 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM 'Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks with a soft voice, but her message catches attention: Keep God out of government. Gaylor has helped transform the Freedom From Religion Foundation from obscurity into the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, with a fast-rising membership and increasing legal clout. Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative. The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate. "What's at stake is the right to challenge the establishment of religion by the government," Gaylor said.' Talk about rockin' the boat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:52 PM I would imagine that many politicians in Congress will be breathing a deep sigh of relief over this. They will not have to address the question from citizens. Simply say they will abide by the ruling. GO ANNIE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM It amazes me that the USA has arrived at such a pass. Polls say that more than half of its citizens espouse religion in some formalized way. That such a substantial number of these same citizens should cry for governmental empowerment boggles my mind. One would think that watching Iran, for instance, shift to state-sponsored religion would have had s seriously sobering effect on any devout people. Go, Gaylor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:10 PM Someone needs to do something about it
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:16 PM It sure is difficult to argue with the logic on the site you linked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:35 PM They don't make christians like jesus anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:43 PM Adding a thought to the mix: Every one of those people in your link has its adherents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:50 PM "Mr Swaggart's confession is all the more scandalous since he himself unleashed fire and brimstone against rival TV evangelist Rev Jim Bakker a few months ago for committing adultery with minister and secretary Jessica Hahn. Rev Bakker was subsequently defrocked and fired from his multi-million-dollar Praise the Lord TV station. This time it was Mr Swaggart's turn to repent after officials from the Assemblies of God church were given photographs showing him taking a prostitute to a Louisiana motel. They were handed in by rival TV evangelist Martin Gorman who was also defrocked after Mr Swaggart accused him of "immoral dalliances" in 1986. Mr Gorman, who ran a successful TV show from New Orleans, had launched an unsuccessful $90m law suit against Mr Swaggart two years ago for spreading false rumours." One big happy family . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: MMario Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM I still think that more people should remember that not only does the constitution forbid laws establishing religion - it also forbids the making of laws to prevent the free excercise of religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: John O'L Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM Unfortunately most of the noise is usually made by the hysterical and the lunatic. It's good to see the calm and sensible making a bit of noise. Common sense has had a hard time of it lately. |
|
Subject: Churches and Taxes From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM I'm for her effort as well. For too long the notion that gummint started the whole idea of faith-based initiatives, and thus can co-opt social ministry into partisan political clout, has stood unchallenged. Churches and other faith-oriented institutions have carried the load of delivering back-breaking service to people who need services, with no tax money, from conributions raised for those causes. I say let the gummint keep its money-- AND its unwelcome influence. And another thing, while I'm at it. Abolishing tax-exempt status for churches? (Local TV was ranting about this earlier in the week.) Churches are simply places where people congregate, who are already paying taxes. They are not a business failing to pay their share of taxes for services. They are a place where people who pay for those services would like to be able to receive them. Churches (through taxpaying members' contributions) pay for utilities, water, and trash hauling-- commercial rate. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:55 PM Pardon me. The clip of the post about Jimmy was from an article in 1988. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:58 PM But churches hire people, and they don't pay payroll taxes on the people they hire either. Worse than that, they don't pay property taxes, and some churches are taking up space in some of the most prime real estate locations in the country. Then there are the estates that are left to churches. No taxes are paid on that either, and in some cases, they own real property worth a lot of money that remains untaxed as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: MMario Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:04 PM But churches hire people, and they don't pay payroll taxes on the people they hire either guess again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:33 PM ".. it also forbids the making of laws to prevent the free excercise of religion." Indeed it does. You can interpret that to mean: 1)That anyone in any group can demand religious ceremony & prayer be allowed, no matter what the makeup of the group (as it was done in a group I sometimes attend....and as those in that website (http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html)would seem to favor.) or 2) That persons who choose to assemble and conduct religious ceremonies or prayer in private circumstances or in buildings designated for religious purposes not be prevented from doing so. (these could be worded differently, but I'll assume the sense is clear)(could there be 1a,b,c etc? or 2a,b,c?..maybe...but) Obviously, I support #2 and decry ANY attempt to install #1 as a rule of law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:43 PM "But churches hire people, and they don't pay payroll taxes on the people they hire either." Riginslinger Wbat MMarion said. It's not even a good guess. I agree with the tax-exempt(ness) of churches- and I don't care if it's a church or a synagogue or a mosque. The congregations, as Susan said, already pay taxes. Many of the people give financial support to the limits of their means. If the church building that burnt down last year and where I work part time had not received the thousands of dollars donated for rebuilding it would not be able to re-open its doors. It had insurance - good insurance - but it does not come close to the loss it incurred or the replacement costs. Not only was there a church building but there was also a community hall attached where events ranging from live theatre to dinners to concerts and slide shows took place and it hosted two groups of AA (English and Spanish), Weight Watchers, prayer groups, a quilting group, a thrift shop, a food bank - and probably some others that I forget at the moment. My point is, tax exempt as it was, it was a community resource. Bequests and prime real estate locations help tax exempt organizations survive. Most of them are not living very high on the hog. Do you also object, Rigin-, to governmental buildings and organizations being tax exempt? Religion, having spiritual components and being legal, is as important to civilization's daily life as are governing bodies. Life is complex and difficult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:48 PM Well said, Ebbie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:50 PM No, I don't object to governmental buildings being tax exempt. But I don't see any social value to religion, and, in fact, find religion to be counter-productive to civilization. Life would be a lot less complex and/or difficult without religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:53 PM Speaking only for yourself of course Riginslinger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:59 PM "Life would be a lot less complex and/or difficult without religion." RiginS It seems to me that you are saying that to you life would be easier if you could know *for sure* that when you lie down and die that is it. To me, people's (including mine) objections to religion are actually speaking of the abuses of religion. By the way, the reason I am not saying 'spirituality' rather than 'religion' is that I am tired of making the distinction. If religion is *anything*, it is spiritual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: katlaughing Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM Churches, as you all have written about, including Susan, I don't have a problem with being tax-exempt, but I do have a problem with the mega-churches which also hand out political voting guides, etc. and those of people like Falwell who have mega-media sources, too, being tax-exempt. Some of them are as politically active as members of congress and should pay taxes on their income, imo. I hope Gaylor is successful! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:12 PM To me, people's (including mine) objections to religion are actually speaking of the abuses of religion. Most people with agree with you on this, however once one begins to list the abuses agreement may not be so strong. I consider teaching children a specific religion as abuse, as is mixing religion with politics, as is the banning of books etc. I don't expect everyone to agree with these. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:16 PM If you're in europe and you want a secular system you may like to visit http://www.visionforeurope.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM Interesting web-site, Crazyhorse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:59 PM ... I do have a problem with the mega-churches which also hand out political voting guides, etc. and those of people like Falwell who have mega-media sources, too, being tax-exempt. Some of them are as politically active as members of congress and should pay taxes on their income, imo... I agree! Church employees, of course, pay income tax and property tax on houses if they own them. Tax on phone service, sales tax at the store-- all that stuff. Many churches do not "own" their buildings and cannot sell them; in our denomination, the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA), the denomination, owns the building and we not only cannot sell it at the local level, we PAY THE DIOCESE for the use of it! (and other services the diocese provides, and other missions the denom does in the name of the local parishes). The American Red Cross owns buildings-- are they taxed? Should they be? Libraries-- are they taxed? Should they be? Schools-- are they taxed? Should they be? I am not a tax expert, so I really don't know about the tax situations for those types of nonprofits. When I managed a Red Corss chapter, we did have to file returns showing we were not making a profit. Volunteer ambulance/fire assoications? They own and operate buildings that house the vehicles used to serve the public. Are they taxed? Should they be? Generally, my impression is that businesses that make a profit that goes into someone's pocket, are taxed on those profits. OK, Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker accumulated a lot of loot. How does that relate to the little square white building on the corner with a steeple, that feeds the poor and shelters them when they lack heat? An organization whose every "business" decision is governed by a board of members elected by the membership, where no one gets a dime except for well-earned (low!) salaries? Religion is not tax-exempt because it's a religion, per se, but because it delivers services to a tax-paying public with money upon which tax has already been paid. Taxing them would be double-taxing those same people, because it's those people who pay money to the church for its mission and maintenance. Yes I know the world is mad at churches-- YOU gonna feed all the people we feed? Yes I know some of you have experienced churches who can't service without cramming a relion-or-hell message down your throat-- they actually don't all do that. Yes I know some municipalities lack a good tax base, and that a lot of their land may be held by churches. Did they do poor city planning to exclude a manufacturing district? Do they have poor business development policies? Is it fair to try to "fix" their poor policies by taxing the going concerns that DO remain in the town-- the churches delivering services to poor folks that the town cannot afford to assist? I'm all for separation-- and the separation of dollars. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:37 PM Here is a list of the largest religious groups in the world. Note: Atheism is the third largest religion: 1. Christianity: 2.1 billion 2. Islam: 1.3 billion 3 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion 4. Hinduism: 900 million 5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million 6. Buddhism: 376 million 7. primal-indigenous: 300 million 8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million 9. Sikhism: 23 million 10. Juche: 19 million 11. Spiritism: 15 million 12. Judaism: 14 million 13. Baha'i: 7 million 14. Jainism: 4.2 million 15. Shinto: 4 million 16. Cao Dai: 4 million 17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million 18. Tenrikyo: 2 million 19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million 20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand 21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand 22. Scientology: 500 thousand |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:54 PM It's enouraging that Rastafarians outnumber Scientologists. It's puzzling that they lumped athiest, agnostic, nonreligions, and secularists together. If they should have a disagreement amongst themselves, they'd all drop off the chart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM I most definitely agree that churches - or other tax exempt organizations - should lose their tax exempt status *immediately* when they venture into candidate-pushing or issue proseltyzing. I think that the loss of tax exemption should be swift, even if it is in the middle of an election campaign. Perhaps after a period of five years or so of paying taxes an organization would be cautious and maybe they could reapply for the exemption and live within its prohibitions. I think a church may safely educate from the pulpit- but if that includes anti-abortion views or pro-choice views or other current controversies they have overstepped their mission. I think that religion should proffer more questions than answers. I think a church- or parent, for that matter - may lay out the parameters of an issue, citing anecdotal evidence or long-held traditional views, but they cannot, they MUST not, tell their parish or their children that they must believe the same *only* because they have been told so or face punishment. And that's what I thunk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:00 PM Jesse Jackson founded and still runs a large tax-exempt organization. He ran for president. So that is OK, Ebbie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:03 PM Check 'Publication 557'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:08 PM From this distance it all looks like an enormous waste of effort arguing back and forth about this kind of stuff. I suppose it helps divert attention from real issues, and splits people up in a way that ensures that real issues won't get addressed. I suppose that suits some people's agenda. Bigenders versus Littlenders in a Republic evidently modelling itself on Lilliput.