|
Not that Bench Memos is in any way, shape or form politically biased, right? Having said that, the examples given do make a nonsense of the law.Didn't mean to imply they weren't.
Doesn't make the examples any less valid though. Hells, I agree with you on some things too :P
Which only proves my investment in satellite mind control lasers was a good idea. And those fools called me mad.
But jumping to building churchs from allowing a display on public land is a huge jump, a setup of a strawman arguement. My first post about allowing the display did include the only expense to the town would be the temprary use of land others to counter it pointed out that they did not want to spend tax money on my religious beliefs. Sure they are giving up some public land for a short time and you can call that spending public money in a very board way so that is how I responded.
I had no issue with temporary land use -- assuming the extent and "temporary" status were clearly defined and there was some legal block other than your own will that you weren't seizing half the nation until 2096 (your claim you "just wouldn't" is vague enough to be suspect). I also had no issue with Christmas displays, provided there was some legal means other than your own personal judgment to keep them from becoming still greater expenditures. I explained the reasoning why, in a legal sense, these limitations were needed -- namely, because even if Thurgon keeps to a reasonable scale as he claims, if there are no concrete limitations, there's no reason Thurgon II can't shamelessly take advantage, if he so choses.
In reply, you refuse to concede any concrete limitations on land area, duration, or money, and instead claim "straw man." Reading between the lines, I can only assume that's because my concerns are completely correct.
<SNIP>In reply, you refuse to concede any concrete limitations on land area, duration, or money, and instead claim "straw man." Reading between the lines, I can only assume that's because my concerns are completely correct.
It's almost like someone warned you this would happen...
;-)
It's almost like someone warned you this would happen...
Some of us assume that not everyone is an unabashed Dominionist, and most people on the thread support that conclusion. I have never gotten the sense that Court Jester wanted unfettered access to all public land and money, for example.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Personally I don't give a hoot what they were. A lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and most of them believed that only property owning free men should be able to vote. Does that mean that our government should based on the ideals of slavery, misogyny, and elitism? Times change, ethical standards change, our knowledge of the world and of our fellow humans advances.
If you don't think that the separation of church and state is one of the finest features of the American governmental system, take a good look at Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and see the results of the opposite. Or, if you don't think that a theocratic Christian nation is capable of the same levels of atrocity take a look in your history books and read about the Inquisition, witch hunts, and the wars and anti heresy campaigns between Protestant and Catholic.
Unfortunately, this belies a poor understanding of the issues of voting and slavery at the time. What would you do with ten million slaves after you delcred independence? A lot of founding fathers abhored slavery, but maintained (and treated well) their slaves because cutting them loose would be as inhumane as keepgin them. They couldn't read and depended as much on their 'owners' as much as their 'owners' depended on them.
I know this is a sensitive issue, but not every slave owner was a cruel despot working his 'property' to the bone.A lot of them looked forward to a day when slaves wouldn't be realivty anymore. And there's some truth to the fact that slaves in America were often better off here than left in Africa, where their own people captured and sold them.
Don't respond that this is a defense of slavery. It isnot. It is a point to illustrate that the common charicature of 'white man beating slave to death' is false. Slavery was a problem in this country before its independence, and there are many writings where slave-owners mused at how to best set them free without that being a death sentence.
Unfortunately, this belies a poor understanding of the issues of voting and slavery at the time. What would you do with ten million slaves after you delcred independence? A lot of founding fathers abhored slavery, but maintained (and treated well) their slaves because cutting them loose would be as inhumane as keepgin them. They couldn't read and depended as much on their 'owners' as much as their 'owners' depended on them.
I know this is a sensitive issue, but not every slave owner was a cruel despot working his 'property' to the bone.A lot of them looked forward to a day when slaves wouldn't be realivty anymore. And there's some truth to the fact that slaves in America were often better off here than left in Africa, where their own people captured and sold them.
Don't respond that this is a defense of slavery. It isnot. It is a point to illustrate that the common charicature of 'white man beating slave to death' is false. Slavery was a problem in this country before its independence, and there are many writings where slave-owners mused at how to best set them free without that being a death sentence.
