BS: important editorial in Wash Post

Subject: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 12:51 PM

I had somehow missed the story behind this, but Justice Antonin Scalia recently made a speech about "religious freedom" as expressed in the 1st amendment and it's history in the US...I think the Post made some interesting and important observations. Read the details carefully.

click here

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 12:58 PM

Very interesting. I actually find this "Judaeo-Christian" PC term rather irritating (people really mean Christian, but want to sound modern), especially when it is mimicked in countries like Britain, whose Moslem population is now apparently larger than its practising Anglican church. Why not "Judaeo-Christiano-Moslem" when you're talking about the monotheist tradition?

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:09 PM

Thanks for posting this, Bill. Unbelievable and alarming. I also found this report interesting and equally as frightening:

NPR's Barbara Bradley-Hagerty reports on American Anglican church members who are breaking off from their congregation and looking to Africa for inspiration. They say American Anglicans have grown liberal and secular, and that they find a truer path with the conservative Christians of African nations. click here

Listen carefully to some of the numbers. More anglicans in a country the size of Oregon as all of them in Britian and the US, for starters.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:35 PM

What wasn't mentioned in the editorial is the crux of the issue as it relates to "Faith Based Initiatives" which is another debt that Bush knows needs to be paid.

It goes something like this. Rather than non-denominational social service providers getting funds for social programs, Bush wants some of those tax dollars to go to churches. The churches, in turn, would administer the porgrams. Sounds good until one strips off a few layers and finds unfettered intolerance, discrimination and once again, a set back for the civil servanmts who now perform those duties.

So, as this issue moves toward center stage be mindfull that the discussion may be a PR side show to soften up the resistence.

My comments here are of the politics and not a testimony of my Faith or lack thereof.

I have addressed my Faith in many threads here at Mudcat and make no bones about being a follower of Christ. But with that reaffirmed, I would warn people to be mindfull of the political implications which involve your tax dollars as this one plays itself out.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Alice
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:40 PM

The cults with agendas for political and monetary gain are salivating over the faith based initiative. They can't wait to feed at the trough of tax funding - and the organizations are tax-exmpt themselves. They see new opportunities to recruit more cult members.

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 03:51 PM

there is lots of meat for discussion in this one, hmmm?....It does indicate, as Bobert suggests, that there is a lot of vested interests buried in the issues...

I am glad to see an acknowleged Christian being aware of how intolerance and discrimination can burrow into the structure. We need fairness and freedom of religion for ALL....it is often hard for those who espouse a particular faith to not look, even subconciously, for an 'edge'...

well...we shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 05:26 PM

The problems, as I see it, are two-fold.

First, everyone thinks that churches doing charity is a great idea (because they tend to be darn good at it), and everyone thinks helping them is also a great idea -- provided you happen to approve of the church type. Almost no one wants the money to go to the XYZ Cult of the Satanic Transexual Aliens, and if you accept one religious belief over another, that's state-sponsored religion.

In short, "Yes, the money is great. Provided it only goes to MY church."

Second, once a church accepts federal money, they also have to listen to what the feds say about what to do with the money. Whether you like what particular church charity groups do or not with their money, do you really want the federal government to dictate your (or their) religious activities and how you adhere to your beliefs?

And if you let any church do whatever they want with tax money, then you are forcing people (namely taxpayers) to subsidize religious activity they don't agree in -- atheists paying to be support a God they don't believe in or Jews paying to support Jesus -- which violates the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is just that -- freedom to or freedom from, you have it or you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: diesel
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 05:44 PM

Now if only they had here in Eire, a branch of that fab. religion - XYZ Cult of the Satanic Transexual Aliens - Anybody got an address ?

Diesel (being silly again)

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 05:50 PM

Headline in Calgary Herald two days ago- Bishop Henry (local RC head) calls for Catholic politicians to hew the Church line in their legislative actions- no abortion, no gay support, no contraception, etc. A few months back, he threatened a Catholic parliamentarian and party leader with excommunication for his liberal views.
Freedom is always under threat from those who single-mindedly try to enforce their views on others.
Our public school system is being undermined by government support for charter schools, many of which have a narrow view of tolerance. We always have had a split of tax funding between Public and separate schools. We already have a chaotic system here in my province; it is disheartening to see the US may follow.

