Bush Plans to Let Religious Groups Get Building Aid

all seems to be a matter of interpretation, i personally see zero reason for tax based financial support of any religion in any form.

0 Replies

And when we need the revenue so badly! How he could do that now biggles my mind.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

And when we need the revenue so badly! How he could do that now biggles my mind.

Good point. Let's suspend all federal housing grants for anyone until the economy picks up.

0 Replies

Yes indeed, let's beggar other's legitimate worries about the ultimate destination of their tax dollars by extreme propositions, the absurdity of which is patent.

0 Replies

TW

Quote:

I wonder if you are as happy and uninquisitive regarding every decision of the USSC, but I will certainly accept it if you say that's the case here.

Which I guess leaves us nothing to discuss?

I don't believe in beating a dead horse. Neither you or I can change what is now considered the law of the land. The fact remains that the rule of law, separation of Church and state, evolves from the first amendment. What more is there to discuss? That you don't agree, you have made quite clear. However, your agreement or disagreement is meaningless,

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

TW

Quote:
However, your agreement or disagreement is meaningless,

As, by extension, then, Au, is yours or that of any other. Something of a reasoning flaw, to my perception. Under our Constitution, we are not only permitted but encouraged to lobby and petition for such law and interpretation thereof as we feel appropriate.

timber

0 Replies

And, ironically (whether or not Timber intended the irony) that right is embodied in the same amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Cheers, Boss, for helping to keep the balance . . .

0 Replies

timber

Quote:

As, by extension, then, Au, is yours or that of any other. Something of a reasoning flaw, to my perception. Under our Constitution, we are not only permitted but encouraged to lobby and petition for such law and interpretation thereof as we feel appropriate.

I was only referring to the discussion of this media. Lw has argued the same thing over and over on more than one posting. At this time that is the law of the land and he continues to say prove it to me. It was my way of saying enough is enough.

0 Replies

Seen this yet?

Religious Drug Treatment Plan Irkes Some

It just keeps getting better.

0 Replies

roger: that is a great info, thanks

0 Replies

Here's the zinger, literarily well-placed, at the end:

"An exclusively religious approach may work for some people, but there's no evidence that it works," said Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, which has tracked this issue for years. "Furthermore, Americans shouldn't be required to fund out of their own pocketbooks someone's religious practice." (emphasis added)

0 Replies

Setanta, irony as infered explicitly intended. Further, re your most recent post, "Hear! Hear!"

Au, perjoration of your person, or of your argument, if perceived, emphaticly unintended. Sorry if I offended.

Rog, I saw that, and I am in full accord with the concerns it raises. We've spent some 1000 years divorcing Religion from Government. The relationship is "Irreparably broken", in the words of divorce lawyers, and merits full and immediate dissolution. Its really "Best for the kids"

timber

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I don't believe in beating a dead horse. Neither you or I can change what is now considered the law of the land. The fact remains that the rule of law, separation of Church and state, evolves from the first amendment. What more is there to discuss? That you don't agree, you have made quite clear. However, your agreement or disagreement is meaningless,

au, I think you're a good guy and I enjoy the fact that we agree on some things and disagree on others, and I'm often surprised at which is which. But here I'm really surprised. You're stating that you see no point in debating the merits of current interpretations of the Constitution? You're stating that we can't change a bad precedent if one exists? You're stating that you're happy with whatever the law is now, and let's not dare consider whether it is as it should be? Really?

Prior to expanding the 1st amendment to encompass this theoretical absolute wall between church and state, the government had a lot more dealings with religion. Why didn't we leave off beating that dead horse, leave the law as it was then? Can you see the flaw in your argument above? Only by questioning the law do we change the law--or its implementation if it is found to be wrong. Your argument that "I am right because the current interpretation of the Constitution agrees with me" is a pretty hollow argument.

I am completely happy to discontinue our discussion on this topic, but let's have a reality check here. You're arguing that as Americans, in America, there's no point in questioning the decisions of our government. Really?

0 Replies

Tw
I don't mind discussing things with you and yes there are times we agree. However, sometimes you remind me of a biting bulldog who has to get his teeth pried loose. There are times when it is better to agree to disagree than to go on and on trying to prove or insisting that your point of view is the only one that is valid.

0 Replies

Sometimes I'm proud of you guys.

timber

0 Replies

au - Is it possible that I'm simply trying to offer support for my point of view, as I would expect you to do with yours? Contrast that with stating that "it is what it is, so there's no point in discussing it" (my paraphrase). If you wish to simply agree to disagree, that's fine, but there's no need to suggest either that these issues are not legitimate fodder for debate, or that I am any more or any less a passionate advocate for my point of view than are you.

In other words, maybe next time you could just suggest that we agree to disagree, instead of claiming that there's something wrong with even trying to debate the issue. Very Happy

0 Replies

Bush Plans to Let Religious Groups Get Building Aid

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know