U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003

The majority should also be free of the tyranny of the minority.

0 Replies

MgC wrote

Quote:

The tyranny of the minority.

You will have to expand and qualify that statement. Not as you are inclined to do make statements that cannot be supported with fact or even logic.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

MgC wrote

Quote:
The tyranny of the minority.

You will have to expand and qualify that statement. Not as you are inclined to do make statements that cannot be supported with fact or even logic.

Surely if you are witty enough to have written this statement, you wise enough to understand what "tyranny of the minority" means. If not, perhaps you could do a web search, or maybe ask you significant other.

0 Replies

Mcg
Not an acceptable response, in fact not a response at all. In what way can there be a tyranny of the minority.
The only recourse the minority has against the tyranny of the majority is through the court system and the laws of the nation. Are you suggesting that the court when it supports with the minority position it is supporting the alleged "Tyranny of the minority"

Sorry as you suggested can't ask my significant other. She is in Green Bay Wisc. Visiting our children and grandchildren.

0 Replies

theocracy?

au1929 wrote:

dadothree

Quote:
I take it you are in favor of a theocracy

No, I view atheism as a religion. They simply believe that there is none superior to man. By forcibly removing all other religions, Atheism has been promoted by the federal government. I do not favor an Atheist theocracy. I do support local authorities responding to the will of their constituents. If that means encouraging religion, so be it.

Quote:
and the tyranny of the majority.

A tyrant has traditionally been a single person or tyranny has traditionally been used to describe the absolute power a minority over the majority.
Here you seem to use it to describe the democratic process or the power of representative government to carry out the will of the people. I don't understand how you choose to use the term tyranny in this situation and not use it in others. For example: if one supported the 19 amendment which gave the right to vote to women( majority) would you call this tyranny as well? Please explain the difference.

Quote:
That certainly flies in the face of what America stands for. Which is both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Where is freedom from religion granted by the constitution? Unless you agree that Atheism is a religion I don't see where it is in the constitution.

The first amendment reads "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,......

The first word here is "congress" it does not mention local governments.
The word "respecting" means ;with regard to. So if no law can be made how can a law be broken?

Each of us shall have the option of worshiping or not worshiping as he sees fit with neither support nor hindrance by government.

0 Replies

dadothree
Atheism has and is not supported by the government. Freedom to choose whatever form or worship or if the case may be rejection of worship is what is supported. As it should be in a secular democracy. Consider, would you, were you not a member of the majority be satisfied if the tenets of a foreign religion be imposed upon you or supported by your tax dollar?

I would add that Atheism is not a religion and that all that do not support the infecting of government with the poison of religion are not atheists. One can and many do believe in God but do not believe in any particular organized religion or as I would more accuratly call them cults.

dad wrote

Quote:

A tyrant has traditionally been a single person or tyranny has traditionally been used to describe the absolute power a minority over the majority.

Wrong tyranny any can also be and in this instance is sure to be the absolute power of the majority over the minority. As an example, In a theocracy the the religious beliefs of the majority religion are imposed on all. The minority religions have no say or imput.That I am sure you would agree is the tyranny of the majority. Could it be the other way around? Of course not.
In any event the protection we have in this nation to combat the tyranny of the majority are our laws. The minority has the option, no the right. to challange legislation in a court of law. And that is what they do. Would you consider that tyrannical if the court upheld the position of the minority. Or do you agree we are a nation of laws and that is how it should be?

Dad wrote

Quote:

The first amendment reads "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,......

The first word here is "congress" it does not mention local governments.

That for all the world to see is the constitutions stand on religion. It says clearly the we should have freedom of and from religion in this nation. In addition are you attempting to suggest that the congress mentioned in the amendment exercise no control over local governments

0 Replies

church/ state

au1929 wrote:

dadothree
Atheism has and is not supported by the government. Freedom to choose whatever form or worship or if the case may be rejection of worship is what is supported.

I disagree, the federal govt clearly encourages people to reject worship. An example of this is the favoritism given to nonreligious groups seeking tax $$. Because of my faith, I try to help the poor. I believe that a faith in Christ will help them endure hardships. I do not force those in need to accept Christ as a condition to recieving assistance. We do reserve the right to hire based on biblical principals. Other groups also help the poor. Because they do not try to operate based on biblical principles they are eligible to recieve govt funds.
Therefore the govt is encouraging the charitible organization to reject religion.

