Separation of Church and State

[MrFun]

Excuse me, Imran??

Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion.

Good for you. I'm sure this little girl appreciates you and your pointless stand.

http://us.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10/11/scarf.reut/index.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

Excuse me, Imran??

Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

So fundies are now most religions? I know am getting more insight into how your mind works.

Look at the history of religion in the US. Most of them welcomed a seperation of church and state (and backed that language to be placed in the Constitution) because they wanted a wall placed between them. A lot of this is because of Anabaptist influence.

[GePap]

If the founding fathers had no issue with this whatsoever..why hasn;t this been common practice for the last 200 years? I mean, obviosuly those guys that wrote the consitution would have felt no problem with it, which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated..I mean, the list is endless. Just in 1915, under good old Wilson, the Feds gave......

wait, no..this hasn;t been common practice since the inception of the US. I wonder why?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
If the founding fathers had no issue with this whatsoever..why hasn;t this been common practice for the last 200 years? I mean, obviosuly those guys that wrote the consitution would have felt no problem with it, which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated..I mean, the list is endless. Just in 1915, under good old Wilson, the Feds gave......

wait, no..this hasn;t been common practice since the inception of the US. I wonder why?

I don't know that this is exactly correct. Many charitable organizations that have religious ties recieved funds during several time periods. You are correct in saying that Churches have not recieved any $$. But then again, Churches won't be recieving any money now.

Additionally, if you are going to use the "founding fathers" argument, then let's start rippin away at a lot of the current practices of the federal government.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion.

Good for you. I'm sure this little girl appreciates you and your pointless stand.

http://us.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10/...eut/index.html

You are going into the left field. I definitely think that this girl was wronged.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Excuse me, Imran??

Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

So fundies are now most religions? I know am getting more insight into how your mind works.

Look at the history of religion in the US. Most of them welcomed a seperation of church and state (and backed that language to be placed in the Constitution) because they wanted a wall placed between them. A lot of this is because of Anabaptist influence.

Don't bastardize my statements.

Where did I say most religions/religious people are fundies?

In my statement, I said, "Many fundies . . . ."
NOT "Many religious people . . . ."

[Imran Siddiqui]

which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated

Aside from Plato's comments (funding was recieved by religious charitible organizations at some periods), you seem to forget that for most of US history NO charitable organizations got funding by the government. It would have been hard to divert money to charities without an income tax (which was instated in the 1910s).

[Drake Tungsten]

You are going into the left field. I definitely think that this girl was wronged.

She was wronged, based on some bull**** "seperation of church and state" excuse. You pinkos threw common sense out the window long ago and now children are paying the price for it. Good show.

[Berzerker]

GePap -

If the founding fathers had no issue with this whatsoever..why hasn;t this been common practice for the last 200 years?

Because the idea of massively re-distributing wealth began in the 1930's.

I mean, obviosuly those guys that wrote the consitution would have felt no problem with it, which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated..I mean, the list is endless. Just in 1915, under good old Wilson, the Feds gave......

wait, no..this hasn;t been common practice since the inception of the US. I wonder why?

See above...

Mr Fun -

I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion.

You missed my point, this wouldn't even be happening if not for the left wanting to ignore the Constitution when it comes to using the treasury to hand out other people's money. So it is dis-ingenuous to advocate ignoring the Constitution when it suits you but complain when others are ignoring the Constitution when it suits them.

Plato -

First of all, the Government is in the business of making moral choices.

You mean immoral choices, I find little or nothing moral about government. This government cannot exist without first threatening people to get their money - "taxes".

The Constitution does prevent them from establishing a religion. It does not prohibit them from funding charities that they, as the elected government, choose to find as beneficial to society.

Where in the Constitution did you find a power to fund charities? In the 1790's, James Madison was a member of the House and someone introduced an appropriation to help some people in need. In opposition, Madison said he could not put his finger on that power in the Constitution authorising charity. He further added if this was allowed, there would be no end to the mischief engaged in by Congress - he was right.

Furthermore, the government is not supporting the belief system of any church or its teaching, but rather they are supporting relief work that is usually delivered in an extremely cost effective way. Why would anyone want something different?

Many churches doing charity work do push their religion in the hope of changing the hearts and minds of those they help. Would you argue the Catholic Church does not push Catholicism thru it's school system? Government funding will simply allow the Church to expand it's outreach since money is fungible... Honestly, how would Catholics etc react to politicians handing taxdollars to Satanists or Wicca?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where did I say most religions/religious people are fundies?

When I was refering to most religions, and you turned it around to say fundies.

[MrFun]

So it has to be all or nothing, Drake??


And Imran, don't bastardize my statements again.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Where did I say most religions/religious people are fundies?

When I was refering to most religions, and you turned it around to say fundies.

So then we were talking about two different groups of people.

ok

[Imran Siddiqui]

don't bastardize my statements again.

I haven't... I'm just stating the facts... but if you'll have me quote:

Imran:

Most religions don't want the state interfering in their sphere.

MrFun:

Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

Game. Set. Match.

I didn't bastardize anything, just quoted... and I was refering to 'Most religions', you came back with 'Many fundies'.

Lets see you continue to back away from your statements now .

[Drake Tungsten]

So it has to be all or nothing, Drake?

It shouldn't be all or nothing, but that's what you and your liberal compadres have turned it into. You fight against every little connection between government and religion, even when the ultimate goal (helping the needy, respecting a little girl's religious beliefs) is a noble one. Your complete lack of perspective has become the status quo and the country is suffering for it.