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:17 PM On the face of it, these arguments would seem to be a waste of effort, but tax exempt organizations (i.e. churches) seem to have gained a huge political influence over a portion of the non-thinking public. That's how we got stuck with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:18 PM pdq, of course. It was not his organization that ran for office. The same way that I would not object if Falwell or Phelps or Gandhi himself ran for office. McGrath, it may be a bigger issue in the US than it is in the UK. From what I understand, religion is a much bigger factor in people's lives in the US. For the record, I don't want any church calling itself: AMERICA'S CHURCH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:20 PM There are far-reaching effects should the Supreme Court rule in favour of the Plaintiff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:34 PM The question is not whether churches should be taxed. It is quite firmly established and generally accepted (in the US) that non-profit organizations, and particularly those that provide a public benefit, may be, and should be, exempted from taxes. The majority of non-profits comply with the requirements that they periodically demonstrate, by filing appropriate statements with the various tax jurisdictions, that they are in fact not for profit. The majority of non-profits are subject to taxes on profit making ventures, to the extent that profits go to the benefit of the organization and not to the provision of the "good works" that the organization performs. (This conforms to the requirement that individuals pay taxes on income that is to their own benefit.) Churches, and to large extent anyone claiming to be religious-based, have been exempted from demonstrating that they are, and remain, non-profit, largely through the REFUSAL of the IRS to require such organizations to certify their non-profit status, even in cases where there is substantial evidence that the organizations have other than benefit to society at their core of purpose. The government in the US CANNOT exempt churches from taxation on the basis of their being churches. It can and does exempt them from many taxes on the same basis that it exempts other non-profit, and in some cases "public benefit," organizations and agencies. It does have the authority to question the status of any agency or organization, with respect to exemption from taxation, provided that all such organizations are treated equally. Churches are not, and have not been, treated on the same basis as other non-profit organizations. No "exemption" from income taxes is required for a non-profit organization. If you have no income you pay no income taxes. Expenses of "doing your work" are reasonably allowable deductions from gross income in the determination of your "profit" or taxable income. A very broad interpretation of what is an "expense of the business" of saving souls probably is acceptable. The exemption from accounting for income and expenses is NOT ACCEPTABLE to many of us. An exemption from payment of property taxes may not be given based solely on the property being "a church," but IF SIMILAR EXEMPTIONS are available to other agencies performing public services without profit from them, on the same basis, then there is no particular argument with exempting a non-profit organization from payment of property taxes. The only need is to treat religious organizations the same as we treat non-religious ones. That DOES NOT IMPLY that the good works of the churches must be in any way restricted or curtailed - for tax purposes. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:52 PM "It is quite firmly established and generally accepted (in the US) that non-profit organizations, and particularly those that provide a public benefit, may be, and should be, exempted from taxes." The problem here might be in trying to define a "public benefit." In the case of churches, many people might argue, I think correctly, that churches do more harm than good, by a large margin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:57 PM I disagree with that statement, Riginslinger. I do agree that many churches do much harm; yet, others do much good. (I am thinking that by 'churches' you mean individual buildings with a membership and not some sort of 'holy see' imposed by out-of-town corporate heads.) I have great admiration for some churches because of the works they do on behalf of the homeless, the disenfranchised, the lost, the hungry. I'm afraid I have much less respect for others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:19 PM This way-too-general statement was made: "Life would be a lot less complex and/or difficult without religion." ONLY if everyone agreed on why they were eschewing religion. If religion were simply banned, life would likely be much MORE complex & difficult. There are people who, for various reasons, desire and/or need something beyond themselves to cope with the uncertainties of life. You can argue all day whether they really need it, but I'd really hate to see them suddenly deprived of it. Only if, over the ages, education and security allow humans to gradually shed dependence on religion and/or superstition, will religion be simply studied as a phenomenon of history and not used as a substitute for our own strength. (and I doubt this is likely) All we can reasonably hope for in the near future is that beleivers and non-believers tolerate and respect each other's viewpoints and not attempt to coerce or legislate in favor of their own view. This, of course, will not be easy. GO to that website and READ the views of hard-nosed, right-wing take-no-prisoners Christians about how we should have no choice. And remember there are Muslims and others with similar views....many of whom believe that IF they are correct in their beliefs, they are REQUIRED to convert, kill, and/or conquer others. You see, as it stands, reason and logic have little to do with the decisions made by many...some are flatly not capable of debating the issue with logic...others use it in ummmm...'interesting' ways. All we can do is try to concoct a system where we mostly stay out of each other's way and avoid the worst conflicts. The US constitution made an attempt at this, but never was quite clear enough...and now there are factions which think it's just a matter of 'majority rule'...we get enough votes and decree what shall be observed, if not believed! It's a mess...and it will remain a mess....but I still don't want it even suggested that those who WANT religion should not be allowed to practice it, within limits. Therein lies chaos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:20 PM ... but tax exempt organizations (i.e. churches) seem to have gained a huge political influence over a portion of the non-thinking public... SOME tax exempt organizations (i.e. churches) seem to have gained a huge political influence over a portion of the non-thinking public-- don't condemn ALL churches for what a few, media-savvy, poltically-driven churches have been allowed, by their members, to do. There will ALWAYS be people who capitalize on folks who stop thinking. NOT ALL DENONMINATIONS aim for mental shut-down as part of the Faith! You can always tell who hasn't darkened the door of a church in the last little while-- they seem to know so much about what goes on inside-- usually because they have been influenced by the media: hook, line, and sinker. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:20 PM "They don't make christians like jesus anymore. " They got rid of him and got his ideas corrupted real quick, Viz, The Pauline Conspiracy, the Justinian Conspiracy, the Constantinian Conspiracy... etc :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:23 PM (as it stands, I have no problem with keeping the tax-exempt status as it is...with the rules double-checked to prevent outright silliness) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:32 PM Oh thanks for reminding me, Bill. Churches-- every one I've known-- do annual reports like other non-profits. Like Red Cross units, budgets over a certain size are usually audited as well. As far as I know they are available to the public. We'd prefer to simply TELL interesed parties what we do in the community, but the annual report (finacial and programmatic) has sat free for the taking on a table in the hallway, since I can recall being here. ANd the monthly balance sheet is on the bulletin board for all and sundry who pass through on their way to give blood, attend a hospital function in our parish hall, or come to a community concert we're hosting in our space. [rant on] You know MAYBE we really should take a cut of that blood money, healthcare money, and concert tix and pay taxes on it-- NOT. We're just.... OPEN. AA meetings, TOPS, scouts, and what's that hiking/conservation group that meets at our church (free with heat on that we pay for) for their annual trail-maintenance meeting.... loved the FOLK MUSICIANS they had (paid) for entertainment one year. BAD church, yeah that's us. Lemme see how many people we can make stupider this year..... [shaking head] [rant off] I think I may have been saving this up for some time now. I feel better! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:35 PM FYI, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 (which was passed by the Senate in 2003 but shot down by the White House) will likely save the USA enough money that it won't HAVE to get into the religion business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:53 PM "showing we were not making a profit." ahhhh - Met this sorta madness in the SCA... many idiots think this means that 'the organisation' is not 'allowed' to 'make a profit' - but the LAW means that the individuals associated WITH the organisation are not THEMSELVES making a profit (they ARE allowed to recoup expenses!) - big difference, and ANY non-profit organisation 'not making a profit' i.e. spending less than they get - will be broke and non-existent sooner or later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:10 PM "NOT ALL DENONMINATIONS aim for mental shut-down as part of the Faith!" Faith = mental shutdown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:11 PM IMO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:17 PM Wait till you meet me and my Anglican pals, bobad. I'll bring my thinking cap. We can wear 'em AND carry a cross, with no trouble. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:29 PM Like walking and chewing gum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 10:05 PM I never walk my gum. Waggle it, but never walk it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 10:15 PM "The president's religious patronage system is now pouring more than $2 billion in federal funding into church- affiliated organizations around the country annually" from here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:37 AM Gee, all this make me feel guilty that we Catholics seem to have almost a monopoly on services to the poor in the Sacramento area. Most of these charities stem from the Catholic Church, but most are careful not to affiliate themselves with the diocese, which turned out to have been a very wise decision since we now have a very conservative bishop. Few of these charities accept federal funds, because there are too many strings attached. And every one of them that I know of, has an outside audit once a year. All of these organizations welcome volunteers from all faiths, including atheists and agnostics - we don't get many fundamentalist Christians, but we get a good balance of just abut everybody else. We even get a few Republicans... In some ways, it would be a wonderful thing if government would perform the functions of these volunteer organizations, but I'm not completely sure of that. Volunteer programs give middle-class people a chance to have direct, personal contact with people in need, and this is a wonderful thing. Government programs tend to insulate the middle and lower classes from each other, I think. Volunteer programs also allow for a lot more innovation, spontaneity, and generosity. In developed countries, I think government should assure a subsistence level of food, housing, and health care for all - and government should do its best to ensure employment and educational opportunity for all. Volunteer charities should take care of those who got missed, for whatever reason. The trouble is, government has so often failed in providing justice for the poor - so volunteer groups end up making up for the failings of government. I get the impression that most faith-based groups that are worth their salt, have no desire to accept government funds and controls. Tax exemptions help, though, since there are relatively few strings attached. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:09 AM From what I've read, the mega--call them non-thinking--churches are taking over. Their attendance is growing, while many of the traditional church populations are shrinking. That's kind of scary in itself, and I don't think any of them should enjoy tax-exempt status. I agree with Bill D though, it wouldn't work to ban them or to try to legislate them out of business. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with drugs, and there's no reason to suspect it would work with superstition either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:02 AM From what I've read, the mega--call them non-thinking--churches are taking over. Riginslinger, then you need to read up on the facts of life at small churches. If all your ideas are from what you have read, you're not getting any news from churches that don't brag about what they are doing, or who keep their services to poor folks confidential out of respect for them. You could Google up Episcopal Relief and Development, for a start. I don't know of a single mega-church within a days' travel of our place, where there are a quite number of small churches of a number of denominations holding on in an economically-depressed area and serving their communities. One houses their community's food pantry and Head Start. Another houses a the only daycare available in reach of that town's working parents. I know you are mad at churches-- but you've fallen for the press generated by the ones that make you mad, and you are not aware of the bulk of the USA's faith-based organizations. If you prize clear thinking-- no offense, but you're behind on doing your homework. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:59 AM Joe has pointed out one of the real problems with things like Faith-based Inititives. Years ago in Canada's richest province (and I DO mean rich. No provincial debt and about 8 BILLION sitting in the bank (we hope, because the Heritage Trust Fund is a kinda difficult thing to keep track of here)) the government of the day decided we had to get out of debt, so cuts were made to the big three: Education, Health, Social Programs. Within a year, we had developed not only more 'welfare' recipients, but also had begun the establishment of another group called 'the working poor'. Many churches and community groups stepped up to the plate and thus we began 'food banks' in Alberta. Today, when we have more friggin' money than Carter had liver pills, we STILL have food banks, working poor and about 1 in 5 children living below the poverty line. Government very cleverly (and very clearly) dumped its responsibilities onto the general public who were already supporting the damned government through the one of the highest taxations in Canada. Damn, it's wonderful to be rich. The problem Joe has parenthetically drawn attention to is still with us today. Government doesn't HAVE to deal with the problem--so, it won't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:48 AM WYSIYWG--Like the man said, "I only know what I read in the newspapers." But haven't you read about the Mega-Churches? I don't profess to understand the appeal, but they're out there. You can watch them on television if you don't have anything at all in the world else to do. News reports--and no, I haven't researched them--are telling the public that conventional congregations (i. e. Episcopalian, Methodist, and etc.)are losing members to the Megas. If these reports are wrong, I would think authorities inside those groups would say something about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:06 AM Rigenslinger---Thank you for at least reading and noting my caution. It is obviously not an easy path to navigate. Sometimes I think I fret too much about whether religion really needs to be watched and regulated...but then I read things like that website above, and I feel overwhelmed at how many truly WANT a religiously based country. Sure...some of those folks are right-wing nuts who can barely be tolerated by mainstream Christians....but then there are quotes by already elected high public officials! Are they really true? Is the quote from GHW Bush true? I entered it in Google, and found it many places...including this complete transcript: (so...when I see "Faith Based Initiatives" advocated, I am torn between the good that many of them do and the concern over what hidden price may be attached to some of them.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ George Bush on atheism and patriotism "Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?" The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary: RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?" GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists." UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks. The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16. On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place: RS: "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?" EM: "It's bullshit." RS: "What is bullshit?" EM: "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit." RS: "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue." EM: "You're welcome." After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote: "As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Me again)...seems like a pretty slippery 'retraction'. And we now have Sam Brownback of Kansas as a presidential candidate...much further to the right than Bush ever was... and though I can't imagine him winning, he IS a US senator with serious power & influence. It's gonna take a LOT of compromise for many of these folks to get along....I'd love to see the more middle-of-the-road churches making clear commitments to "no strings attached" projects and aid. I certainly can see why this case has gone to the Supreme Court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:17 AM Bill D--I worry about people who support politicians like Brownback. I wonder about their understanding of the real world. I would also agree, mainstream Methodists and Episcopalians seem like mental giants compared to Brownback supporters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:51 AM WYSIYWG--Like the man said, "I only know what I read in the newspapers." But haven't you read about the Mega-Churches? I don't profess to understand the appeal, but they're out there. You can watch them on television if you don't have anything at all in the world else to do. If I only knew what I read in the newspapers, I might think as you do, RS, but fortunately (for me and anyone whose life I touch) I don't settle for that level of knowledge about things I care about. The appeal of most of the mega-churches isn't the polictical rigidity of the rigid religious right.... it's the way they pander to the me-me-me-me focus of today's society and use secular markerting tools and strategies to market themselves. (Most of the religious right are not in mega-churches.) The smaller churches, were the greater percentage of USers worship, tend to focus on their own backyards-- serving the people around them in geographic proximity. The loss in membership is about the secularization of our society, not about a migration of people to the bigger or more rigidly-right churches, and about the need for older members to rethink the process of growing their memberships. Most older adults in churches inherited a society and a form of church growht based on the now-obsolete notion that you grew your chruch by bringing up your kids right as churchgoers-- all the good people went to church, didn't they??? People went to church, often, out of duty and obligation, because it was what they understood was the thing to DO. How on earth did I get so smart. Well a lot of my smarts came to me and were developed freely long before I got involved with Church; however, that busy brain didn't run into anything stupefying or alarming once I got there. On the contrary, I find that my busy brain has MORE to think about than it had before, good tools to add to already-good tools I'd put in my tool box, and a context within which to think about them that is bigger and more challenging to my thought process that what were pretty advanced challenges, pre-Church. Maybe some of that would have come anyway, from getting older; a lot of it I am sure would have developed the day I began to call BillD my friend, because he's got a way of challenging one's thinking that is nigh onto irresistable. :~) (hi Bill) But if watching mega-churches on TV is how you have gotten to know about them-- I watched a lot of the Anna Nicole trial stuff that concluded yesterday, and I'm not ready to consider myself a lawyer, nor a judge. What I have written about in this thread, though, comes from living inside the structures I'm talking about, and from an uunderstanding of what-all they involve. My main point just has been that people who are already paying a boatload of taxes should not be taxed AGAIN on the money they donate to a church for that church's work. They are the very same people who would have to raise the funds to pay the taxes on their donations. The church itself isn't "making" money-- it's just a place where people assemble and an organizational structure for the time, talents, and resources of those worshipping people and the ways they want to serve their communities. In the churches so many people are mad at-- the MINORITY of organizations and the MINORITY of churchgoing folks-- their non-Sunday time may indeed go to political ends, with motivation whipped up on Sundays. A good amount of that ought to threaten their tax-exempt status. But in MOST churches where MOST of the people congregate, their non-Sunday time goes to good works either as organized formally by the church of their choice or in personal good works-- with motivation inspired by and nurtured on Sundays. Of course, even most smart folks think churches only work on Sundays-- THAT must be why the "clergy only" parking space at our church is usually occupied, on weekdays, by hospital employees. So when my husband rushed to the adjoining ER at the hospital's request to help a family who had been passing through the area, whose son had jumped out of their moving car to leap to his death off an expressway overpass-- no chaplain to be found-- he wasn't sure where he'd be able to ditch the car. Cuz he only works on Sundays, you know. ;~) I guess we should have put that in the paper? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:07 PM WY... -- It isn't that I think that churches only work on Sunday's, it's that I simply don't think they work at all. And as far as not being to be able to find a chaplain--I can't imagine why in the world anyone would want one. But you sound like a really nice person and it's nice corresponding with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM "-I can't imagine why in the world anyone would want one." Really? Like you, *I* don't want one for my particular needs, but I certainly SEE why others would! Susan & I don't approach these issues in exactly the same way, but we HAVE found a way to co-exist and respect each other and I know that comparing notes and ideas for several years now have allowed both of us to delve deeper into exactly what the issues really are, and learn to express ways t0 further the discussion. If people like WYS..(Susan) and her husband, the minister, were the norm for believers in this country, we would have very few serious conflicts. They serve their church, and others NOT in their church when needed, and are not concerned with proselytizing to those who choose a different path. (hi Susan) *grin*...we need a 'ministry' to explain how to navigate that area between gullible belief and simplistic rejection of belief. It is far too easy...on either end...to just say "that's how it is".) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:49 PM (oh Bill!) RS, I am also enjoying correspionding with you. If a community hospital (nonprofit) doesn't fund a fulltime social worker, it's clergy (working cheaper or volunteering) who scrape the families off the linoleum such that they can make it out of the bloodbathed ER to their cars to limp home. Tax the hospital too? The lady who left half of her estate to her church, for its work, left the other half to that same hospital that cared for her during her last illness. She'd paid taxes on all that her whole life. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM At what point does a church become 'mega'? Is it solely based on numbers? Or is it a church that is prominent on television? I looked up 'superstition'. I like the German definition: 'der aberglaube'. It is descriptive without being pejorative. (What is a 'stition', by the way? Is 'super' kind of like 'hypertension as opposed to hypotension'?) Among the definitions: 1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. 2. a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality. c. Idolatry. Also: The state of fear and ignorance resulting from) the belief in magic, witchcraft and other things that cannot he explained by reason To my mind, another aspect of superstition could be defined as 'a belief or working hypothesis founded on result-based observation.' Is 'love' superstition? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Grab Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:15 PM Nothing wrong with a government funding religious organisations. So long, of course, that every religion and every sub-sect of every religion (including atheist and agnostic organisations, of course) can get equal funding commensurate with their size. Funding only of the particular sub-sect of the particular religion that the head of government happens to belong to, that's a bit of a different story. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:16 PM No - Love has real consequences! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:33 PM Here's some real consequences for ya. One of the things that our church members do is once a month - head down to a local homeless shelter to make sandwiches for the folks who live there.That way they leave the shelter with two sandwiches in the morning so they don't have to dig in a dumpster to eat that day. The church members pay for the food out of their own post tax pockets, and assemple somewhere between 500 and 600 sandwiches in about 90 minutes. It's an assemly line process - once you get into the swing of things it's a lot of fun too. We've inquired if we would be able to do this more than once a month - but y'know what? They said no. ALL of the other slots are full. ALL of the other nights of the month are filled by other local churchs. Church big and small are filling the gaps and taking care of the folks that fall through the cracks. And not a secular group among them. When was the last time the folksingers at your local pub said "Hey guys - lets go down and work at the local homeless shelter tomorrow night". Possible but not likely. Correct me if I'm wrong. And ask yourself - what have I done lately to make this world a better place? To help someone less fortunate? Write a protest song? Yeah - that a BIG help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:34 PM "Funding only of the particular sub-sect of the particular religion that the head of government happens to belong to, that's a bit of a different story." And as the man said, "There's the rub." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:38 PM Wesley--I guess the only question I might have is: are these church people simply cleaning up a situation that they created in the first place? I don't know, but I wonder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:50 PM Churches did not invent poverty. They do unfortunately have to deal with too much of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM "Write a protest song? Yeah - that a BIG help. " Equally cynically one could say, "Say a prayer? Yeah - that a BIG help." If the song or the prayer reaffirm commitment to a 'cause', then they are equally valid as mechanisms, as vehicles for social justice. IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:57 PM "I don't know, but I wonder." Dammit man there sure seems to be a lot of things you don't know but have an opinion on. Step away from the computer and get out in the real world. Force yourself to investigate the situation. Go to one of these churchs you dislike so much and go with them the next time they build a Habitate for Humanity house. Or give clothes to 5,000 local kids going back to school. Or give away sack lunches at a mission on a daily basis. Or outfit a homeless man or woman with a suit of clothes so they can go on a job interview. Help the lawyer that is employed to keep the wolf from the door of these people. Or help the volunteers that work the daycare center for homeless kids so their folks can go on job interviews. Give out infant formula to mothers that aren't eligable to get it from a government agency. Or how about finding new ID's for a homeless man. These are just a few of the things that my church is doing on a weekly basis. AND WE'RE NOT ALONE. The other churchs in the area are doing the same thing. AFTER and only after you've done a few of these things - come back to me and tell me how the churchs caused the homeless situation. I'll repeat my earlier question " Ask yourself - what have I done lately to make this world a better place? To help someone less fortunate?" Still wondering? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:08 PM More than ever, but I'm at work and can't take the time involved to address all the issues. I would say this: I think you are approaching the situation from "a snap-shot-in-time" sort of mentality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:10 PM What's that supposed to mean? I'll look forward to your reply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bee Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:09 PM I think it's fine that most churches work within their communities to ease suffering and poverty. There are plenty of secular groups which also do this, often hand in hand with various churches. There are food banks and furniture banks in my area which work this way. Both types of organization are nonprofit and not taxed accordingly. Now, this is Canada, where it bothers many of us when the PM says 'God Bless Canada' - sounds too American. We believe the Government should stay out of the churches, synagogues and temples, and vice versa. If our PM made the kind of remarks about atheists that GW Bush apparently has, there would be calls to bring the government down and hold an election. Susan, what scares most secularists, atheists, etc., (aside from real threats like the notion of government mandated religion), I think, is the horrifying evangelical programming on our televisions. When I occasionally see them, they are often like an assault on the decency of the thousands of small churches most of us remember from our early church-going days. Expensively dressed 'preachers', 'preacher's' wives with scads of heavy make-up and lots of jewelry, thundering on about hellfire and crackpot theories about the end of the world, all the while asking our dressed from Walmart and Zellers grannies to send them the grocery money. From time to time, one of 'em gets outed as a fraud, cheat, adulterer, thief, or other sort of ne'er-do-well. And these are the kind of religion-church-preacher that American politicians always seem to be buddies with. Is this what you want representing a religion-government alliance in your country? Because that's exactly what you'd get if you allow the seperation of faith and state to weaken. Atheists, etc., may indeed go overboard rhetorically when condemning religion, but unless people like yourself speak out about the evils of those who call themselves your Christian fellows, the non-religious have reason to be loud and frightened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:12 PM The same thing holds in Juneau, Wesley. Church groups have signed on to prepare dinner for a week at a time at a local homeless shelter. (We have two shelters but one is in the "valley" 10 miles away. I don't know about its scheduling.) The churches pay for the food and supplies they bring in. It is funded by donations from the parishioners. Anyway, it is difficult to get a spot for a new group in the one downtown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:21 PM For the record, Bee, the Bush that is 'credited' with that statement is GHW Bush, the current inmate's dad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:22 PM And I think that's pretty typical in a lot of communities Ebbie. The problem that Bee pointed out is all too true - whoever heard of "good" teenagers getting a lot of publicity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bee Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:07 PM Thanks, Ebbie - those Bushes all look alike to me, eh. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:08 PM Situation we created... yeah, following that poverty-preaching man from Galilee sure brings property values down! :~) Off to a hockey game-- ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:31 PM A church about nine blocks from where I live—and which I sometimes attend—and which I support with a regular monthly contribution—has joined forces with four other churches in this area, and they run a "feeding program." Each day of the week, one of the five churches offers a free meal (food purchased by the churches and cooked and served in the parish hall). The result is that the homeless and down-and-out in the area know that, within easy walking distance, there is a church where they can get a good, nutritious meal at no cost to them—not even having to listen to a sermon! The church is also involved in finding or building inexpensive housing through an organization called LATCH (Lutheran Alliance to Create Housing). The national offices of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship are in the parish hall. The church also offers facilities—free—to various organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous and a couple of other support groups, and through an organization called "Peace Between People," it conducts Alternatives to Violence workshops in nearby prisons and reformatories. One of the church's pastors (now retired) spent a fair amount of time in jail for participating in protests, such as peace marches and picketing low-rent buildings that were slated to be torn down (evicting the tenants) and replaced with million-dollar condominiums. Many members of the congregation joined him in the protests, and sometimes in jail. Interesting to note that, although this is a small inner-city church, it's membership has been steadily increasing—mostly young urban professionals (with children) who were looking for a church that is active in the community—and they've found one. If the more liberal or progressive churches (and Lutherans are not especially famous for this) want to increase their memberships, it appears that that's the way to do it. By the way, Central Lutheran Church does not receive any aid from Bush's "faith-based initiative," nor has it asked for any. All support comes from members of the congregation. Don Firth P. S. Also, as pastor Verlon Brown said once, "Where else are you going to find a church where the pastors are a young woman and a very large black man who wears an earring?" Stuffy Lutheran church? Nope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:49 PM I think it important to note that many 'mainstream' churches HAVE changed substantially. There was a time when the churches seemed to take from the parishoners and KEEP it. That is, it was invested in stocks/multi-nationals and hoarded against times of need: not peoples' needs but those of the church and its infrastructure. I believe that people are basically good, and I think that people do not mind giving IF they see a result for their effort. Feeding people, helping to house people, helping those who for one reason or another cannot help themselves. Please note the people who on this thread belong to churches and what they have said about those churches and the people who make up the church population. Although churches and I don't have much to do with each other, I know that every single one in town does good things, whether it's for the hungry, the less than firm, those who simply need a human ear to listen to their story. I would guess that many of us have entered churches where we KNEW we would not be welcome, for one reason or another. They tend to be run by folks who will tell us what Jesus REALLY meant to say. But looking at the group of you who have posted above, and knowing that you give of your time for others affirms for me that all churches are NOT a waste of space. And I would also bet that y'all are quiet about the stuff you do. Looks to me like the Big Guy has a pretty good group of 'disciples' on His side. Sure ain't my place to do it, but bless you anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 23 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM There are times when I think I'm a flat-out atheist. There are other times when I figure that, if there is a God or some kind of Uber-Intelligence that created the cosmos, He, She, or It is so far beyond human comprehension that it's futile to even try. Other times I thing that God is a sort of Jungian archetype, and exists, not as an actual physical entity somewhere (I certainly don't believe in the cranky old may wearing a bed-sheet and hurling lightning bolts or marking the fall of every sparrow and granting wishes), but as a human concept of "that which is the ultimate Good" (i.e., "God" with two "O's"). And you can tell a lot about a religious person by what he or she thinks that God thinks!! As I said somewhere else, I'm more of a philosopher than a theologian. So if I'm so "iffy" about this issue, why do I support a church? I feel that what Jesus was trying to get across as the very core of the matter—and that so few people seem to grasp—is stated succinctly in Matthew 25:35-40. And that's a good thing. By contributing to this particular church, I can see directly how those contributions are being used. In fact, I can get periodic financial reports and find out how every penny is being used. I know where my money goes. I don't have that kind of assurance with a contribution to, say, United Way. Don Firth P. S. Sorry, don't mean to drift the thread. I'm absolutely dead-set against any connection at all between government and religion. Whenever any particular religion obtains secular power (the joining of religion and government), the usual result is something like the Taliban, the Inquisition, the Dark Ages . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:27 PM Since there's really no way to do a double-blind test as to whether people of good will would form organizations and help the needy..etc...if there were no churches, we must simply be glad many of them do it THRU churches. That quote from Matthew that Don cited can be read to say that one should not NEED religious authority to do what's right and give aid to the poor & hungry.....and of course, many do. What I suspect is that there is 'more' done with churches than there would be without.....partly because there is regular reminder by authority figures. The last church I actually was a member of got ME deeply involved in the civil rights movement. I have no idea what I might have done if they had not showcased the issue and done some planning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Donuel Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM 50 years ago my parents were driving across of our great American South West with me in the back seat. Every now and then I would hear them say theres another Monstrous Church" There were many large billboards advertising enormous churches all alng the highway. Today they don't need billboards, the montrous churches have usually purchased a location right on the highway. These spaces are so huge you could fit 4 Notre Dames inside just one. "Give us your rent check, God will provide" The concentration of great great wealth can do amazing things. I don't see the monstrous churches of today doing anything about civil rights. TO the contrary there is a gospel of hate that goes way beyond a hatred of gays, unless they are Ted Haggard who was merely led astray by a massage, the hatred is for intellectuals, men of science and anyone or any politician black balled as liberal. The take over of some school boards over the issue of creation science is a foot in the door for further perversion. Fundamentalists often say that heaven and earth are only 6,000 years old. That would mean that beer has been on earth for about 1,000 before creation... that might explain God's behavior for the rest of that week : ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:26 PM "What's that supposed to mean? I'll look forward to your reply." Okay--Wesely--here it is. I think religion works a lot like affirmative action. Somebody gains, but somebody loses too. In the case of affirmative action, the people who were wronged by society (for the most part, at least originally, decsendants of slaves and native Americans) were suppose to get something in return for what had been taken from their predecessors. The problem with this theory is, the people who were in line to take advantage of it were not the people who were wronged, and the people who were to pay for it were not the people who wronged them. This is getting way to complicated. In the end, the people who paid dearly were poor white males. Affirmative action and Title 9 went on to help women and minorities at the expense of poor white males. It didn't affect rich white males at all, because money is always the great equalizer. That's grossly oversimplified, but in the interest of getting on to the topic at hand, I'll leave it there. What religion does, it seems to me, is to create an "unreal" environment for young people. Society has large numbers of people who will happily escape reality through alcohol, drug abuse, trash television shows, and etc. But these shortcomings are easily identified and can be avoided. Religion, to me, is just another way to avoid dealing with the real world and huge numbers of people are willing to do this. It wasn't really a problem, at least to me, until Reagan. Whoever was running Ronald Reagan sanctified escapist religion and made it OK. Until that time in was wanning, and would be pretty much on its way out by now if it wasn't for him (them?). So you have a society where only a handful of folks are willing to deal with reality, and their numbers are so small, nobody hears what they have to say. So, for the most part, everybody is spaced out on something, and most of the space-outs are drugged with religion. A young person coming into an enviroment like that, who tries to make sense of the world he/she sees has a tough row to hoe, and no help to do it. In the beginning, when they still have most of their wits about them, they can see the holes in religion and go on to other things, just to make sense of it all. They turn to meth, crack cocaine, pot, and a great many of them don't go beyond alcohol. If responsible adults would just turn their collective backs on religion in the first place, we'd have a sensible society for young folks to emerge into--they don't however, and that brings out the Salvation Army Band and the raging lunitics to save the lost youngsters. So all of the churches who claim to be doing great things, are only trying to correct a problem they created in the first place--the way I see it. To answer your question then, I would say the church goers who are submitting to anyone who will listen that they are doing "good works" are much like the auto mechanic who fouls up your car, and them makes himself out to be a hero when he miraculously figures out how to fix it. I'll go bar the door now, and wait for the men in the little white suits with the butterfly nets to show up. r |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:31 PM Don, it would be a lot more fun and informative to read your posts if you didn't go to such lengths of hyperbole. It doesn't mean that what you say is not true but that your apparent exaggeration makes it so that a literal person like me doesn't know which to believe and which part to discard. "monstrous churches" in the American Southwest in the 50s? Many - or substantial numbers - of them? Which were they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:42 PM Well, organizing for compassionate purposes is a good thing, I am sure. Why not just do it directly, and leave all the moralizing icons and the bizarre distortions of existence out of it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:22 PM The drawback there, Amos, is that individuals - whether agnostic or atheistic - by their very nature tend not to 'organize' into groups. And it takes organization and commitment to make more than a spasmodic, episodic effort. That's the way I see it, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:30 PM RS, I thought we'd be going next into the history of classism, and I was feeling sorry I had not told you in advance not to go there lightly because I actually know an awful lot about the mechanism of classism, tho I don't think I have ever gone into it here very much-- because people are generally even less prepared to think about that than they are religion. I'd save that kind of talk for face-to-face.) But what you wrote-- it was a lousy hockey game and I drove home with poor night vision, so my brain may be addled from all that, but my main reaction to your long post (for now) is....WTF?!?!?!? So I guess I'll get back to it when I can, but weekends are work time for us. