0
   

Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 11:00 pm
I wish someone would test it, Dys. But with the Congress and the Supreme Court bending over and smiling who knows what the outcome would be?
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 11:05 pm
PDiddie wrote:
That was laborious, turgid, obtuse, and unconvincing, tw.

I suppose attempting--and failing--to discredit the source would be all one could do in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting one's sacredly held opinion, in the hopes of revalidating it.

In any event, good effort. Still a strikeout.

At least I do more than just copy and paste the thoughts of others here.

But your string of adjectives aside, are you claiming that my position is not factually accurate, or that the conclusion I draw from this "journalist"'s blatant misrepresentation doesn't hold up in your view? Have you even bothered to check any of this jerk's so-called facts, or is it your practice to assume that if you see it in print it must be true? I think my point is quite clear, whether you agree with it or do not. What exactly is your point?
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 11:20 pm
Your argument carries little weight, dys.

There is no requirement for the Governmental workers to espouse the belief system of those organizations who will be receiving funds, in fact, since such funds will be distributed to mosques, synagogues, and churches, to find ONE worker who SHARES ALL belief systems of the recipients of the funds would be kind of fun, but alas, unsuccessful.

The fact remains that these institutions and organizations have delivery systems in place that will distribute essentials far less expensively than government is apparently lost on those who just a few threads over were willing to let the ends justify the means, oh, but not here.

It is always very telling when seemingly intelligent people show an unnatural fear of something that they don't even believe in.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 11:25 pm
maxsdadeo wrote:
Your argument carries little weight, dys.

There is no requirement for the Governmental workers to espouse the belief system of those organizations who will be receiving funds, in fact, since such funds will be distributed to mosques, synagogues, and churches, to find ONE worker who SHARES ALL belief systems of the recipients of the funds would be kind of fun, but alas, unsuccessful.

The fact remains that these institutions and organizations have delivery systems in place that will distribute essentials far less expensively than government is apparently lost on those who just a few threads over were willing to let the ends justify the means, oh, but not here.

It is always very telling when seemingly intelligent people show an unnatural fear of something that they don't even believe in.

So much wisdom, for one so young! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 11:27 pm
Straight dope from Texas on GWBush's faith based initiatives. c.i.
http://austin.about.com/library/weekly/aa012100e.htm
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 12:25 am
from your site, (well done, c.i., far less judgemental than I expected! Cool )

Quote:
Allow faith-based organziations to compete for state contracts to provide welfare services.
Exempt from state licensing and regulation all non-medical, faith-based alcohol and drug treatment programs that rely exclusively on faith to change lives.
Permit child care facilities that meet or exceed state standards to be accredited by private sector entities rather than requiring them to be licensed and regulated by the state.


My goodness!!

This man must be stopped!!!

Uh, what is it about these simple straightforward proposals that has the godless among you in such a fervor?

(and please don't misconstrue the adjective, I say "godless" in the nicest possible way! :wink: )
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 01:24 am
max, about.com can be useful. I like to read their product reviews (which I sometimes disagree with), and their financial articles are often informative. Just be aware they will offer you more than ample opportunity to "Save Money Now! ". How much you save is up to you Mr. Green

One of the strongest of my objections to The faith Based Initiative is the exemption of Faith Based Entities from regulation by civil authority. I see no Constitutional basis to hold any entity, religious or otherwise, exempt from the laws of the nation.

Of course, I'm not altogether comfortable with blanketly exempting religious organizations from tax liability either. The physical realproperty and buildings of the church, the collection plate, the bakesale or raffle, the revenue from the rental of meeting facilities, even an industry or service operated to provide jobs to the disadvantaged, the winery or bakeshop of a monastery, are all cool. Don't tax that. A chain of motels, or a car dealership are other matters entirely. If they are purely commercial enterprises, they should be subject to all the requirements of civil commerce.

If Religion wants to operate in The Public Sector, it should be required to comply with Public Laws and Regulations as may exist and apply, without special provision or exemption. Equal Treatment Under The Law means what it says.

Well, not really, I know. But it should, damnit.



timber
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 02:20 am
timber - I agree with a lot of your most recent comments, but want to question this:

Quote:
One of the strongest of my objections to The faith Based Initiative is the exemption of Faith Based Entities from regulation by civil authority.