What you said made sense. Similar styles also pre-existed during the height of the Julio-Claudian reign of the Roman Empire and even when the Babylonians & Assyrians sacked Israel/Judaea followed by the Persians. There were a number of enslaved individuals (and not necessarily according to the color of their skin) that was treated much more favorably and fairly than the stereotypes we normally think of pre-Civil War. And in some instances, these slaves sometimes earn their freedom and become actual citizens of the empire.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What you said made sense. Similar styles also pre-existed during the height of the Julio-Claudian reign of the Roman Empire and even when the Babylonians & Assyrians sacked Israel/Judaea followed by the Persians. There were a number of enslaved individuals (and not necessarily according to the color of their skin) that was treated much more favorably and fairly than the stereotypes we normally think of pre-Civil War. And in some instances, these slaves sometimes earn their freedom and become actual citizens of the empire.Unfortunately, this belies a poor understanding of the issues of voting and slavery at the time. What would you do with ten million slaves after you delcred independence? A lot of founding fathers abhored slavery, but maintained (and treated well) their slaves because cutting them loose would be as inhumane as keepgin them. They couldn't read and depended as much on their 'owners' as much as their 'owners' depended on them.
I know this is a sensitive issue, but not every slave owner was a cruel despot working his 'property' to the bone.A lot of them looked forward to a day when slaves wouldn't be realivty anymore. And there's some truth to the fact that slaves in America were often better off here than left in Africa, where their own people captured and sold them.
Don't respond that this is a defense of slavery. It isnot. It is a point to illustrate that the common charicature of 'white man beating slave to death' is false. Slavery was a problem in this country before its independence, and there are many writings where slave-owners mused at how to best set them free without that being a death sentence.
Let's also not forget Dred Scott
Let's also not forget Dred Scott
Right. Thanks!
Some of us assume that not everyone is an unabashed Dominionist, and most people on the thread support that conclusion. I have never gotten the sense that Court Jester wanted unfettered access to all public land and money, for example.
I'm aware that it isn't everyone; I just think continuing to respond to those who have demonstrated they cannot be reasoned with is a frustrating waste of time.
I admit, though, my recent posts are largely just to keep poking at said individuals, because it's so darn easy (and fun). I'll cut that out; it's disrespectful to what you're trying to do.
EDIT: BTW, thanks for teaching me a new word ("dominionist").
Personally I don't give a hoot what they were. A lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and most of them believed that only property owning free men should be able to vote. Does that mean that our government should based on the ideals of slavery, misogyny, and elitism? Times change, ethical standards change, our knowledge of the world and of our fellow humans advances.
If you don't think that the separation of church and state is one of the finest features of the American governmental system, take a good look at Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and see the results of the opposite. Or, if you don't think that a theocratic Christian nation is capable of the same levels of atrocity take a look in your history books and read about the Inquisition, witch hunts, and the wars and anti heresy campaigns between Protestant and Catholic.
Unfortunately, this belies a poor understanding of the issues of voting and slavery at the time. What would you do with ten million slaves after you delcred independence? A lot of founding fathers abhored slavery, but maintained (and treated well) their slaves because cutting them loose would be as inhumane as keepgin them. They couldn't read and depended as much on their 'owners' as much as their 'owners' depended on them.
I know this is a sensitive issue, but not every slave owner was a cruel despot working his 'property' to the bone.A lot of them looked forward to a day when slaves wouldn't be realivty anymore. And there's some truth to the fact that slaves in America were often better off here than left in Africa, where their own people captured and sold them.
Don't respond that this is a defense of slavery. It isnot. It is a point to illustrate that the common charicature of 'white man beating slave to death' is false. Slavery was a problem in this country before its independence, and there are many writings where slave-owners mused at how to best set them free without that being a death sentence.
Will saves a failin'!
Yes, this is a sensitive issue. However, the cariacture you mentioned is NOT false. It is a simple fact of what happens in any culture that has a class or caste whose lives simply do not matter. A handful of noble musings do not remove that this practice did occur. It might behoove your point to research when, where and how this stereotype came about.