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 06:26 PM

ah, diesel, you only thought you were being silly!

If you enter Satanic Transexual Aliens into Google, you get a host of hits....including this amazing place run by someone who seems to spend most of his time ridiculing religion...and HIS links will cause you to swallow your gum!

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 06:42 PM

The articles made me curious about church membership in the US (2002 census):
Catholic (Roman)            63 million
Southern Baptist            15 million
United Methodist             8.3 million
Church of God in Christ      5.4 million
Latter Day Saints (Mormon)   5.2 million
Evangelical Lutheran         5.1 million
National Baptist             3.5 million
Presbyterian                3.5 million
Assemblies of God            2.6 million
Lutheran-Missouri Synod      2.5 million
Prog. Nat. Baptist          2.5 million
African Methodist            2.5 million
Missionary Baptist          2.5 million
Episcopal                   2.3 million
Greek Orthodox               1.3 million
and many others

Haven't found figures for non-Christians yet

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 07:10 PM

Bill... darling... sweetie... I made that up.

But... honey... I'm a little concerned that you went looking to see if that was a real cult. Is there something you'd like to share with us?

;)

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 07:19 PM

Nicole;

You obviously haven't met Bill yet...

That explains a lot...

Aww, just funning...

Ahhh, how are our stumps coming, Bill?

(No Nicloe is really curious...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM

*grin*..of course you made that up!...But it was SO good I had to try!

you, see, I understand the mathematics of the internet/WWW...*giggle*,,,,and I made a bet with myself that I'd get hits with that combo! (Now if I had put double quotes on it, I might have gotten NO hits....but...)

(Bobert...I have trimmed a couple of them stumps down a lot (that were interesting!)...but my lathe is in limbo, waiting for a new switch...I am spending my time making little magnet blanks fro Rita...*sigh*...soon, maybe..

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM

Group / Number / Percent of U.S. population
Total 284,800,000 100.0%

Christian 217,872,000 76.5%
Protestant 162,336,000 57 %
"born-again" or "evangelical" 125,312,000 44 %
Catholic 69,776,000 24.5 %
Baptist 46,422,400 16.3 %
Nonreligious 37,593,600 13.2%
Evangelical (theologically) 22,049,360 8.0%
Methodist 19,366,400 6.8%
Southern Baptist 15,800,000 5.6%
Lutheran 13,100,800 4.6%
United Methodist Church 8,495,000 3 %
Presbyterian 7,689,600 2.7%
Pentecostal 5,980,800 2.1%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 5,208,827 1.8%
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 5,149,668 1.8%
Episcopalian 4,841,600 1.7%
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 3,610,753 1.3%
Judaism 3,702,400 1.3%
Eastern Orthodox 2,756,170 1 %
Assemblies of God 2,575,000 0.93%
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod 2,582,440 0.9%
Episcopal Church 2,500,000 0.9%
Native American 2,441,000 0.9%
Buddhist 2,400,000 0.87%
Non-denominational 2,000,000 0.73%
Megachurch attendance 1,800,000 0.64%
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,708,800 0.6%
United Church of Christ 1,565,165 0.57%
Mennonite Church USA 1,525,000 0.55%
American Baptist Church in the U.S.A. 1,503,000 0.55%
Muslim 1,424,000 0.5%
agnostic 1,424,000 0.5%
Churches of Christ (non-instrumental) 1,300,000 0.47%
Independent Christian Church, Churches of Christ (instrumental) 1,072,000 0.39%
Hindu 1,000,000 0.36%
atheists 947,000 0.3%
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 910,000 0.33%
Unitarian Universalist 854,400 0.3%
Seventh-day Adventists 809,000 0.29%
Neo-pagan (incl. Wiccans) 768,400 0.28%
Church of the Nazarene 608,000 0.11%
Reformed Church in America (RCA) 304,000 0.11%
Baha'i 142,000 0.05%
Native American Religionist 103,000 0.04%

From US Demographics, which include more groups and sources.

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 07:32 PM

Muslims and agnostics in a dead heat tie!....wonder how many are in Florida?

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: diesel
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 07:39 PM

What really worries me now is not that NicoleC made that one up - but the numbers in their millions in the ones above - well maybe not, but the site you sent Bill - would it be appropiate to say "Oh my God !"

Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 07:56 PM

it would be impossible NOT to say something like that, diesel....such a big, wunnerful world we live in, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:32 AM

So, Bill D, what's the point? Justice Scalia made a speech. You and the Washington Post don't agree with his point of view (joined by the usual suspects :>)) My question is: 1. He has no right to express his point of view?; 2. Because he is a member of the court he SHOULDN'T express a personal point of view?; What?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:42 PM

I didn't exactly say what I thought...I said that it was an important editorial (being from one of the majot papers and all), calling attention TO the difference in approaches and attitudes and raising some historical and legal points. Yes, I rather do tend to agree with the Post's take on this...which was NOT wholesale condemnation of Scalia, but merely pointing to some things.

1.)"right to express his view"? Of course he has a right to express his view...I sorta wish members of the court 'expressed their views' more clearly and sooner.

2.) see # 1

3.) What...the Washington Post shoudn't be able to express it's views and "make a speech" at times? ;>))

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:56 PM

I think what bugs me the most, is that now we have Supreme Court justices acting as salesmen for the Bush administration. Hey, I don't think that Scalia would be talking about such an issue if it weren't for the administration's desire to siphon off tax dollars to *favorite* churches.

Maybe it was just bad timing, Doug, but it sure smells like fish to me.

Seems that the American taxpayers are paying for a lot of PR and salesmen these days.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:51 PM

Bobert: you never seem to find anything good about anything. Such a negative attitude. Go to the movies more! See comedies! Feed the squirrels in the park! March some more, or better still, get away from politics for awhile!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 12:26 AM

There's a thought, Doug! I expect to go back to Trinidad soon, where I will probably think very little about politics.

Bill - I noticed a couple of odd things in that article. One was:

"but any invocation of one God necessarily excludes Hindus as surely as it excludes atheists."

NOT TRUE! Anyone who thinks that the invocation of one God excludes Hindus sure doesn't know much about Hinduism. The Hindus do believe in a single Godhead...and they believe that that single Godhead has many aspects, like facets of one diamond. Those aspects are characterized as many gods and goddesses, all symbolyzing various powers and attributes of the One Divine. The Post really ought to do their homework before tossing off glib statements like that. Hindus have no trouble whatsoever conceiving of God as a singularity, because the singularity which that Divine is encompasses ALL of existence, including the flipping Washington Post!

Any society will interpret a document, no matter how carefully it is worded, according to the basic outlook on life that they are accustomed to. I suspect that the original intent in the Constitution was to provide an even playing field between CHRISTIAN churches, but not between religions. Most North Americans were religious at the time, and most of them were Christians, so that's how they would have interpreted it.

No traditional Native Americans in the 1700's would have considered a government that excluded religion, because nothing in their cosmology excluded religion. That was their view on things. They were also quite tolerant of new religions, until persecuted by them. This was not so true of Christians, who were exclusivists.

An atheist will interpret the words as separating the government from official religions. A religious person may not interpret it that way. If he's in favour of treating all religions equally, then he'll see it as supporting that.

So...while people can claim that they are living up to the original intent of the Constitution, they will mostly just interpret the Constitution to be conveniently supporting whatever axe they have to grind. Just like they do with the Bible. Surprise, surprise!

And so, yes...it IS a living Constitution. Was then. Is now. And everything else is like that too, including the Bible or any other traditional form of authority. We all make up the rules as we go along, change them as society changes, and they reflect our changing loves, hates, prejudices, ideals, blind spots, and beliefs.

That's why a written law will never serve to adequately protect a nation if the people in that nation seriously lose their sense of morality and equality...or if the people at the top do...But...it's still better than no written law at all.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 07:15 PM

hmmmm...it has been too many years since my last course on comparative religion. I doubt there is enough space on the editorial page for a complete exposition on how Hinduism works, but they do come off as a polytheistic culture. Even if the Post was a bit hurried in their examples, the basic issue is still clear.

Our Constitution IS pretty vague about the details...perhaps intentionally, so that it could evolve as society changed.....and yep, groups can and do interpret it to suit themselves. (I am reminded of my own post somewhere else about throwing the dart, then drawing the bullseye!)

