Setanta wrote:Scrat, you've simply restated an opinion, without providing any supporting evidence that your contention has historical antecedants, that there is a textual basis for your interpretation. That is what i'm asking for, and that is why i began with those quotes, to support my argument by reference to the antecedants for this point of view. As for the contention that government ought not to go into "the business of welfare and charity," i'd like to know what you think the expression "promote the general welfare" from the preamble to the Constitution is supposed to mean. No, i retract that, i don't want to read your exegesis, likely to be tortured, to explain that away. Given that there is no constitutional prohibition upon such works of public charity, if the people vote for it, or vote for those who establish such programs, then the objection looks a great deal to me like quibbling with reality.
See, Setanta, this is why our discussions always devolve into combat. You can't disagree with courtesy, and you attempt to knock down my responses before I can even make them.
Hamilton and Madison wrote EXPLICITLY that "promote the general welfare" meant only through the use of those powers enumerated in the Constitution. (That's an easy one.) Sadly, just as with this issue of religion, you want to pretend that their words meant something they did not, or meant nothing at all. You challenge me to support my point of view, but immediately toss aside anything I offer to do so.
I cited a quote above, yet you pretend I did not, and complain that I don't cite quotes. I respond to you point by point and you complain that I ignore your points and don't respond. What is a reasonable person to do in the face of such irrationality?
As I wrote before, I see nothing in the quotes you offered with which I disagree. I would offer many of them to support my position here. Our problem is not solved by stacking up quotes to see who has the bigger pile if we disagree on what those quotes tell us. You use the phrase "separation of church and state" in a modern sense, in which it is taken to mean a complete separation of the state from any dealings with anything relating to any religion. I take it in its original, historic meaning--AS I UNDERSTAND IT--that of calling for keeping government from establishing a specific religion. I understand that I am out of step with most in this regard, and I'm okay with that.
In his "Rights of Man, Thomas Paine wrote in rebuke of Burke's call for an association between church and state with these words:
Quote:All religions are in their nature mild and benign, and united with principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first, by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting or immoral. Like every thing else, they had their beginning; and they proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How then is it that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant?
It proceeds from the connection which Mr. Burke recommends. By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called, The Church established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth to any parent mother on which it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and destroys.
As I have written before in this discussion and others, it is this mule-animal the 1st amendment seeks to avoid bringing to life in America. The notion that the 1st amendment guarantees us freedom of religion and then instructs government to ostracize religion simply seems to me absurd.
====================
Hazlitt wrote:Scrat, you present a real challenge to anyone who wishes to argue with you in as much as you insist that text means something that it obviously does not. In all honesty, I can only conclude that you are espousing a novel and recently contrived interpretation of the first amendment.
Also, it seems clearly obvious that the religious right organizations lining up to get federal dollars so that they can do secular work are clearly not interested in a purely secular program. Why else would they insist that all their programs be staffed with adherents of their own religion. This can only be because they want to set forth "the one true" religious message, which is their own message. I see this as the establishment of a religion on the part of the government.
I read recently that prisoners in the federal penitentiaries in Illinois who agreed to under go the Charles Coleson, salvation oriented, program of reform, were given several important perks as a reward. These were perks unavailable to other prisoners. Of course, prisoners were flocking to the program eager to get the perks. Is this not the establishment of a religion by the federal government, and is it not showing favoritism based on religion? It's part of the Bush faith based money for religion program.
First you claim that I insist that text means something it does not, but you do not take time to explain how you think this is so, leaving me no way to argue the point. Next, you offer comments that suggest you have no real knowledge of the faith-based initiatives--what groups are actually receiving funds, what they are doing with those funds. You seem to start from the assumption that religion is bad and form your opinions from there. (I start from the assumption that any company awarded a contract will either do the work or catch hell, and don't care whether they are allied with a faith or are not.) Lastly, you make statements about Chuck Colson's prison ministries, but leave out every piece of information that would make the citation meaningful: Is government paying for those ministries, or private money? Are the perks you mention paid for with tax money or private money? Are other programs not allowed in prisons because they are not of the "right" religion? These are questions that--if answered--would show us whether you had a valid complaint, or do not.
