|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2008 : 07:37:00
|
Just an interesting development.
All prison communication is now being evaluated by the OFBI instead of the local on staff clergy.
As this is the federal department who says "non Judeo-Christians need not apply", it is not shaping up well.
There are some things afoot that after they are further along, I'll be mentioning in this thread.
And the fundies I work with ask me why Palin scares the shit out of me.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2008 : 12:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Yes, do keep it going. This Faith-based nonsense is no more than another wedge that Christian fundies are using to undermine secular society.
I have a question and have had for some time: isn't the OFBI in violation of the Constitution? And if not, why?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 20:16:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Yes, do keep it going. This Faith-based nonsense is no more than another wedge that Christian fundies are using to undermine secular society.
I have a question and have had for some time: isn't the OFBI in violation of the Constitution? And if not, why?
|
It is a violation, we just have dickless people enforcing it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 08:44:51 [Permalink]
|
I really want to know how you all still believe that "separation of church and state" nonsense, coming from one letter from a man whose other writings can be seen as contradictory, and whose actions on the matter spoke louder then his words.
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
Please tell me how a faith-based initiative establishes a religion? Where is the violation? |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:06:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I really want to know how you all still believe that "separation of church and state" nonsense, coming from one letter from a man whose other writings can be seen as contradictory, and whose actions on the matter spoke louder then his words. |
Well, first of all, it's not something "we all" just believe in. It's the conclusion the United States Supreme Court has consistently reached on this issue. Perhaps you should read over some old case files to familiarize yourself with the legal arguments.
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
Please tell me how a faith-based initiative establishes a religion? Where is the violation? |
It's a violation because the government can be seen to endorse a particular religious view over others.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 10:16:03 [Permalink]
|
I find the whole government supported faith base initiatives un-nerving. The intentions were good. Why re-invent the wheel to address issues when there already is a organization addressing it.
What I fear could happen is the gov't may decide what is religion and what is not. Sort of like what China does to the various faith in its land. I also fear for a form of religious apartheid. Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith based organizations get gov't help and the others Hindu, Buddhist, Zorastrian, Jainist, Wiccan, etc don't
Some of the programs goals are just helping the individual to overcome addiction by providing psychotherapy and others it is prostelytizing. Gov't funding for a faith based social service group that uses evangelism is an indirect establishment of religion.
The Founders did not want European style religious conflicts here in America. They did not want an American church established by the Gov't. They knew that such an entity would bring nothing but trouble. Just think of Saudia Arabia where violations against the faith are violations against the law.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 15:15:42 [Permalink]
|
In religious debate or expression the government is not a prime participant, for the Framers deemed religious establishment antithetical to the freedom of all. The Free Exercise Clause embraces a freedom of conscience and worship that has close parallels in the speech provisions of the First Amendment, but the Establishment Clause is a specific prohibition on forms of state intervention in religious affairs with no precise counterpart in the speech provisions. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 92-93, and n. 127 (1976) (per curiam). The explanation lies in the lesson of history that was and is the inspiration for the Establishment Clause, the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed.
--Justice Kennedy, opinion of the court in Lee v. Weisman (bolding mine) |
OI, keeping religion out of government has long been seen as essential to protecting religious freedom, an essential American liberty spelled out in the Constitution. I don't see how anyone could fail to see the relevance of that.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 21:58:57 [Permalink]
|
OI, one thing people either forget -- or never learned in their history lessons -- is that the secular principles that the Constitution's separation of church and state are based upon were a social invention primarily of oppressed religious groups, in opposition to the practice of established churches, which were the rule in Europe.
These 18th Century Founding Fathers were a combination of Theists and Deists, Protestants, Jews, Catholics, and even some freethinkers. They were descendants of people who fled the vast, genocidal religious wars of Europe.
Secularism, as exemplified by the Establishment Clause, is the only way to prevent one sect from abusing the others through governmental fiat.
Think of it this way: If you open the door to letting churches run government, then inevitably government will come through that same door and run the churches.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/15/2008 21:59:38 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 07:48:18 [Permalink]
|
| Or forge an alliance with them, like in the case of the Catholic church. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 14:00:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I really want to know how you all still believe that "separation of church and state" nonsense, coming from one letter from a man whose other writings can be seen as contradictory, and whose actions on the matter spoke louder then his words. |
Well, first of all, it's not something "we all" just believe in. It's the conclusion the United States Supreme Court has consistently reached on this issue. Perhaps you should read over some old case files to familiarize yourself with the legal arguments.
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
Please tell me how a faith-based initiative establishes a religion? Where is the violation? |
It's a violation because the government can be seen to endorse a particular religious view over others.
|
First... The Supreme Court has been dead-wrong on this (among others) many times.... But I did kind of make that a loaded question.... I will drop it with a question... Why is the modern interpretation the correct one, and not the historical?