Life in america better than life in africa? Maybe, but keep in mind that your point of view and mine are set in one place- America. There were numerous social and religious aspects to slavery in Africa that more resembled Roman and Assyrian society than it did in American society, which removed many, if not all, of the checks and balances in these cultures.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Part 2: The fact that Christian men built a nation and founded it on Christian principle, while maintaining freedom from state religion is a testament to why this country is NOT like an Islamic 'republic'. We don't have religious despotism precisely because we have an intrinsic freedom from being told what to believe.
Now, that is not the same as what some pursue in this country, which is the bleaching of faith or religion of our culture. Those who pursue tha are necessarily saying 'you may not enjoy your faith because it offends me', which is often rooted in 'i am enlightened and i have no patience for your fiction'.
I believe celebrrating our religious heritage is important to making sure we don't lose our national identitiy. You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate that Christian founders felt their faith could survive in a free market of ideas, or that our nation still sets the standard for political and religious freedom.
And I think it's worth pointing out that the less faith we tolerate in our country, the more open to other kinds of demogoguery we are. It isn't like the Church is the only segment of our society that can wag the dog.
Some of us assume that not everyone is an unabashed Dominionist, and most people on the thread support that conclusion. I have never gotten the sense that Court Jester wanted unfettered access to all public land and money, for example.I'm aware that it isn't everyone; I just think continuing to respond to those who have demonstrated they cannot be reasoned with is a frustrating waste of time.
I admit, though, my recent posts are largely just to keep poking at said individuals, because it's so darn easy (and fun). I'll cut that out; it's disrespectful to what you're trying to do.
I guess it all depends on what is considered 'reason' and who you're trying to reason with. At most points, it eventually becomes an exercise in a priori futility and really not worth the time. I realize that a lot of people may not want to concede logical arguments publicly out of pride and that's okay to a degree. They just need to discover ideas and answers at their own time and pace when they're ready. That goes for both sides of the debate spectrum. At this point, I'm more concerned about finding where we do agree and work from that point forward. For me, I admit being a secular atheist, but a philosophical agnostic. I'm like the state of Missouri and can't make decisions on faith alone. I have enough trouble trying to have faith in people who end up stabbing me in the back later. :P
EDIT: BTW, thanks for teaching me a new word ("dominionist").
Dominionists are scary. I'd prefer them to be raptured outta here so there's less headaches. ;) Only if the rapture actually exists (and that's not even a debate I want to bother with).
<SNIP> The fact that Christian men built a nation and founded it on Christian principle <SNIP>
Can someone please shoot this fallacy D-E-A-D?
Edit: MUST RESIST...FURTHER POSTS...ON RELIGION...
|
|
Part 2: The fact that Christian men built a nation and founded it on Christian principle, while maintaining freedom from state religion is a testament to why this country is NOT like an Islamic 'republic'. We don't have religious despotism precisely because we have an intrinsic freedom from being told what to believe.
Now, that is not the same as what some pursue in this country, which is the bleaching of faith or religion of our culture. Those who pursue tha are necessarily saying 'you may not enjoy your faith because it offends me', which is often rooted in 'i am enlightened and i have no patience for your fiction'.
I believe celebrrating our religious heritage is important to making sure we don't lose our national identitiy. You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate that Christian founders felt their faith could survive in a free market of ideas, or that our nation still sets the standard for political and religious freedom.
And I think it's worth pointing out that the less faith we tolerate in our country, the more open to other kinds of demogoguery we are. It isn't like the Church is the only segment of our society that can wag the dog.
If your religion can survive in a free-market place of ideas, why do you need the government to support it?
You can celebrate your religion as much as you like. That's not the issue. The issue is when you demand the government force your religion on the people who don't agree (which is what the Founding Fathers [including the non-Christian ones!] warned against and why the Constitution prohibited establishing a religion). "Because it's in [insert name of Holy Book as appropriate] does not make a good and sufficient basis for the laws of a country that is not a theocracy.