Quote:
As it should be in a secular democracy. Consider, would you, were you not a member of the majority be satisfied if the tenets of a foreign religion be imposed upon you or supported by your tax dollar?

As I have said I believe that Atheism is a relgion which is being supported by my tax dollars.

Quote:
I would add that Atheism is not a religion

By it's very nature Atheism does not need to be recognized as an official religion. Instead it teaches that all other religions are meaningless. Thus it could make moot, the point of whether one does or does not call it a religion.

Quote:
and that all that do not support the infecting of government with the poison of religion are not atheists.

Be thankful that our founders had deeply held religious beliefs. Otherwise we would have a very different nation.

Quote:
One can and many do believe in God but do not believe in any particular organized religion or as I would more accuratly call them cults.

There is a cult in california called the Church of truth and science. The atheist Michael Newdow is a member. When he sues again the govt will be choosing one religion over another.

dad wrote

Quote:
A tyrant has traditionally been a single person or tyranny has traditionally been used to describe the absolute power a minority over the majority.

Quote:
Wrong tyranny any can also be and in this instance is sure to be the absolute power of the majority over the minority. As an example, In a theocracy the the religious beliefs of the majority religion are imposed on all. The minority religions have no say or imput.That I am sure you would agree is the tyranny of the majority. Could it be the other way around? Of course not.
In any event the protection we have in this nation to combat the tyranny of the majority are our laws. The minority has the option, no the right. to challange legislation in a court of law. And that is what they do. Would you consider that tyrannical if the court upheld the position of the minority. Or do you agree we are a nation of laws and that is how it should be?

My point about tyranny is ; Who decides when it is tyranny or when it is simply the fair process of representative government? If a majority of people decide to ban the hunting of barbaloots and the court says the ban is unconstitutional , who is being tyrannical the court or the people?
Could I not make the same claim regarding the governments treatment of christians?
We are a nation of laws and I am thankful for that. However I believe the laws should be written by the legislature in response to the will of the people. I believe the courts should only interpret the law.

There will be errors either way. Both the people and the courts have made serious mistakes. Slavery is an example that both share. But when the court is in error how can it be corrected if the will of the people is so easily dismissed. In contrast when the will of the people is in error the correction can come much quicker. Because of this mechanism for correction, I am inclined to favor the will of the people in most situations( not all). You seem to feel that the courts are in the right more often and give them greater weight. I respect that view, but I think one of the greatest strenghts of our nation is the variety of opinions.

Dad wrote

Quote:
The first amendment reads "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,......

The first word here is "congress" it does not mention local governments.

Quote:
That for all the world to see is the constitutions stand on religion. It says clearly the we should have freedom of and from religion in this nation. In addition are you attempting to suggest that the congress mentioned in the amendment exercise no control over local governments

I don't see how the congress can pass laws without infringing on the "free exercise thereof" part. If congress cannot pass these laws and the court can only interpret law, how can the law prohibit a nativity scene on public grounds in a community that was established by the church? I don't think the founder intended the free exercise clause to be restricted to individuals. I believe it applies to communities as well. The use of the capitol as a church is an example of our founders doing just that.

0 Replies

Re: church/ state

dadothree wrote:

As I have said I believe that Atheism is a relgion which is being supported by my tax dollars.

Since as a European I don't know that much about US taxes: in what way, and especially, why does no one offend this?

dadothree wrote:

By it's very nature Atheism does not need to be recognized as an official religion. Instead it teaches that all other religions are meaningless.

Where does atheism 'teach' this? Who are the 'teachers'?

0 Replies

Walter
No sense arguing with Dadothree. Or for that matter trying to make sense out of what he says. His is the view of the religious right in this nation.

0 Replies

I don't want to argue, au ("God forbid!"), just try to understand the arguments, and therefore I ask perhaps stupid questions. :wink:

0 Replies

Re: church/ state

Quote:

Since as a European I don't know that much about US taxes: in what way, and especially, why does no one offend this?

Walter your question is not a stupid one by any means.

Religious Charities have traditionally done much to help those with various needs. They have always held the right to hire people who shared their religious views. For example a Baptist church could refuse to hire a bus driver who was a practicing Satanist. Because the main goal of the church was not to simply transport people, this was always accepted as a right of the church, even though other private groups could not discriminate on the basis of the satan worshipper's religion. Recently several activist groups have taken aim at the church. Most notably the homosexual activist. For example: In San Fransico all employers who offer health insurance to their employees must also offer it to their homosexual partners. This is clearly against the teachings of most christians.