Faith-based: Where does it say Christian-based, or Jewish-based, or InsertReligion-Based initiatives? |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 14:31:13 [Permalink]
|
So.. how is giving money to an FBI a violation? The government is not trying to establish a religion. If the FBI uses the money to preach... well that is a violation... but until they do.. no violation occurs....
2 for history buffs -
1) Hamilton (who I am not a huge fan of as one of the forefathers of rotten politics....) was adamant that there be no Bill of Rights. He thought (correctly) that future governments and Supreme Court judges would use the amendments as an "in" to legislate them. That these future governments would imagine they had powers that they did not, powers that were not specifically granted them...
2) President Thomas Jefferson(a consumate party man and politician who I am not a big fan of as one of the forefathers of rotten party politics) gave land and money to Christians to convert the heathens.
|
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 15:36:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
First... The Supreme Court has been dead-wrong on this (among others) many times.... But I did kind of make that a loaded question.... I will drop it with a question... Why is the modern interpretation the correct one, and not the historical? |
That would depend upon what you think the "historical" interpretation is. Is it a violation for Congress to pay for preaching, as you suggest in your next post, or were you just saying so for the sake of argument?| Faith-based: Where does it say Christian-based, or Jewish-based, or InsertReligion-Based initiatives? |
If an atheist group (certainly not faith-based) cannot get money from the OFBI for, say, a food bank program, then the OFBI is promoting religion over non-religion. The "modern interpretation," as related from SCOTUS on at least one occasion, says that is unacceptable. And if the atheist group can get money, then why isn't it just called "The Office of Initiatives?" (Hey, then it'd be the "OI!" Get it? Get it?) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 15:42:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
2) President Thomas Jefferson(a consumate party man and politician who I am not a big fan of as one of the forefathers of rotten party politics) gave land and money to Christians to convert the heathens. |
Except the Bible he wrote left out all the miracles and other supernatural stuff, making his brand of Christianity more just philosophy than religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 18:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I really want to know how you all still believe that "separation of church and state" nonsense, coming from one letter from a man whose other writings can be seen as contradictory, and whose actions on the matter spoke louder then his words.
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
Please tell me how a faith-based initiative establishes a religion? Where is the violation?
|
When you establish such an office and then only dole out money to Judeo-Christian ones even when non-Judeo-Christian ones apply.
It respects the establishment of religion by funding it directly to the exclusion of others. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 06:28:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Original_Intent
First... The Supreme Court has been dead-wrong on this (among others) many times.... But I did kind of make that a loaded question.... I will drop it with a question... Why is the modern interpretation the correct one, and not the historical? |
That would depend upon what you think the "historical" interpretation is. Is it a violation for Congress to pay for preaching, as you suggest in your next post, or were you just saying so for the sake of argument?| Faith-based: Where does it say Christian-based, or Jewish-based, or InsertReligion-Based initiatives? |
If an atheist group (certainly not faith-based) cannot get money from the OFBI for, say, a food bank program, then the OFBI is promoting religion over non-religion. The "modern interpretation," as related from SCOTUS on at least one occasion, says that is unacceptable. And if the atheist group can get money, then why isn't it just called "The Office of Initiatives?" (Hey, then it'd be the "OI!" Get it? Get it?)
|
First.. who killed Cartman (avatar)?
Second.. Once again Dave.... You take my argument, and show me that the argument is just plain being argued from the wrong point of view.... Why do we need an office for faith-based initiatives? They should be treated no differently then any other charity, and not discriminated against.
To head-off any arguments on how they spend the money: If they want the money, they need to spend the money in accordance with federal laws. As far as hiring practices (which come to mind).. regardless of whether they take the money, they need to be non-discriminatory.
Dave: Am I to read your statement that because Jefferson had a non-religious view of Christianity that it makes it ok? Please explain.
|
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 07:49:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
First.. who killed Cartman (avatar)? |
Not grokking you here.| Second.. Once again Dave.... You take my argument, and show me that the argument is just plain being argued from the wrong point of view.... Why do we need an office for faith-based initiatives? They should be treated no differently then any other charity, and not discriminated against. |
Well, you'll have to ask Bush why we need an OFBI. I seem to remember a lot of dissent at the time, which Bush ignored.| To head-off any arguments on how they spend the money: If they want the money, they need to spend the money in accordance with federal laws. As far as hiring practices (which come to mind).. regardless of whether they take the money, they need to be non-discriminatory. |
But the anti-discrimination laws already exempt religious groups and organizations. I sure don't think a Catholic church should be forced to hire an atheist janitor (for example), just like I don't think a humanist group should be forced to hire a evangelical as treasurer (for another example). People create religious groups in order to co-mingle with their fellow religionists, not because they're interested in equal opportunity employment.| Dave: Am I to read your statement that because Jefferson had a non-religious view of Christianity that it makes it ok? Please explain. |
No, I was just pointing out that Jefferson wasn't quite as much a lunatic as your average fundamentalist, at least when it came to religion. Whether the end result was "ok" or not I don't know. I'd have to read the thing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Office of Faith Based Initiatives