EDIT: Could you please point out where these mysterious people who want to prevent you from celebrating your religion in a private capacity are? I keep hearing about them, but they appear to be as elusive as a Paladin in service of the Thrunes. I have heard people say they don't want the government to push any one religion, but that's a very different thing to what you're claiming. And if you just mean atheists making snide remarks about your faith, could I perhaps point you to some of the vile charicatures good all American Christians perpetuate on other religions?
|
The founders knew that a new goverment would need to be put in place once they declared independence from the Crown. Their choices was to choose from one of the many tried models of governtment from around the world that had been devised by man. Try to come up with a government of thier own devise, or turn to Gods word in the Bible. God tells Samuel how he wants his people to govern themselves and the founding fathers followed the model set forth in the scripture. So the basis of conservatism is the original intent of the founders wich was institutions and traditions inspired by Gods teachings directly taken from the BibleLest anyone think that silence is acceptance, let me dissent vigorously. Quote Samuel as to the model that this scriptural government is supposed to follow, and then show me how the Constitution in any way resembles that model (except that it allows for a government). Otherwise, I've got a story about how the Framers actually based our government on a collection of Hindu proverbs, or based it on Santa's reindeer.
Warning This will be a long post ..... please take the time to read all of it. Especially the two paragraphs listed right under the signers of the Mayflower Compact
I think I may have made a mistake on my above statement about Samuel being the person that God spoke too about law. I read a great deal on the laws that had been given by God lastnight in the Bible. I assumed there would be only a few paragraphs but it seems there are several chapters in the old testament on this subject alot more than I can read at one sitting I will elaborate on my findings once I have thouroughly read the scripture on these matters. But I did do some research on the founding fathers and what they said about christianity's role in the government. I also researched The Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution.... Here are my findings.
The words separation of church and state don't appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote.
Some misguided people try to claim that this quote from Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists establishes the "separation of church and state" that we now have today:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".
The first problem with that assertion is that this quote is not from an official government document. The second is that it was Jefferson's original intent that this meant that the church was to be protected from the government, not the reverse
December 22, 1802 Oration at Plymouth
John Quincy Adams stated that
"the Mayflower Compact is perhaps the only instance in human history of that positive, original social compact, which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government." They unknowingly laid the foundation for America's democratic constitution. The pilgrims' pursuit of religious freedom, as well as freedom in all areas oftheir lives, created an atmosphere and environment where democracy could flourish. Without the pilgrims, America would not be the democratic nation it is today.
The Mayflower Compact reads as followed
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
SIGNERS OF THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT
John Carver Richard Warren John Turner Edmon Margeson
William Bradford John Howland Francis Eaton Peter Brown
Edward Winslow Stephen Hopkins James Chilton Richard Britteridge
William Brewster Edward Tilly John Crackston George Soule
Isaac Allerton John Tilly John Billington Richard Clarke
Myles Standish Francis Cooke Moses Fletcher Richard Gardiner
John Alden Thomas Rogers John Goodman John Allerton
Samuel Fuller Thomas Tinker Degory Priest Thomas English
Christopher Martin John Rigdale Thomas Williams Edward Doty
William Mullins Edward Fuller Gilbert Winslow Edward Leister
William White
The Library of Congress web site has a page titled Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89. Among the documents listed are the first English language Bible (Aitken's Bible) that Congress officially sanctioned for use by American citizens on September 12, 1782.
The October 11, 1782 congressional proclamation that declared Thanksgiving Day a day the nation was to give thanks to God for a variety of blessings.
John Langdon, a Congregationalist, was a founder and the first president of the New Hampshire Bible Society. While Governor of New Hampshire he issued an official Procalamation for a General Thanksgiving in which he said:
"The munificent Father of Mercies, and Sovereign Disposer of Events, having been graciously pleased to relieve the United States of America from the Calamities of a long and dangerous war: through the whole course of which, he continued to smile on the Labours of our Husbandmen, thereby preventing Famine (the most inseparable Companion of War) from entering our Borders; - eventually restored to us the blessings of Peace, on Terms advantageous and honourable...."