Additionally many pro-abortion groups such as planned parenthood are eligible to receive government funding. In contrast christian pro-life groups are not.

A prison in Texas has a prison ministry. They teach prisoners about Jesus Christ. The state pays for the housing of the inmates(since they're in prison) all cost which are related to the ministry are paid privately. The rate of recidivism is I think about 1/3 for those inmates who choose this route. None are forced. No one sneaks up behind them and throws a bag over their head. Still this program is under fire and may not continue.

As to why no one opposes this. I believe there are many reasons. None of them good. That is to say that I don't agree with them. Here are the ones that I am aware of.

1) Since the Civil War, when both sides claimed that God was on their side, there has been a reluctance on the part of christians to enter into the political fray. I saw a documentary on Dietrich Bonhoffer which said that Germans had the same reluctance after WWI. Of course since I've never been to Germany, I'm not sure.
2)Some people interpret certain parts of scripture to say that christians should stay out of politics. Romans13:1 and 2Tim 2:4 are 2 examples. As you've probably guessed I don't agree with that interpretation.
3)The main focus of the church is bringing people to Christ. When we expend our energy and our resources on other activism we may offend some people and push them further away. I believe this should be balanced. And I think we are way out of balance due to neglect.
4)This is the worst. In 1954 the federal govt attached a rider to an appropriations bill. It made church income subject to income tax (at IRS discretion) if the church got involved in politics. Many preachers I'm embarrassed to admit have found it easy to stay away. Also the IRS has a tendency to be selective in its enforcement of this.
5)There is an old saying that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. since most christians try to behave with some level of civility we can be overlooked. I know there are other religions that also behave extremely well and not all christians adhere to this. But I am speaking in broad terms. Many of the worst behaved people are promoting antichristian policies. Since people of faith are often so quiet, the politicians listen to them.

dadothree wrote:

By it's very nature Atheism does not need to be recognized as an official religion. Instead it teaches that all other religions are meaningless.

Where does atheism 'teach' this? Who are the 'teachers'?[/quote]

Atheism according to Websters is: the doctrine that there is no deity or the disbelief in the existence of a deity.
I believe in The God of the bible. If in my quest to learn more of the deity I should decide to become a Muslim or Hindu or whatever, so be it. My quest to get closer to the deity continues. If however I become an atheist, then my quest stops. As I no longer believe there is anything above me, there is no point in looking for a deity. So if I try to convince others that there is no God, I am promoting my own belief system(religion).

Madalyn Mary O'Hare (spelling ?) was one such atheist. She did everything she could to tell everyone around her that there is no God. She convinced one person so well that he killed her and took her money.

Michael Newdow is another. He sued to have the words "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance. More recently he tried to stop a prayer at the upcoming inauguration.

Our children are now taught in public schools that everything just evolved by chance. The complex order of the universe came about by random chance. They are given a lot of ways to believe in anything but God.

WOW Sorry for the length of this. Thats what happens sometimes when I get started. By the way, Where ya from?
dadothree

0 Replies

Wrong!!

'Belief system' is not interchangeable with 'religion'. You can argue that a religion is a 'belief system', but not the other way around. A belief system can be a philosophical viewpoint or a political manifesto or even something as simple as the idea that children need structured play to help them learn to get on with each other. Not religions, just ways of approaching things.

Atheism is not an organised, ritualized, co-ordinated system with a heirachy of followers. It does not, as a rule, require people to 'witness' or convert others. It does not have buildings constructed to hold the faithful togerher and indoctrinate the young. There is no 'US Dept of Non-Faith-Based Organisations' to distribute tax-payers money to spread the word on godlessness.

0 Replies

the religion of atheism

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Wrong!!

Quote:
'Belief system' is not interchangeable with 'religion'. You can argue that a religion is a 'belief system', but not the other way around.

Your logic is flawed. A belief sytem CAN be a religion but is not necessarily so.

Quote:
Atheism is not an organised, ritualized, co-ordinated system with a heirachy of followers.

A religion does not need organization, rituals or a heirarchy. Consider Adam

Quote:
It does not, as a rule, require people to 'witness' or convert others.

I only wish all christians would defend their faith as strongly as you defend yours faith.