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:54 AM Exactly so, Ebbie. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Feb 07 - 09:08 AM WYSIWYG--Yes, I can see you're right. I'm kind of new at this, and I can see that long winded explanations don't work in this kind of a forum. Actually, I figured that out pretty early on in the diatribe but Wesley had asked for an explanation so I tried to provide it. I really had nothing to say about classism, but used the example of affirmative action to demostrate how messy things can get when one generation creates a major problem, and then somebody else comes along several generations later and tries to clean it up. I won't try it again, Thanks, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Charley Noble Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:16 AM It's about time this so-called faith-based initiative shell game was exposed for what it is, a reward to Bush's fundamentalist supporters whose enterprises have received the vast majority of Federal funding. The old "spoils system" is alive and well, even if it's gussied up in religious trappings. Of course, I'm not convinced that the present U.S. Supreme Court will rule the program unconstitutional on what I see as the merits of the case. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Greg F. Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:37 AM Time for state to help needy By REV. ELLEN PARSONS TATREAU Saturday, February 24, 2007 ...it has become increasingly apparent to me that state and federal bureaucrats have chosen to avoid addressing the needs of the poor and elderly in areas of hunger, housing and health care, expecting religious communities and nonprofits to fill in the gaps... As a religious leader, I am tired of our governing representatives expecting those in the religious community to perform monumental acts of triaging the growing numbers of hurting in our communities with our limited resources. I grumble at the insinuation that, as humble servants of our conscience and call, we also become the servants of the state tending to those who fall between the cracks of a system geared to benefit people of privilege and influence... http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=STATE&storyID=566175&BCCode=&newsdate=2/24/2007 *** And, From a recent AP news story: According to surveys, one-third of all Americans are now evangelicals, who are now the largest religious and political U.S. demographic. Over the last 20 years, evangelicals have become the most reliable voting bloc for conservative Republicans. Evangelicals, numbering about 100 million... If true, the U.S. of A. is in very, very deep $hit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:56 AM RS, I don't mean to suggest how you should post, or about what-- just that I found your post of interest and that I would not be able to respond with the promptness of my weekday respondes. Sometimes if you fall out of a debate here, it's assumed you've gone off hanging your head-- not that you might actually just be BUSY. :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:17 PM WYSIWYG--I did not assume that. I just need to get a grasp on the realities of communicating this way. "If true, the U.S. of A. is in very, very deep $hit." I think it is true, and I think we are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bee Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:23 PM 100 million evangelicals? If true, that is rather frightening. I'm sure the vast majority of people in that group are individually perfectly nice, decent persons. But when they come to vote en masse, other people's rights could be trampled pretty thoroughly, given their purpose of condemning everything from Walt Disney films to gay marriage, with abortion, a wide variety of books, art they don't like, etc., in between. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:38 PM Your hypothesis, Ebbie, is contraindicated by a swift glance at the Yellow Pages or any iist of corporations, societies, fraternal orders, unions, community associations, brotherhoods, charity organizations, brain trusts, think tanks, research groups, hobby clubs, workshops and other organizations into which individuals have formed themselves in any community of any size. Even farm-towns have granges, 4H clubs, county-fairs, women's clubs, garden clubs and Great Books evenings somewhere. People DO organize themselves into groups when stimulated by a need greater than they feel they can manage individually. That is the whole mechanism behind organized religion, as distinguished from "actual" or "pore" religion which is simply the boundary between an "I" and the "all" with which it finds itself surrounded, if it chooses to look at things that way. Frank Lloyd Wright said "I believe in God, but I spell it Nature." SOme of the greatest thinkers of later years, including the remarkable late Douglas Adams, would have subscribed to a similar sentiment. But since there are so many impulses to generate fantastic overlays to explain things -- demons and angels, Satan and nymphs and polyamorous super-beings, martyrs in trans-body fluorescent radiation fields, spirits and cherubs and gawd-knows-what-all -- it is FAR better, if a sane society is desired, to simply rule the whole mess out of the commons and require a complete, clear, hygienic separation between the concerns of people and their non-religious groups -- their economic and educational impulses -- and anything to do with this vast catalogue of superstitions and imaginary playmates. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:47 PM "...iist of corporations, societies, fraternal orders, unions, community associations, brotherhoods, charity organizations, brain trusts, think tanks, research groups, hobby clubs, workshops and other organizations into which individuals have formed themselves in any community of any size. Even farm-towns have granges, 4H clubs, county-fairs, women's clubs, garden clubs and Great Books evenings somewhere." Amos Hmmmm. You are right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:50 PM Amos, that's nice how you keep insinuating your religious view into the discussion. It sounds a lot like the Scientology I hold in low regard. Folks, don't let the publicity hogs confuse you that "evangelical Christianity" equates to the very-political, self-titled Evangelicals. If you were to survey believers on the FAITH orientation, "evangelical" would merely be a descriptor of personal spirituality one might choose. I've taken, and worked with, a number of such surveys; sometimes all they are meant to do is form a snapshot of how a given person's personal spirituality is wired-- like a spiritual parallel to Myers-Briggs. That kind of survey result could EASILY be twised by the politicals into an appraent support for their appraoch, when there is no actual correlation. RS, "If true, the U.S. of A. is in very, very deep $hit." The U.S. of A is already in quite deep sh*t, whether "it" is true or not! :~) ~Susan without my better glasses, oy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 24 Feb 07 - 01:32 PM You know, RS, you managed to say a lot that needs comment and explication in your last post, and like Susan says, it is not always easy to compose a thoughtful reply in the rush of daily life..(especially for those of us who thought we didn't NEED to learn touch-typing back in school). I think you have some important points, with more than a germ of truth to several, but my own feeling is that the situation is WAY more complex than your generalized statements would suggest. (Perhaps you also know this...this is the place that people need to be able to sit across a table and pick back & forth at each other's ideas, expanding, clarifying...and even retracting parts...) I will read it again and try to comment on the details later. (Those men with the nets are WAY too busy monitoring the Anna Nicole doings and the White House to bother with YOU! ;^) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Feb 07 - 03:05 PM Bill D--Yes you're right, when you try to get complicated ideas down in a forum like this, it readily becomes apparent why people like Faulkner and Joyce wrote sentences that went on for pages. And the way things worked out, I really feel sorry for Anna Nicole Smith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Feb 07 - 03:10 PM LOL, our dog is named Faulkner-- for half a mo' I imagined him pushing me away from the keyboard.... I just KNOW he could clear ALL of this up-- "F wants treat" is about all he'd need to learn how to spell. If only I could get my snappy comebacks THAT short! :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:19 PM Susan, I think you made a cheap shot a couple of posts back. What Amos said is true; what you read into it is YOUR perception. I could say more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:35 PM Wyzz: Your error is normal--at least for you, I think. I have very little regard for the C of S, as you well know, but I would like to know what, if anything, in what I said you think constitutes injecting a religious belief. My religious view is that religiosity is a crock of antediluvian hoohah which is embraced in the absence of rationality. This has nothing to do with my views about compassion, help, comfort, or organizing to the benefit of unlucky people. Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:46 PM My religious view is that religiosity is a crock of antediluvian hoohah which is embraced in the absence of rationality. Yeah-- that one. :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: frogprince Date: 24 Feb 07 - 06:10 PM Once again, we're into areas in which my feelings are very torn. I grew up an evangelical, among evangelicals, and I still find so many of them to be "the salt of the earth" in so many ways. Then I skim our Saturday paper, the day that majors in religious coverage. There is a mention today of something I missed back at the time: a couple of years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention, the biggest protestant body in the U.S., passed a resolution condemning environmental activism. So where, for Yahweh's sake, is the line between "mainstream" and the dangerous fringe? Dean |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:29 PM "Mainstream" is more in the nature of belief than how many people there are. The dangerous fringe is a whole lot bigger than it used to be, but they are also much louder than they used to be. At least they get better press coverage, and the way to do that is to be as outrageous as possible. Then and now, the mainstream didn't really get all that much coverage because they weren't constantly trying to insert themselves into the political system the way the fundy-fringe does. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Greg F. Date: 24 Feb 07 - 09:27 PM Folks, don't let the publicity hogs confuse you that "evangelical Christianity" equates to the very-political, self-titled Evangelicals. ...don't condemn ALL churches for what a few, media-savvy, poltically-driven churches have been allowed, by their members, to do. So sayeth our ~Susan - who refuses to admit that until she and other self-satisfied "good christians" like her get off their asses and roundly and vocally condemn the excesses of the nutters - instead of being their apologists - that she, and others like her, are a major part of the problem. Jalapeño, Amen! God Help Amerika. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:16 PM Greg, are you familiar with Rev. Jim Wallis and Sojourners Magazine? Or the actions of the National Council of Churches (which Sen. McCarthy considered a "communist organization")? There are lots of churches and religious organizations out there who are raising objections to the idea that the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference, the electric preachers on television, and other fundies speak for all Christians. And who want to maintain (or return to) a strict separation of church and state. Like a lot of other things that people should hear about, these folks are simply being ignored the news media. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:25 PM "The greatest danger of American Fundamentalism is that it is not compatible with Democracy." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bee Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:26 PM Then they need to buy some media time. That's what organisations do when they need their message heard and the media won't pick it up willy-nilly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:57 PM Jim Wallis (among others) has been on the talk-show circuit for the last couple of years and has given talks all over the country--recently in Seattle's Town Hall. That, in addition to writing for and editing the magazine and writing several books. And retired Bishop John Shelby Spong has been doing the same thing. Those are only two of many. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:19 AM I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. (Emo Philips) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:15 AM who refuses to admit Now there's logic-- accusing me of refusing to do something I have not been asked to do, after I've already been pretty clear on my thoughts about the religious right, in this here thread here. The most controlling crap I've seen, BTW, has come not from those RR folks but from Greg F! :~) ~Susan Not"OUR"SusanAndStillDecidingForMyselfOnWhatIOughttaDoThankyouverymuch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Donuel Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:49 AM Ebbie, I was 5 years old when I heard the words MOnstrous Church. I think it was their size more than their number that was intended. HPERBOLE ????????? I'll give you hyperbole... George Bush Sr. (President of the United States) "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:33 AM The last time I saw Jesse Ventura in public was on the Larry King show, and he was making the case that he was very concerned about the fate of "the separation of church and state." I submit--we need more political leaders like Jesse Ventura, and fewer political leaders like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:22 PM You might want to look it up, Don. hy·per·bo·le –noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:17 PM Good one, Peace! But I've never met a Baptist yet who didn't at least try to convert me before he pushed me off the bridge. I've found that a fairly effective way of handling Jehovah's Witnesses is to interrupt their schpiel and aggressively try to convert them to Druidism. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 03:44 PM If the JWs don't take "Thank you, no" for an answer, I simply say, "You'll have to excuse me. I've just returned from donating blood and I'm tired." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM That's bad, Peace. *G* But it should be effective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 25 Feb 07 - 04:45 PM (The original of the 'bridge' routine was about Episcopalians....I saw Emo Phillps do it on TV maybe 10 years ago...