Rufus King, an Episcopalian, was a member of the Continental Congress, aide to General Sullivan in the War for Independence, minister to England, and a U.S. Senator. At a convention considering amendments to the New York Constitution in 1821 he said:
"[In o]ur laws...by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system - their morals were destitute of its powerful sanction while their oaths neither awakened the hopes nor fears which a belief in Christianity inspires."
Nathaniel Gorham, a Congregationalist, helped write the Massachusett's Constitution, which required:
"Any person chosen governor, or lieutenant-governor, cousellor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, take, make, and subscribe the following declaration, viz. 'I, ____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.'"
Such a religious test was Constitutional until 1947 when the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution by making the First Amendment apply to the states, not just the federal government.
Roger Sherman, a Congregationalist, was the only Founder to sign the Articles of Association, the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. He was a member of the committee that drafted the Declaration and the First Amendment. He also drafted the creed of the White Haven Congregationalist church, which he attended. Sherman, John Adams, and George Wythe drafted the instructions to American embassy to Roman Catholic Canada in 1776, which said:
"You are further to declare that we hold sacred the rights of conscience, and may promise to the whole people, solemnly in our name, the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion. And...that all civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination."
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian, son of Anglican (Episcopalian) minister Samuel Johnson and president of Columbia University from 1787-1800. In his remarks to the first graduating class at Columbia after the War for Independence he said:
"You this day, gentlemen, assume new characters, enter into new relations, and consequently incur new duties. You have, by the favor of Providence and the attention of your friends, received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your country...."
"Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct."
"Imprint deep upon your minds the principles of piety towards God, and a reverence and fear of His holy name. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and its consummation is everlasting felicity. Possess yourselves of just and elevated notions of the Divine character, attributes, and administration, and of the end and dignity of your own immortal nature as it stands related to Him."
"Reflect deeply and often upon those relations. Remember that it is in God you live and move and have your being, - that in the language of David He is about your bed and about your path and spieth out all your ways, - that there is not a thought in your hearts, nor a word upon your tongues, but lo! He knoweth them altogether, and that he will one day call you to a strict account for all your conduct in this mortal life."
"Remember, too, that you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God. Adore Jehovah, therefore, as your God and your Judge. Love, fear, and serve Him as your Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Acquaint yourselves with Him in His word and holy ordinances."
"Make Him your friend and protector and your felicity is secured both here and hereafter. And with respect to particular duties to Him, it is your happiness that you are well assured that he best serves his Maker, who does most good to his country and to mankind."
Alexander Hamilton, an Episcopalian, not only signed the Constitution but wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers with Madison and Jay. He believed agreement on the Constitution could not have been obtained "without the finger of God." Although he agreed to duel with Burr, he told others that his duty as a Christian would prevent him from shooting and in his dying words claimed "a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ." When he was killed he was planning the creation of "The Christian Constituional Society," as he explained in an 1802 letter to James Bayard:
"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."
William Paterson, a Presbyterian, was a state attorney general, Governor of New Jersey, and a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The town of Paterson, New Jersey was named in his honor. As a Supreme Court Justice, a newspaper account of his visit to the federal court in Portsmouth, New Hampshire shows he opened court in this fashion:
"On Monday last the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hon. Judge Paterson presided. After the Jury were impaneled, the Judge delivered a most eloquent and appropriate charge....Religion and morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good government, good order, and good laws, for 'when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice [Proberbs 29:2].'... After the [jury] charge was delivered, the Rev. Mr. Alden addressed the Throne of Grace in an excellent and well adapted prayer."
William Livingston, a Presbyterian, was a delegate to both Continental Congresses, the first Governor of New Jersey, and a Brigadier General in the militia. He published articles defending Christianity in The Independent Reflector and offered this resolution in Congress on March 16, 1776, passed without objection:
"We earnestly recommend that Friday, the 17th day of May next, be observed by the colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer, that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life appease God's righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ obtain His pardon and forgiveness."
