion.

Christianity historically is built on gaining devotees from the poor, the less fortunate, the uneducated. This strategy is as old as Christianity itself and, coupled with armed aggression and a very aggressive and brutal expansionism, has resulted in the large religion we see today.

Readers of the history of religion immediately will recognize the potential problem here.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

Kieren · « **Reply #64 on:** January 31, 2001, 02:08:00 PM »

Quote

Christianity historically is built on gaining devotees from the poor, the less fortunate, the uneducated. This strategy is as old as Christianity itself and, coupled with armed aggression and a very aggressive and brutal expansionism, has resulted in the large religion we see today.

On the other hand it is ok to gain political power from the poor and unfortunate by giving away free everything, then sticking a ballot in their hands? As for the armed aggression business, we have never in the history of our country (since the revolution) forced anyone into church through aggression.

Santa, try to see something here- you don't like religion because you don't want to see it forced upon you, yet you are suggesting any mention of religion should be stricken from public activities. If you feel persecuted, how do you think that viewpoint makes the religious feel? If this truly is the way you feel about it you are acting exactly in the same manner as the institution you despise.

blur · « **Reply #65 on:** January 31, 2001, 02:28:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieren:

<snip>
As for the armed aggression business, we have never in the history of our country (since the revolution) forced anyone into church through aggression.
<snip>

First we force them into reservations at gunpoint.

Then we send in the missionaries!
http://www.aicm.org/aicm.htm

Praize Jaysus!

Kieren · « **Reply #66 on:** January 31, 2001, 02:53:00 PM »

Won't wash. There is still choice present wrt church. No doubt many crimes were laid against native americans, but you cannot say that forcing them into religion was one of them.

That link you posted is nothing more than a website for a boarding school. Their purpose is laid out clearly:

Quote

Our Mission
The purpose of AICM is to first make disciples of the Native American people and then to raise up leaders among these people for Christ. ("Evangelizing and equipping Native Americans for Christ.") It is our belief that by beginning early in the life of a child, a much greater chance of achieving our goals will be realized. Thus a boarding school environment has been chosen as a basis for this ministry.

No hidden agenda, anyone can see it before they enter or send their kids.

SwampRat · « **Reply #67 on:** February 03, 2001, 02:17:00 AM »

Why does a n y t h i n g remotely related to making people actually t h i n k about religion of any denomintion or faith always cause such a commotion? Could it be most of us are afraid to have our feet held to the fire?

Toad · « **Reply #68 on:** February 03, 2001, 03:45:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Naso:
Man, I live in a country where there are catholic schools (with goverment money), catholic hospitals (with government money), and a huge mass of catholic churchs (Idem).

But you are right, you have nothing to learn from other cultures, yeah?

No exchange, only bashing here, uh?

Well, Naso, FIRST I see NO "bashing" in my thread. I think all this is a "tempest in a teapot". I think it's funny.

Second, all I can tell you is they've been praying in the US House and Senate for over 200 years. According to Santa that's a CLEAR violation of our Constitutional separation between church and state.

But we don't seem to have the problem you folks do, now do we? Why is that?

Maybe it's YOU who have "nothing to learn from other cultures"?

Oops...sorry. How silly of me! What could Europe POSSIBLY learn from the crude, ignorant colonials?

Meanwhile, we just keep rolling along.

StSanta · « **Reply #69 on:** February 03, 2001, 05:55:00 AM »

Kieren let me address your points. You must be frustrated with me, but here goes

.

On the other hand it is ok to gain political power from the poor and unfortunate by giving away free everything, then sticking a ballot in their hands?

Your consitution expressely forbids the government to make laws or support religion. My statement had more to do with how Christianity historically spread, and I believe it is accurate. Where earlier religions had a little tendency to disregard the weak, Christianity instead *focused on* them; indeed, being humble is a virtue.

As for the armed aggression business, we have never in the history of our country
(since the revolution) forced anyone into church through aggression.

Absolutely right. I was referring to how Christianity spread. My own nation is a good example of it; turn Christian ot have yer head chopped off. Christianity finished off the Vikings through a combination of winning over strong leaders and then have them institute some pretty tough laws.

Santa, try to see something here- you don't like religion because you don't want to see it forced upon you, yet you are suggesting any mention of religion should be stricken from public activities. If you feel persecuted, how do you think that viewpoint makes the religious feel? If this truly is the way you feel about it you are acting exactly in the same manner as the institution you despise.

Kieren, you must realize that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Right now, I am arguing that state based organisations supporting with funds evangelical religous organisations in the US blurs the line/violates the separation of church and state. I ain't forcing a religion on anyone; I want the right of freedom from religion and constitution to be respected.

As for persecuted; my kind of people were persecuted right up through the ceuntiries; the word atheist first appeared during the Greek era and was meant as an insult.

I need not tell you what people did to atheist then and throughout history (and even today, if you're unlucky enough to live in a theocracy).

Religion is an inherently PRIVATE thing - it's about a relationship with something much higher than ourselves. Why not KEEP it private? In a way, this spreading of something private like that is similar toone's sex life, and you don't see too many of us going into detail about that in public.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 02-03-2001).]

Kieren · « **Reply #70 on:** February 03, 2001, 10:42:00 AM »

We are playing opposite sides of the coin, and I know you don't intend to insult.

I wouldn't want anyone to be forced into religion, not because I am against religion, but because that isn't why anyone should be in it.

I don't disagree that we need to keep separation of church and state.

The problem seems to be that our system isn't what you imagine it to be. We are a country that has a religious foundation older than the country itself. The references to separation of church and state mean specific religions. This is a country where it is perfectly acceptable to practice whatever religion you choose.

Sponsorship of faith-based charities doesn't necessarily violate this precept. You need to prove a bias to one religion over another before that can be established. If you see sponsorship of say, Catholicism, out of proportion to the percentage of Catholics in our country then you may have a point. To say that no governmental money can ever be given to any faith-based charity I believe is wrong.

Anyone know if the Salvation Army receives any government money?

funked · « **Reply #71 on:** February 03, 2001, 02:30:00 PM »

"Where earlier religions had a little tendency to disregard the weak, Christianity instead *focused on* them; indeed, being humble is a virtue."

You're saying humility is a sign of weakness? LOL!!!

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-03-2001).]

StSanta · « **Reply #72 on:** February 03, 2001, 04:34:00 PM »

funked, humble and weaknesses being great virtues in the christian religion. Also compassion etc; a strong break from the bRomans, who considered compassion a weakness.

I am speaking in historical terms

Kieren, the government is not supposed to fund religion, period. It's not just me barking, but a lot of Americans who know the issue much better than me.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

Kieren · « **Reply #73 on:** February 03, 2001, 09:53:00 PM »

I won't tout myself as a constitutional expert; likewise I am just as willing to bet that most people who post here aren't either. It is a difference of interpretation and opinion. Just as when we were children and heard our parents say what we wanted to hear, we read these documents and glean from them what we wish to read all too often.

That is pretty much a non-response I grant you, but nonetheless it is logical.

Author Topic: Church and state separation, part Deux (Read 2237 times)

funked

SwampRat

funked