#266184 - 30/09/2005 19:03
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Dylan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
When I hear that bibles are being handed out I wonder why the resources necessary to provide the bibles weren't used for more food and water.
Because some people believe that meeting people's spiritual needs is as important as meeting their physical needs.
I guess I'll give my perspective on faith based programs here, though I must admit I'm largely uninformed about how it all actually plays out. On a practical level, I see it making great sense, though clearly government money should be spent on thigs we can all agree need to be done- such has handing out food and water. If Bibles are going to be handed out I think that's fine, but this should be paid for by the organization.
If I were in need and were handed (optionally) a Book of Morman with my food and water, I'd probably accept it and would not be offended. I'd also not be offended for it to be given to those undecided about things of faith (ie. I wouldn't find it threatening to my own ministry).
From a more philosophical point of view, the idea government faith based ministries makes me a little uncomfortable, but not for the same reasons as many of the other posters. If a religious organization accepts money from the government, my fear is that then the government will start regulating what that organization can do. And THAT is about as direct a first ammendment violation as you can get- telling religious organizations how to behave. And yet, once the government starts giving organizations money, how can we not expect it to do exactly that? We certainly don't want the government giving an organization money and then having that church use all of it to purchase bibles and tracts.
I'm guessing this issue has probably been hashed out and I'm just a little uninformed about how the process works, but I am fearful of both extremes when it comes to government giving religious organizations money- to regulate is to infring on our freedom of religion- to not regulate is to be irresponsible.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266185 - 30/09/2005 19:08
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
If a religious organization accepts money from the government, my fear is that then the government will start regulating what that organization can do. And THAT is about as direct a first ammendment violation as you can get- telling religious organizations how to behave.
This is not an unreasonable worry. A very similar thing goes on now, under the guise of the Interstate Highway system. It was found a long time ago that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate a national speed limit. So, in order to get around that, the federal government requires that states build the interstate system, but won't pay into it unless the state obeys the national speed limit "guidelines". The state is free not to follow them, but they won't get reimbursed for building all those roads.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266186 - 30/09/2005 19:10
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Quote:
If a religious organization accepts money from the government, my fear is that then the government will start regulating what that organization can do.
Interesting. My primary view of the the separation of church and state was to protect the state from the church. Should F.B.I.'s become common they would become the target for lobbying efforts, and we all know that the government is completely immune from lobbyists [/sarcasm]. I don't think there'd be any dark plots per se, but religions & factions fighting over who gets the biggest piece of pie is not something I think would be good for our nation. Best to leave the two totally apart in my view (three really: money, religion, government).
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266187 - 30/09/2005 19:13
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Ok, well I read the article linked now (my first response was directed more at the general idea of faith based funding) and there's one point that struck me in the article. If the government ASKED churches to make their facilities available, then it does make some amount of sense to reimburse them for that if the government is going to reimburse some of the costs.
I'm not saying it's a cut and dried issue, but it feels to wrong to say "hey, can we use your church to house some people? Ok? Great then. Yes we have this pile of money to help out with the costs of doing so, but we can't give any to you because your are religious."
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266188 - 01/10/2005 02:49
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Interesting. My primary view of the the separation of church and state was to protect the state from the church.
Which is interesting, since I've usually viewed it the other way around: protection of the church from the state. Historical point-of-view, I guess.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266189 - 01/10/2005 12:05
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Which is interesting, since I've usually viewed it the other way around: protection of the church from the state.
As is the way I've viewed it. What the constitution says is "CONGRESS shall make no law . . .", which most directly means we are protected from the government doing something to us- i.e. telling us what to believe (or what not to). This is why I see the first ammendment as protecting the church from the state, not the other way around. Of course, if the church controlls the government and by doing so tells people what to believe, the result is the government violating the first ammendment by telling people what to believe. So I will agree that there is an inferred aspect of the first ammendment that protects the government from the church, but I don't think the government is protected from ALL influence of the church, only influence that would abridge people's rights to practice their chosen faith. As I read it, the wording of the 1st ammendment is prohivitive of the government directly, and religious institutions only indirectly by logical conslusion.
Of course, I am no lawyer- that's just my layman's understanding of the ammendment.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266190 - 01/10/2005 12:33
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
...I don't think the government is protected from ALL influence of the church, only influence that would abridge people's rights to practice their chosen faith.