Quote:
It does not have buildings constructed to hold the faithful togerher and indoctrinate the young.

Go check what they teach in public school. We had a local school official threaten teachers not to join prayers which were initiated by children. Kids are routinely intimidated if they choose to write a book report about a book in the bible.

Quote:
There is no 'US Dept of Non-Faith-Based Organisations' to distribute tax-payers money to spread the word on godlessness.

No it's called the dept of health and human services. It teaches people to rely on govt providence. There are others as well but I admit I don't know them all.

0 Replies

I've been absent from this thread for awhile but have continued to think about it.

My work history includes a stint as executive director of a large YWCA. (That's Young Women's Christian Association.) By the time I left the agency, the membership exceeded 4000 people which was approximately 1/10th of the population of the city in which the agency was located. We, along with the Salvation Army, received United Way funding that included some state and federal funding and nobody thought anything about that at the time.

One of the services provided was a preschool for our members that included a good deal of low income families as our annual membership was $5/year comparied to the $120/year charged by the YMCA. We applied for and received government grants that allowed us to charge very low fees and provide scholarships for the preschool program and hire quality teachers. That made it possible for low income families to give their children an excellent preschool experience that they otherwise would not in any way have been able to afford. (We had to call these kids "pre-delinquent" to get the grants, but that's another story.)

During this same period the Salvation Army received a government community grant to purchase a small bus to provide transportation for pickup and delivery of food/clothing items for the poor as the Army provided the most reliable shelter for both transient homseless and, at one time, battered women and children who needed immediate shelter. And yes, the Army did expect those who availed themselves of the Army's shelter and soup line to attend a short church service as 'bringing people to Christ' as well as attending to their physical needs was the mission of the Army.

Now then. Should government money have been withheld from the YWCA because it has "Christian" in its name? Or from the Salvation Army because they require a church service along with the very real essential services they provided? Is ideology more important than people having shelter, clothing, food?

And if you say okay to the YWCA because it didn't require anything religious and no to the Army because it did, how is that not favoring one religion over another?

Doesn't "no establishment of religion" imply that no religion is favored and no one is either rewarded nor punished by government for what they do or do not believe? Or should the only criteria be based on the services provided by the agency?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

And yes, the Army did expect those who availed themselves of the Army's shelter and soup line to attend a short church service as 'bringing people to Christ"

That is absolutely unacceptable. Proselytizing on tax dollars? Why should anyone be forced to listen to a sermon to get what the government is paying for?

0 Replies

Quote:

A religion does not need organization, rituals or a heirarchy. Consider Adam

Adam had no religion. You need to look up the definition of the word 'religion.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au writes

Quote:

That is absolutely unacceptable. Proselytizing on tax dollars? Why should anyone be forced to listen to a sermon to get what the government is paying for?

The person would be subjected to the sermon whether or not the government paid for it and the person got shelter and/or food and/or clothing and/or transportation to the doctor or whatever he needed. And if two people can be so helped with additional funding, why should the second person be denied such help because YOU object to the sermon?

0 Replies

Your persistence is admirable, Foxfyre, but not your refusal to view the world from someone else's perspective.

Again, I ask: How much choice does a poor person have to accept or reject a sermon when help is being offered? If a man is drowning and I offer to rescue him if he accepts my religion, does he really have a choice?

0 Replies

Apples and oranges D. You're talking about two entirely different things.

If an agency exists to offer food, clothing, shelter, etc. to the needy and the agency holds religious beliefs that require them to witness to the people who come there, the agency is practicing their faith according to their constitutional right to do so. They do not require people to come to them for assistance, and those who do accept the assistance under the agency's terms.

Let's say there are two faith-based agencies. If the government approves Faith-based group #1 who does not require a sermon for a grant and denies Faith-based group #2 who does require a sermon for a grant, they are favoring Faith-based group #1's religious preference over Faith-based group #2. To me that violates the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Group #2 is being punished for what they believe.

For the government to stay completely out of religion while using the talents and structures of existing groups, faith-based or otherwise, to help people, then the criteria should be strictly based on the services provided with no consideration for whatever religious practices are part of the group receiving the grant.

0 Replies

What harm would a little spirituality do for a person down on their luck?

No one is asking anyone to accept anything, merely be exposed to it. Maybe listen some words of encouragement. Maybe find out someone cares about them. Maybe feel a lttle less lonely.

0 Replies

U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know