It is a delicate matter to allow most religions, keep 'a level playing field' between them, and still require fair treatment and comfort for those who do not care for ANY religion....30,000-40,000 years of "my family,my clan, my ways, my gods, my country, my club" etc....sure has made "equality" a thorny problem, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 08:12 PM

Though Americans, and others, spend much time with the interpretations of the Constitution we do need to occasionally look allow ourselves to zoom in on the historical perspective of the times in which it was penned.

The Founding Fathers probably thought that they were not being vague at all but as society becomes more complex the document does show its age.

Now I don't want to get anything started here but the 2nd Ammendment is a good example. If the Founding Fathers envisioned what would come from this ammendment, i.e. handguns and assualt weapons in the hands of so many violent people, they certainly would have added some language to protect futire generations. Actually, the gun rights folks never like to mesh the first part of the ammmendemnt which refers to a standing militia which if taken with the gun ownership does give us a glimpse of the intent. But there it is and now we have a very dangerous society that leads the western world in homocide.

As for religion, had there been Islamics, Hindus, Buddist in the colonies in small minorities, the wording would most likely be different. The wording can be traced to the break with the Anglican Church thru Protestantizm and the FDounding Fathers had no idea t5hat one day the American society would be such diverse.

I mean, these were folks that owned slaves.

I'm happy that our citizenry has allowed the document to evolve way beyond the founders intent thru loose constrution but it does scare me when a group gets together and wants it interpreted strickly becuase it just cannot perform at that level, especially when trying to apply the Bill of Rights to today's world. Where I would make an exception is the 1st Ammendment and the 5th Ammendment, which are not dated and apply as much today as they did when penned.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 10:29 PM

Bill - I challenge you to find anyone who does not care for ANY religion. Everyone has a personal religion, although it may not fall into the formalized customs and notions associated with official or traditional church-based religions, and it may not even theorize the existence of any supreme being or any moral purpose in life. I know a born-again atheist, for example (a former born-again Christian), whose passion is to convert any and all "religious people" to his own new set of beliefs...which are just as dogmatic, arbitrary, and unreasonable as his old beliefs...or as those of some of the people he wastes his time trying to convert. Matter of fact, he is psychologically quite ill, which is plain to most people who are around him much. He's obsessed.

Everyone has a semi-rational set of ideas about life in which they place their deepest faith, and that IS their religion.

People are fighting about the cover of the book, as usual, and not bothering to read the damn book (the book of Life?) itself, when they fret about separation of "church and state", given the fact that the nation-state itself is the embodiment of a huge collective religious idea, complete with its own forms of exclusive faith and ritual, and its own holy wars in defence of what IT considers sacred! A nation state is an idea, with sacred connotations. So is a religion.

I have never seen a bigger cult in action than the present day cult of America/Uncle Sam, or whatever else you would wish to call it...except maybe for Maoism at its frenetic height. It's a religion, Bill, whether or not it claims to represent "God". "God", as most people use it, is just a word. A word which they have given not a whole lot of thought to, in most cases.

The reason people in the era of independent nation-states have been so concerned with separating "church" and state is this: they were reacting to a previous era when the Catholic Church oppressively dominated all of Christendom, and WAS the only effective government. That power had to be broken. What has happened since then is that a great many new religions have displaced the Church of Rome, and taken powers unto themselves. It began with the Protestant Reformation and rebellious kings like Henry of England, and it then progressed into more modern forms of secular religion like: "Rule Brittania", "the American Dream", "the Communist Revolution", and so on. All these new religions eyed each other with great suspicion (just like the old ones did before them), and frequently fought wars with each other, hoping through those wars to eliminate the competition...and "free" people (Ha! Their real business was mostly regimenting and controlling people to the benefit of the religion/system).

You don't have to worship God to have a religion. You can just as well worship money, sex, military supremacy, atheism, science, technology, male bloodlines, demonic entities, the free market, Marxist philosophy, race, or any other damn stupid idea you want to get fanatical about and kill people over. You can even worship violent death and human sacrifice and turn it into a religion. People have.

The whole thing frankly makes me sick, it's so idiotic. People are pissing around endlessly fighting about the trimmings and decorations while the Christmas tree and the rest of the house burn down around their ears.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: important editorial in Wash Post
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:40 AM

Bobert, are you okay? Your post of 8:12 PM reads a bit disjointed to me. Are you taking your medicine? :>)

DougR