Exactly. Otherwise our founding fathers would have been violating the Constitution as the wrote it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266191 - 02/10/2005 16:55
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
The US Government has always given money to charities that have a religious affiliation; it's just that they were required to abide by some rules that basically prevented them from proselytizing. This whole notion of "Faith-Based Initiatives" is really just a way to undermine those restrictions.
I'll just point out that some do "the right thing." There was a gal at work that was organizing some Katrina relief stuff by putting together some care packages. She posted a url that was very clearly to a religious organization. I had a fairly extensive anti-using-diaster-relief-for-proselytization rant email formulated, and then took a look at the website, which eplicitly said not to put any religious articles in the care kits. That impressed me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266192 - 02/10/2005 16:59
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I didn't mean to imply that most religious organizations aren't upstanding. I'm sure they are. But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266193 - 02/10/2005 17:00
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
...I don't think the government is protected from ALL influence of the church, only influence that would abridge people's rights to practice their chosen faith.
Exactly. Otherwise our founding fathers would have been violating the Constitution as the wrote it.
Mega Dittos.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266194 - 02/10/2005 17:06
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'd like to point out that it should defend a persons right to atheism as much as it defends others' rights to theism.
And idle Christian rhetoric is no longer an integral part of our society as it was back then. Jefferson was barely a Christian, if at all, yet he used that language.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266195 - 02/10/2005 17:07
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Mega Dittos
Do you seriously want to lump yourself in with the dittohead crowd?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266197 - 02/10/2005 17:29
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
I'd like to point out that it should defend a persons right to atheism as much as it defends others' rights to theism.
And idle Christian rhetoric is no longer an integral part of our society as it was back then. Jefferson was barely a Christian, if at all, yet he used that language.
While I agree with you fully that it should, I'm against the modern trend of finding stuff in the Constitution that people think "should" be in there that is in fact not in there. If Congress wants to write an atheist protection act, by all means. Yet, as was pointed out, someone thought there should be a separation of church and state written into the Constitution, but if that was the original intent, the Constitution itself would have been broken by writing it. Or, more accurately, the way people interpret the interpretation would mean the Constitution was unconstitutional. I would argue that an official state sponsored religion, much like they escaped from in England, is different than an abstract notion of a higher being. With the exception of atheists and polytheists, a God with a capitol G isn't exclusionary to Christianity.
And personally I don't buy the argument that any religious references were merely part of the lingo of the day. Founding documents are hardly the place for that and doesn't explain the ten commandments being etched into the side of the Court itself. It was symbolic, not fashion.
People have every right to disagree in principle with the values and history of the founding of this country, but rewriting it out of the history isn't the way to go about it.
Dammit, you guys sucked me in again!
Edited by SE_Sport_Driver (02/10/2005 17:30)
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266198 - 02/10/2005 17:46
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
While I agree with you fully that it should, I'm against the modern trend of finding stuff in the Constitution that people think "should" be in there that is in fact not in there.
I dunno. It seems to me that by congress making no law to establish a religion, athiesim would deserve the same rights as any other choice about faith. Or to say it differently, people should be treated the same under the law no matter what they do or do not believe.
I don't think that means that athiests can expect to be insulated from people of faith, nor vice versa. But certainly athiests should not have any less rights than people of faith, nor should people of faith have any less rights than athiests.
Unfortunately, most of what I've seen regarded as "protecting people's right to faith/nonfaith" seems to be either the idea of insulating them against exposure to other perspective or denying the influence people's personal faith might have on public law. But neither of these concepts is what I read in the first ammendment. Rather I see the idea that the government cannot tell people what to believe.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266199 - 06/10/2005 04:15
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Oh, no worries -- I didn't read your statement with that implication. What impressed me so much is that because of their specific instructions, it was very clear that they were there "to help", not "to help and as long as we're there, we'll share the Word." Preaching wasn't even a secondary concern.
On a side note, I can't remember who it was that said something along the lines that taking care of a person's spiritual needs is just as important as taking care of their physical needs. That was an interesting way of looking at the situation that I hadn't thought of, and, were I to put myself in the shoes opf someone who lost everything, even though I hate being proseletyzed to, I'd probably appreciate someone asking -- if it was done tactfully, and personally.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a ditto head, but that usually gets a laugh during debates I've had (in person political debates).
Previous Topic
Index