(something about Missouri synods, I think) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 25 Feb 07 - 04:53 PM (Or was it Lutherans?....I expect he gave equal time to all) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 07 - 04:55 PM "Missouri Synod." Hmm. Sounds like Lutherans. The Missouri Synod is very conservative. The one I go to is ELCA. Bunch of wild-eyed liberals. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Barry Finn Date: 25 Feb 07 - 04:58 PM That bridge was located in the desert dummy & the poor fellow from the Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915 wasn't about to jump, he was only fishing! So what if he claimed it was built by some idiot heretic scum from the Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879. That weren't no reason ta go on & push 'em in. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 05:09 PM Right. So, is Emo's joke funny or not? I'm mixed up now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 06:08 PM One big happy family. United in the RIGHT way to see the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:53 PM That's pretty hilarious! Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason tells how, within a very brief period after the execution of Jesus, there were some 82 "bishops," each claiming to be a descendant of one of the original apostles. They all disagreed on really minor points of theology and were "excommunicating" each other right, left, and center. It goes on to tell how the emperor Constantine "got religion," became a Christian, and suddenly this new religion had the power of secular law. Belief was no longer a matter of choice, it was compulsory. And that meant you had to believe whatever the church told you to believe or you were in violation of the law. This was the first major step toward the Dark Ages. This is indeed a cautionary tale for our times! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:33 PM For Constantine it was a matter of keeping the Empire together. He adopted Christianity as the 'State' religion, but the coins of the time still featured Sol Invictis (sp) along with the Cross, and Constantine himself did not convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed. Today, I find that 'fundamentalism' has detracted from everything I consider Christianity to be. I choose to see C. as a belief system as opposed to a church, specifically. I do think people can commune with God wherever they happen to be. Many moons ago (and despite being a very agnostic non-believer in organized religion) I gave what I hope were Last Rites to a young person who'd died in a car rollover. I had no idea if she was C. or not, so I kept the prayer to something that I suspect would be OK by any religion (and if she was an atheist, it would be much like chicken soup: maybe it wouldn't help, but for sure it wouldn't hurt). New evidence in 'accident' research is showing something I have believed and acted upon in my emergency response 'career': The person has to be treated and comforted as well as the wounds, the trauma. It leads me to think there is a human soul or some other part of humans that transcends the corporeal. I think those two parts need each other as surely as night needs day or left needs right. (I'm likely not expressing myself very well, but then if you understand, you will whether I do or don't, and if you don't you won't whether I do or don't.) I suppose that the thing about fundamentalism that really pisses me off is the closed-mindedness of the whole thing. And I'm afraid that when a mind does get that closed it has very little chance to open again, ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:12 PM I'm afraid that when a mind does get that closed it has very little chance to open again, ever. I hope it gives some comfort that minds like that can, and sometimes do, open up again. As for Constantine-- it doesn't really surprise me anymore, but it used to really be a shock to see 3-6 years of seminary or PhD work reduced to a single post. There's a LITTLE more to it all, than that. :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:50 PM True indeed, Susan, but if you're referring to my post above, I have no intention of trying to copy-and-paste Charles Freeman's book. He says quite a bit more than can be included here. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:10 AM Do we consider seminary to be higher education? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:37 AM ... or an in-seminary-nation process? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:06 AM ANy nun can tell you that inseminariation should be avoided. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:06 AM The banjo player in my group has a doctorate degree from Harvard. So that's one school with a bit of a reputation that considers seminary to be a higher education. But what do they know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:16 AM What is her doctorate in? Faith? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:41 AM His doctorate is in theology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:58 AM Well, I never knew a banjo player with a doctorate in theology. They must be purdy rare, I would say. Now, would you say this man "knows God" in a deeper and richer way than, say, some barefoot shopper in a Bangkok market, a boy-soldier in Africa or a child bride in Northern India?? Or is he primarily knowledgeable about things which others have said about "God"? Most important, does it improve his banjo-playing? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 26 Feb 07 - 11:25 AM There are a batch of Emo Phillips clips on YouTube...the 'bridge' routine can be heard on the one called "I went to San Francisco"...done about Baptists in this version. It seems Emo used 'sharp' remarks about religion & faith fairly often. (paraphrased) "When I was young, I wanted a bicycle, and prayed for one every night....but then I realized that's not the way God works...................so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness." ------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Peace had a very important insight a ways back..."I choose to see C.(hristianity) as a belief system as opposed to a church,...", but the implications of that insight are pretty far-reaching. First and perhaps most importantly, it is a belief system, not a truth or fact system. The very word 'belief' means that it occupies a different place in our lives than information about geology or weather or how computers work. (well, that last one might not be the best example). Thus, 'Faith based initiatives', if the phrase is to mean anything at all, imply initiatives where the point of the exercise is to do something because it is supported, commanded, recommended...etc by some tenet of one's 'faith'. It is true that the action and results 'may' on the surface seem to differ little from some initiative done by a NON-faith based organization, but there are always undercurrents and implications involved. "You got this help because some followers of a particular belief system made a special effort to make it available." It is this 'linking' of the idea of receiving help with a specific group that has some people concerned.....and I gather, wishing to control & specify how public funds are allocated. I used to live in Kansas, where we regularly saw tornados...and often serious damage and injury. One of the amazing things we just took for granted was that, after a damaging storm, it was usual to see members of the Mennonite community show up almost instantly, providing food, shelter, cleanup help and transportation to both victims and other rescue personnel. When the emergency was over, they quietly slipped back to their daily lives. This was an example of the minimum way I have seen a 'faith based' group work. There was absolutely NO attempt to offer 'prayer sessions' or 'invitations' to visit their church, whereas, I have seen and heard other groups clearly link their good deeds to their beliefs, and do some pretty obvious 'fishing' as part of their 'initiative'. So what? Isn't good work and help for those in need worthwhile, no matter what the basic motivation of the provider? Of course...most of the time...I'm sure those who receive help don't question the details very often. I just think that is is not unreasonable to scrutinize situations where public money is involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 26 Feb 07 - 11:34 AM "Most important, does it improve his banjo-playing?" You would need to judge that for yourself. He's the best banjo player that I perform with. I also know that he's studied some of the dead languages - Greek, Latin, so that he can study some of the oldest copies of the bible. "Now, would you say this man "knows God" in a deeper and richer way than, say, some barefoot shopper in a Bangkok market, a boy-soldier in Africa or a child bride in Northern India??" That to me is a silly question. Each individual { in my opinion } is capable of knowing God in a rich and meaningful way whether they are Buddist, Hindu, Christian - whatever. No one's got a lock on God. So what's your point? Mine is that - yes - theology is considered a higher education. If you disagree then that's your privilege. I'm not trying to convert anyone. If you don't want to believe in some sort of higher power that fine with me. I'm not planning on dragging anyone to church. But it does piss me off that a lot of folks here don't have the common deciency to respect others beliefs. And it also pisses me off when folks paint all believers in a higher power with a broad brush based on events that happened hundreds of years ago. Not all people of faith are alike. I've seen a lot of folk singers that play Martin guitars. So does that mean ALL folk singers play Martins? If I thought that I would be stupid - or a bigot. What's so wrong with judging people on their individual merits? Or on their actual behavior? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:15 PM MDiv and theology doctorates are certainly advanced degrees in that they require a BA as a prerequisite to be admitted, in that they require a level of academic writing well beyond BA level, and in that they cover much more than "faith." The MDiv alone has about twice the amount of material to cover and intensity of study of a Master's in teaching or nursing; that's one reason the MDiv is almost never done part-time while working and is almost always a residential program. The exams are more like the bar exam than master's theses-- heck, they write the equivalent of a master's thesis several times a year, in seminary! These degrees also provide systematic tools for examining personal belief, as well as scholarly historical reviews of beliefs and systems (detailed church history for example) in their programs. In fact, most seminarians experience their formation as a time when their faith had never been so shaken, because a tremedous amount of form and source criticism challenge the simplistic view of faith most believers and attackers-of-belief share in common. Most people don't have the slightst idea about any that. They just know that somebody who understands THEIR particular struggle seems to be able to respond with a depth of knowledge and compassion they find helpful. The don't ask how such a person GETS that way. They either make casual use of it, or just-as-casually bash it. Belief = stupidity? Hey. How stupid is this: There are a good number of people around here who don't even know about any of that as basic information about someone who has hosted them in his home, and who has laughed politley all evening at the preacher jokes he's already heard ad nauseum that these otherwise well-mannered folks just cannot seem to resist telling us. After a round of those, sharing his personal education and formation experience sorta hasn't been the first thing that came to mind to talk about. ~Token Clergy Spouse |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:00 PM "What's so wrong with judging people on their individual merits? Or on their actual behavior?" Nothing. The question is: is there any merit in taking the study of religion to an "advanced degree" level? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:03 PM I've made my point. Harvard among other schools seem to think so. What's your side? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Alec Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:12 PM The skills,knowledge & experience acquired in taking any subject to an advanced degree level are highly transferable. My first degree was in Disability Studies.My Master's was in Social Sciences. I have and do meet people who perceive those disciplines as lacking in merit as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:19 PM I would suspect that most often those who 'diss' certain degrees don't have one themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:23 PM The question is: is there any merit in taking the study of religion to an "advanced degree" level? "The question" only applies to those willing to get the degree. Obviously they must have thought it was worth it. How is that up to anyone else to judge? How is that anyone else's business? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 07 - 04:29 PM Wes: Let me apologize if you thought I was being rude. I have nothing but respect for someone who honestly acheives a doctarl degreein anything. The effort to advance human knowledge -- which was once the defininig threshold of a doctoral degree -- strikes me as the summum bonum of intellectual activity. My remark about bajo playing is a bit tongue in cheek. And WYZ has pointed out some very real aspects of individual help that such a degree coiuld conceivably enable, which is the ground of realapplication I was looking for. This said, I believe that the knowledge of the workings of the individual spirit and its tribulations and efforts in life, is mis-named if it is called "theology", which means, by definition, the knowedge of (a) god. Nevertheless, the usage is so well-entrenched in practice that minor protests such as mine are likely to be pissing into the wind, so consider the question withdrawn. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Feb 07 - 05:03 PM I never knew a banjo player with a doctorate in theology. Ya know, it's a funny thing, but in the presence of the levity and scoffery inherent in Mudcat threads on either subject, it should not be a surpise that the holder of either might not be eager to admit himself also to hold the other. In some circles Hardi is known as a banjo player. In others, a Biblical scholar. There are very few minds easily able to span the reality that someone might be both at the same time. And that includes Mudcat habitues. As often as I've seen Mudcatters insist they are so much more tolerant than fundies, I could cite equally unthinking, unfeeling examples of Mudcat's LACK of tolerance. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 07 - 05:12 PM Well, I am tolerant of some things, and less so of others. Sanctimony and smug superiority, and gratuitous instruction in how things "should" be, for example, are things I don't sit well with, personally. But I see no reason a banjo player could not be a doctorate in theology or anything else, or vice versa, and more power to him for doing both. Takes a certain amount of courage in either case. ;) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 26 Feb 07 - 05:16 PM The other doctorate in theology that I'll be performing with in the quartet this weekend is just a guitar player. And THOSE are a dime a dozen. We should call the group "Two doctors - no waiting". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM "How is that up to anyone else to judge? How is that anyone else's business?" It's not, really, as long as a publicly supported institution isn't offering the degree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:47 PM "It's not, really, as long as a publicly supported institution isn't offering the degree." Uh, excuse me but BULLSHIT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:01 PM The pursuit of knowledge is crucial to humanity. Personally, I would rather gnaw my leg off than take a degree in Business Administration. But a good friend who took it was all crazy about how exciting it was and how much he was learning. I couldn't then, can't now nor will I in future EVER see what he did in it. But HE did. To suggest that Theology is not an academic pursuit worth taking is very short-sighted. It's lots like people who say that a BA isn't worth the paper it's prinrted on. So far from true it's twisted. I think--could be wrong--that Bill D has a degree (or two) with a heavy emphasis on philosophy. The man is a genius, IMO. Are you also going to suggest that philosophy, because it deals with outtathisworld stuff is not a valid field of study? Hell, one of my dearest friends is a remarkably brilliant physicist. When he discusses some things I barely understand on in ten words (so to speak). His study and thinking is outta this world too. Do you then perceive it to be without value or not worthy of public funding? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:50 PM RS, I'm well past the point where I think your points are supported by fact and I'm not going to go dig up whatever "evidence" you may think you are alluding to. Here at Mudcat, if you want people to argue with you and not just trade insults, you'll need to at least do the homework required to make a fact-based point. One supported by a link or an example of what you're against or worried about, that kind of thing-- but you've said so many toitally not-real things in this thread that I've grown tired of using the easy "opportunities" you present to educate folks about the realities of ministry. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:35 PM Uh...I suppose 'geniuses' can blush...(not that I admit to anything like BEING one...I've met too many who run rings around me.) I got one degree and ½ another one in Philosophy, and one of the things we studied is 'ologies', and of course THEology is a valid subject! (When we do from within Philosophy, we simply call it 'Philosophy of Religion'. All it means is the study of the history and influence religion has had, and of the NATURE of truth as it pertains to religion. As it happens, most of that studying is done by folks who do have religious faith also, but there is no real way to approach a comprehensive study of being human without exploring our religious heritage and its relevance! This has little to do with whether religion has any objective 'truth'...because we can't really answer that question....and neither can theology/religion...because they mostly operate WITHIN the system that assumes certain 'truths'....they 'believe'. I, personally, am not religious because of the contradictory answers I got while DOING my studying.....just too many awkward premises to juggle. Others ARE religious for various reasons, including things they learned while studying. I differ with them, but I see why they believe......and I'm not sure it makes sense to try to convince them otherwise. I'll explain MY position...just as they explain theirs, and maybe my way of thinking will have some influence.....but I am not gonna lose any sleep over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:43 PM Genius or not, Bill, what I think of (when I think of your mind) is your rigorously careful method of thinking. Not cautious-- but intentional. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Feb 07 - 11:59 PM "To suggest that Theology is not an academic pursuit worth taking is very short-sighted." I didn't say that. I was just commenting that the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for it. "I'm well past the point where I think your points are supported by fact and I'm not going to go dig up whatever "evidence" you may think you are alluding to." There's nothing pertaining to fact in this entire dialogue. And the justices decisions will be opinion as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: ridge plucker Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:46 AM Hi, Interesting debate. It is ironic that it takes an advanced degree to preach a very narrow minded religion. Pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:08 AM "To suggest that Theology is not an academic pursuit worth taking is very short-sighted." To which RS replyed: "I didn't say that. I was just commenting that the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for it." Along with RS's prievious post which said - "Do we consider seminary to be higher education?" When you put those two quotes together they would seem to be inconsistant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:28 AM It is also ironic how little knowledge it takes to attack what is complex and of value to so many people. It seems to happen a LOT during Lent, I guess because so many folks had early experiences of really awful Lents imposed upon them and they're not ready to let that upset go just yet. The opportunity to display that must seem irresistable as those of us with good experiences naturally talk about it. Me, I had a particularly nasty childhood-- therefore I guess I should have killed my son in infancy! :~) Anyway, Lent is a busy time for our household, so probably this thread will get little attention from me in future-- I'll have a lot of music to plan, and a lot of community events to attend. I wish one and all a PEACEFUL Lent, whether you are celebrating it or feeling chafed by others' celebrations of it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Marion Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:12 AM In the book "Kingdom Coming" by Michelle Goldberg, the main question about federal funding for faith-based initiatives seems to be hiring practices. For example, she talks about how the Salvation Army, which has traditionally not had any faith requirements for its employees, started asking employees to document their church attendance, and driving out gay or Jewish staff. I have no problem with the idea of government funding for church-based social services - and I know there are plenty of great ones out there - but if they're violating human rights codes in their hiring, that seems very questionable. Marion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:43 AM "'To suggest that Theology is not an academic pursuit worth taking is very short-sighted.'" "To which RS replyed: "'I didn't say that. I was just commenting that the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for it.'" "Along with RS's prievious post which said -" "'Do we consider seminary to be higher education?'" "When you put those two quotes together they would seem to be inconsistant." Not necessarily inconsistant--Wesley--the first post was a question and the second a statement of what should be governmental policy. Theology is a little broader term than seminary to me. I have seen "seminary" used as a term put forth by religious orders to educate followers in that same order. Theology could pertain anything from Druidism to Taoism to The World Church of the Creator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bee Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:04 PM "I have no problem with the idea of government funding for church-based social services - and I know there are plenty of great ones out there - but if they're violating human rights codes in their hiring, that seems very questionable." - Marion I do. It is inevitable that turning social programs over to church-based groups will result in a certain amount of judgemental practices in the handing out of assistance to those in need, and in hiring practices. Granted, many church-based charities do not discriminate, but some do, and certainly even in those that do not, zealous frontline volunteers often include a faith based message along with bottomline assistance. If you have to say a prayer or hear a sermon before getting a bag of groceries from the foodbank, well, that's not necessarily a good thing. Do you want to be a single mother in need when the only foodbank in your neighbourhood is, say, an Islamic charity that insists on only helping certain kinds of women, or only men? Years ago, the Salvation Army had a policy of not providing shelter for homeless women, only men, an outrageous situation that resulted in my mildly mentally ill relative spending several cold nights on the street, as she had nowhere to go. The SA can do what it likes, but there must be (government funded, non-faithbased) alternatives for those literally left in the cold. It gives government an excuse for not caring for those in need, and if the faith based charities are not performing, or not available in the location where needed, and the government sees no obligation to do more than fund churches, then people will suffer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Marion Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:34 PM Hi Bee. I agree with everything you've written. To clarify: when I said that I agreed in principle with public funding for church-based social agencies, I was thinking of those agencies that don't discriminate against clients or preach to them - i.e., that's what I meant by the "great ones". But if the agency is also trying to convert clients, or this funding strategy means that there are insufficient services or insufficient options, then yes, I have a problem with that too. Marion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: LilyFestre Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:59 PM I think that churches that are giving assistance to those in need should get a break unless it is found that there is any kind of corruption taking place within the church (each single parish, not the entire community of say, Episcopalians or Catholics or whatever). And this bit: It is also ironic how little knowledge it takes to attack what is complex and of value to so many people. It seems to happen a LOT during Lent, I guess because so many folks had early experiences of really awful Lents imposed upon them and they're not ready to let that upset go just yet. The opportunity to display that must seem irresistable as those of us with good experiences naturally talk about it. Not everyone grew up experiencing Lent of any kind, therefore this line of argument is not logical, IMO. LQF |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 07 - 03:40 PM Radical Muslimism also seems to appeal to and give comfort to "so many people". One would not think of it as a viable social mechanism, regardless. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST,ridge plucker Date: 27 Feb 07 - 03:54 PM Susan, What is so complex? It is not theoretical physics. There is 1 text book. How many years does it take to learn 1 book. The only thing that is complex is the justification of intolerances towards other cultures, one's sexual orientation, sex and the air of superiority that is brought forth and the long history of it. And what the hell does Lent have to do with anything. Does it work like the theory of a full moon and a raise in the crime rate? The important point thing here is the danger of this whole thing. Who decides what group gets funded and who does not? Is it only the Christian church groups? Are we going to have a legal term for "faith"? On what bases do you exclude groups? There are just too many questions that have no business being asked by our goverment. How long do you think it is before the courts are hearing endless cases of discrimination because of this. Like most ideas GW has this is pure crap and not well thought out and a waste of time and resources. Besides that we have social programs in place now that are grossly underfunded to the point that they are useless in most cases. It makes no sense to give money to a bunch of organization so they can do the same work that under funded federal programs in place could do if funded with these funds. Pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:01 PM Pete - I disagree with a lot of what you have to say in your first paragraph but we're in complete agreement on your second. Seperation of church and state is the only way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:07 PM "It gives government an excuse for not caring for those in need, and if the faith based charities are not performing, or not available in the location where needed, and the government sees no obligation to do more than fund churches, then people will suffer." BINGO! Good one, Bee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: SharonA Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:00 PM I haven't read this whole thread but, just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, the Freedom From Religion Foundation website is www.ffrf.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: frogprince Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:13 PM "There is 1 text book" Heeheeheeheehee............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM "There is 1 text book" Actually I think it would be more correct to say that it's a collection of books bound together for convenience. And then again there were a bunch of books that were left out of the collection. A lot of politics was involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: frogprince Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:27 AM Actually, it sounded like ridge plucker was implying, or assuming, that you get a seminary degree by reading only the Bible. That's not quite true; to get my M.Div, I had to read at least two or three other books. : ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST,Guest FBITSC Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:29 AM But did they have lots of pictures? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:33 AM You can only find pictures in the "super deluxe true believers" edition - which I can sell you for only $500.00 plus S&H. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: frogprince Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:45 AM "did they have lots of pictures?" Oh, yes; we had to color inside the lines, and use only very specific shades of color. We didn't color the special edition Bibles that Wesley mentioned, though; They had only archival photographs of the Biblical characters and events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: LilyFestre Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:49 AM I have an old bible that is done all in comic book style....all black and white ink drawings...fascinated me when I was a child....still love it. LQF |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:52 PM Can Iget autographs of the principals if I buy one? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST,Guest FBITSC Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM Love your sense of humoUr, frogprince. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Greg F. Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:56 PM Now there's logic-- accusing me of refusing to do something I have not been asked to do So you need to be ASKED to stand up against a dangerous gang of raving lunatics? Most sentient beings wouldn't need an invitation. The most controlling crap I've seen, BTW, has come not from those RR folks but from Greg F! Poor ~Suzie! Take a valium. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:12 PM I must have missed something Greg. What "dangerous gang of raving lunatics" are we talking about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:59 PM Oh, I'm glad to see Greg F has learned how to sing in as a member since he first posted that same crap at 9:09 this AM. I'm also glad he knows so much about what I do and don't do, in my life. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:05 PM "I must have missed something Greg. What "dangerous gang of raving lunatics" are we talking about?" Church goers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:09 PM RS, now you are really trying to make enemies and give offense. The exchange between Greg F and I is from 'way upthread, where he accused me of refusing to stand up against right-wingers, if I recall correctly (I'm not going to go hunt for it right now but YOU can). He hasn't participated much in the discussion except to take shots at me-- it's one of the things he likes to do, as well as calling me by nicknames most assuredly NOT used by people who know me well and want to remain friends. Pass Greg F the LSD, OK, I think he's running out. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Greg F. Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:30 PM I must have missed something Greg. What "dangerous gang of raving lunatics" are we talking about? Political Fundagelicals. Greg F has learned how to sing in as a member since he first posted that same crap at 9:09 this AM Wanted to correct my unintentionally anonymous post & provide attribution. Ah, Geez, RS, Our ~Susie's got a real bug up her a$$ now. That self-righteous, offended, snotty (dare I say holier than thou?) act is one of the things SHE likes to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:34 PM Actually, one of the things I really like to do is laugh until the tears squirt out of my eyes-- which is the reaction you cause me, Greg F. That is some mean trip you're on! :~) Like, wow! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Stringsinger Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:32 PM The major issue at hand here is Bush's attempt to give taxpayer money to faith-based initiatives. I believe that this is wrong as it violates the Separation of Church and State. it has been shown that many such faith-based organizations discriminate against non-believers but this still isn't the issue. The issue is this, in order to protect a American's right to believe what they want without harming others, the Separation so wisely cited by Jefferson is the wall that protects our "limited representative democratic republic" from theocrats and political crooks. What Annie Laurie and Dan are doing is serving our Democracy in the most fundamental way, protecting both the right to worship or not as we choose. Atheism, btw, PDQ is the absence of religion, not a religion of itself. This can be shown by the following logic. If the scientific method by major scientists throughout the world could show the existence of god(s), every sensible non-believer would change his/her mind. I don't believe that many religions would be as magnanimous, however. I don't really like to label myself so the nearest acceptible term for me would be "freethinker". But as an American, I believe that it's my duty to support those who disagree with me and worship through their religion as long as it doesn't enter into the realm of Theocracy. I find it hard to be mad a churches or synagogues or mosques, temples etc. although I won't attend them as a participant in their beliefs. However, anger has no place in relating to religion since it accomplishes nothing. I will protest at the machinations of the Robertsons, Falwells, Grahams, etc. who insist that they have the right to foist their beliefs on others. I know many people who are good folks who are religious and although I don't think their religion makes them good, I still respect where they are in their beliefs as people. But the central issue here is extremely important. Roy Moore and others like him have no right to denegrate the meaning of the First Amendment by violating it and tearing down the Wall. America is what it is through diversity and tolerance and this above all is the most important value we have (aside from the nuts that want to take us to war). I salute Annie Laurie and Dan and I'm one of them. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:43 PM It will be of interest to me to see how the SC handles the case. We know that they seemed to become a bit more 'conservative' after the last appointments. What is crucial to America I think is whether or not the SC constructs an argument that is Constitutional law-based and not Bush-based. They may indeed rule against Annie. I think some of the back and forth on this thread is interesting also because people doing the arguing seem to want the Constitution respected, and IMO, it hasn't been for about five years now. The outcome of the case--depending on the SC ruling--may be one that determines whether the US indeed HAS a Constitution anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:20 AM If they end up with a 5 to 4 decision against Annie, it will be the biggest (and maybe only) triumph of the GWB administation, and saddle the country with a disaster that will last for generations to come. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: pdq Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:53 AM "Atheism, btw, PDQ is the absence of religion, not a religion of itself." You may feel that way , Frank, but you and other members of the Church Of Secular Humanisn strongly believe there is no God and that is your faith statement. It is not a proven fact that God does not exist but you belive it. A believer will feel/say that God does exist, which is the more traditional faith statement. In both cases, neither the existance or absence of gods or a God hasbeen proven to scientific standards, but of these people believe.
[PDQ--you really need to close italics with the 2nd 'i'] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bee Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:38 AM "You may feel that way , Frank, but you and other members of the Church Of Secular Humanisn strongly believe there is no God and that is your faith statement. It is not a proven fact that God does not exist but you belive it." - PDQ PDQ, some of us non-believers are really, strictly, truly, not holders to any religion, faith, belief in deity. You may be right about Frank, I don't know his exact views, but you would be wrong about me and most atheists-agnostics. In fact, there is a proper term for someone who strongly believes, without proof, that there are no gods, and that is an anti-theist. I have no 'faith' there is no god. I don't know. I also have no 'faith' that there is a god. In fact, I have no faith at all, from which stems my lack of belief. No one has offered me any evidence that there is a deity. Some evidence has been offered me that there is no deity, but it has not been irrefutable evidence (or I have failed to understand it due to a lack of higher education in physics and maths). That is not a faith statement. My thought processes do not include an ability to decide on god or not god by way of faith. So with not one iota of evidence for the existence of a deity, and some evidence against, I tend towards thinking deities are unlikely, not impossible. Should someone offer me good evidence that god/s exist, I would change my mind on the issue as matter of factly as I changed my mind on whether car airbags were safe, once I had read the statistical evidence. It is very annoying to have someone else tell you what you think or believe, as if you didn't know yourself. Suppose I were to tell you that you don't really believe in your god, you're just saying that, and are really an atheist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM There is a perfectly rational non-faith statement embraced by many atheists that essentiaklly states that belief in God is unwarranted for lack of evidence, given that all systems provided as evidence can be more easily explained. Such explanations, for example can go from the bottom up by citing the known principles of adaptive evolution or the known mathematics of emergent systems and complexity which indicates that simple components and very few rules can generate, given enough iterations, systems of great complexity. This is an assertion of reasoning from evidence, not one of faith. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Greg F. Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:53 PM Now, don't go tossing terms 'thought processes' and 'evidence' and 'reason' and such like into the discussion - |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:33 PM Hey, I'm a God lovin' follower of Christ an', well, I ain't into seein' tax dollars go any churches 'cause either we, as a nation, respect the seperation of church and state, or we don't... The Founding Fathers certainly did and that is why they put the "establishment clause" in the consitution... Bad stuff happens when churches and governemnts hold hands and if history is a teacher then we should take notice... Now back to the mud-slingin'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:35 PM I don't give a shit what people believe in terms of religion. As long as they don't TALK to me about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:50 PM See, Peace, this is what I believe: blar, blar, blar... :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:57 PM Hm, lemme try this one on for size: I don't give a shit what people believe DON'T in terms of religion. As long as they don't TALK to me about it. Naw, it just doesn't work for me. I had hopes for it-- not that the anti-believers will ever be able to allow Lent to pass by and SHUT UP about it at the same time-- but then I realized that would effectviely leave out a huge part of a friendship I would not give up for anything-- BillD. Just as one example, I wouldn't want BillD to ever shut up, towards me, about ANYthing. But Peace-- here, just for you-- from now on, if you ever see me writing about any aspect of my faith: assume I am not addressing you, OK? :~) Talking, I may be, but not to you. Heck, I might not even know you're in the room, you know? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:12 PM Works for me. The likelihood of either of us ever being in a room together or even wanting to I'm sure boggles your mind as much as it does mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: katlaughing Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:33 PM New sign on my door after an umpteenth knocking by proselytisers: May YOUR god bless you and make you secure in your religion so that you will not seek to harass me about mine. In other words, NO Solicitations INCLUDING PEDDLERS OF RELIGION. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:42 PM Peace, only over hockey, I am sure. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:06 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I feel like a bad example of a good example. further, deponent sayeth not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:07 PM But it's one way to claim #200 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM (hi Bill) Kat, I hate to tell you, but I really think that the attitudes coming to your door are going to be seriously encouraged in their "mission," not discouraged, by a sign as you describe. If anything, they will call in reinforcements. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:56 PM Well, hockey I can get religious about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:27 AM Kat, about that sign.... I think I have it-- if you believe in reincarnation, that would mean that you can honestly put a big ole sign on your door saying just these two words: "Born Again!" ... and that ought to do it. If you make it big enough, they people won't even come up your walk but just pass by. Whew-- I thought for a minute I was going to have to start some new denomination to declare you saved for this sign-thing. Glad I slept on THAT one! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:31 AM Actually, I think a "BORN AGAIN" sign would attract multitudes and multitudes of non-thinking people. After all, it worked for George W. Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM How about "I Gave In a Past Life..." A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:40 AM If you are 'born again' do you have two belly buttons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:56 AM Speaking of belly buttons: I got into a discussion with a fundamentalist on that subject. I volunteered the thought that Adam and Eve did not have navels. He wanted to know why on earth I would think that. I said, Look at the function of the belly button. It is simply the visible sign of the baby's womb existence- and Adam and Eve were not 'born'. He said, I think God could see to it... He is my brother. *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:46 PM out of the mouths of babes Just a thought |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: katlaughing Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:21 PM LMAO, Bill! Those are excellent. I may have to print them out and put THEM on my door! I agree with Riginslinger, I think it would just attract them if I put "Born Again" on the door, even though I do believe in reincarnation, they would take it the wrong way.:-) I don't think I will get too many more when they see the Beware of Dog sign next to the new one. My daughter put those up on her gate and fence and has not been bothered since. Of course the four dogs at her house make more of a commotion than my one, but my one has a really menacing growl and bark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:44 PM Yeah, what do I know? :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Don Firth Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:01 PM Cyclone fence with razor wire on top surrounding a moat full of crododiles and piranhas with an inner ring of tank traps and land mines supplemented by a Romulan cloaking device works fairly for us. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:33 PM I have found that the vast majority of folks who knock on doors to talk with occupants about religion are understanding when I say I don't wish to discuss it. On a few occasions I have had to be brusque. They have understood that also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:55 PM Maybe if the sign said:Born Again... and Again.... and Again... They couldn't say they were not warned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:01 PM "I'm about to sacrifice a goat. Would you care to join me in the invocation to my Master?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bee Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:12 PM Poor goats. Do they get a 'Most Sacrificed Animal in World History' spot in the Guiness Book of World Records? |