To what specific extent are these entities exempted from regulation? Surely not from all forms of regulation. It would also seem there are some real religious-freedom related reasons to exempt them from some regulations. Give me more on your point here, if you will.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 05:48 am
tres - there is a reference to the exemption in maxsdadeo's quote from the c.i.'s site reference.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 07:24 am
timber- I would go even farther. Why should a church NOT pay property taxes, or taxes from the revenue from rental property? It seems to me that it would be far more equitable if the church were taxed at the same rate as other non-profit institutions!

There are nonreligious institutions who provide good works, only they are of a secular nature. THEY are obliged to pay taxes on their properties. Why not churches? If the churches want to enjoy the governmental monetary advantages of non-sectarian organizations, why not have them assume some of the financial responsibilities?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 07:48 am
Quote:
It is always very telling when seemingly intelligent people show an unnatural fear of something that they don't even believe in.[/quote[/quote]]wow looks like i have moved up several notches, your esteemed valuation makes my heart atwitter, maxsdadeo now joins the ranks of several others here in the ability to judge others sans ability or knowledge. kinda like a blind faith in self righteousness.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 08:50 am
Dys, I know I don't need to tell you this, but I do need to post it now and then as a reminder to the beleaguered intelligentsia that those who post personal attacks, make snide remarks, shout and grunt, do not own the truth, have a lease on it, or (in some cases) even recognize it when it sneaks up and nudges them!!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 08:55 am
Let's put a traditionalist Mennonite into the White House. There shouldn't be any problem, as he is just a faith-holder who ought to be expected to express his personal faith, like anyone else.

Perhaps we'll see an appointment to Trade and Commerce of a well-bearded fellow who has written previously of the Sabbath, and how all economic activity on that day ought not to be supported by government.

Perhaps a team of like-minded folks (a president surely can be justified in choosing like-minded people for positions of support around him) in the Defence Department. They might be a fine group of men who've worked together for a long time and who advocate values dear to their and the new president's heart. They announce a new policy of NEVER pre-emptive military action, and suggest that from now on military action of any sort is to be deeply questioned, as war is a fundamental evil. They suggest that the Pentaon budget be reduced by ten percent per year, for nine years, and the saved funds be transferred over to a new agency whose job is to help the blind of the world.

New dress codes for the White House are noted by the press. No one wears makeup any more.

A bill is forwarded in Congress, at White House suggestion, that government funding to charities at home, or to foreign aid agencies, be directed away from any institution which supports dancing.

Just a faith stance. Quite appropriately influencing policy.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 09:05 am
Blatham:

Quote:
Perhaps we'll see an appointment to Trade and Commerce of a well-bearded fellow who has written previously of the Sabbath, and how all economic activity on that day ought not to be supported by government.


I can remember the "blue laws" where many businesses could not open on Sunday. Thankfully, we have gotten beyond that infringement of individual rights.

No one is preventing the religious from refraining from shopping on their Sabbath. Even so, to this day I cannot buy a bottle of wine at the super market until after 1 PM on Sunday.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 09:11 am
You got me there, Blatham. I'd vote for a Mennonite!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 09:12 am
pheonix: still have blue laws in many states like colorado, cant buy wine at any time on sunday nor a car/boat etc, kinda silly if you think about it.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 09:18 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Blatham:

Quote:
Perhaps we'll see an appointment to Trade and Commerce of a well-bearded fellow who has written previously of the Sabbath, and how all economic activity on that day ought not to be supported by government.


I can remember the "blue laws" where many businesses could not open on Sunday. Thankfully, we have gotten beyond that infringement of individual rights.

No one is preventing the religious from refraining from shopping on their Sabbath. Even so, to this day I cannot buy a bottle of wine at the super market until after 1 PM on Sunday.


I can't buy a bottle of wine any where on sunday - except between thanksgiving and christmas. Is that a weird law or what!?!?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 09:24 am
littlek- I think that the blue laws are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I remember that when I lived in NY, you could not buy wine in super markets. In Florida you can.

That Thankgiving/Christmas law is a pip!
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 09:59 am
blatham - If we did elect a Menonite, I would deal with the plausibility/utility of the policies he attempted to implement. I would not attack his faith.
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 10:28 am
Quote:
maxsdadeo now joins the ranks of several others here in the ability to judge others sans ability or knowledge


To appropriately reply, I would ask you to clarify the above for me, dys.

Thanks for your indulgence, and excuse my obtuseness.

But from my reading, it can be interpreted at least two ways.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 12:02:41