David Brearly, an Episcopalian, served as a colonel in the War for Independence, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and was appointed to the federal bench by George Washington.
He was a warden of St. Michael's Church, a delegate to the Episcopal General Convention in 1786, and helped compile the Protestant Episcopal Prayer Book.
Benjamin Franklin, "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?
"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787 Constitutional Convention
James Wilson, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court
In 1776 William Blount, a Presbyterian, helped draft the Tennessee Constitution which said:
Article VIII, Section II: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.
Article XI, Section IV: That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.
The quotation shows the Founders did not consider a belief in God to be a "religious test," which in the history of England in the century before our Constitution meant allegiance to a particular denomination.
Equally important, modern political scientists now understand that man's rights arise from the prohibition's of God's moral rules, and the branch of modern mathematics known as Game Theory has now proven that it is not rational to follow God's rules unless one believes in a God who can see into the hearts and in the existence of eternal rewards and punishments. Evidently our Founders understood these ideas innately, though our own science has only recently been able to demonstrate them rigorously.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I don't suggest that abuses didn't occur. It was still slavery. Slavery (as we understand it) is still evil. No disagreement of any kind there.
The point is that we aren't a nation founded by slave owners. We are a nation founded by free men, who largely envisioned the end of slavery. The nobility owned slaves before the nation was formed, and some, perhaps many, of them tried to end slavery, and didn't live to see it in their lifetimes. In no way is slavery excused by my post, and in no way do I maintain that American slavery was without abuse, excess, cruelty, etc. The point is not to excuse slaves, the point is to make you aware that many (I don't pretend all) of our founders sought a way to end slavery without eliminating a workforce and sentencing ten million people to death.
The final point I wanted to make is that owning property before voting is an important, intentional consideration, not some random elitist maneuver to keep the rich rich and the poor screwed. If you wanted a say in how our country functioned, you had to have some skin in the game. Would you prefer the fledgling government be screwed up by an influx of illiterate immigrants? or class of folk who owened no porperty but maintained themselves solely by remaining in the political class? of course not. Owning propery also meant you had something to defend, ensuring your loyalties with the union, fragile as it was. It would do no good to have voters who didn't have a stake voting to capitulate and gumming up the attempt at independence. Finally, owning peoperty meant you had at least some experience working with building your wealth, relating to government, and managing the affairs of others. Today, if you promise a slacker that he doesn't have to work again if he'll vote for you, that slacker probably will vote for you. And thus demagoguery is easier. The union would not have survived if some measure of protecting the goals of the founders hadn't been taken t the time.
And again, this is not to advocate that we keep anyone from voting. Times now are different, but as much as a lot of people think. The point was to protect the union and allow it to gain some steam, not to coldly lock a segment of society out of the process.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
If your religion can survive in a free-market place of ideas, why do you need the government to support it?
You can celebrate your religion as much as you like. That's not the issue. The issue is when you demand the government force your religion on the people who don't agree (which is what the Founding Fathers [including the non-Christian ones!] warned against and why the Constitution prohibited establishing a religion). "Because it's in [insert name of Holy Book as appropriate] does not make a good and sufficient basis for the laws of a country that is not a theocracy.
EDIT: Could you please point out where these mysterious people who want to prevent you from celebrating your religion in a private capacity are?
No one advocates the government support a religion. That is a mischaracterization. To sue the state in an attempt to force it to scrub the ten commandments of its walls is not a serious claim that the government 'supports' one religion over another. It's a part of our heritage, it's a component of the beliefs of millions of our citizens, and for a small group of citizens to get their blood up over a traditional religious display smacks of a greater level of intolerance than we Christians are so often accused of. Absolutely no one ever goes to an atheist and says 'you have to observe our state religion this Christmas'. There isn't a state religion, and efforts to call a small display, commonly taken for granted by everyone else, some sort of offensive sign of religious oligarchy should be dismissed as an unwarranted cry for attention. It isn't like over 80% of America isn't sleeping in til football every Sunday. you can hardly argue there are consequences for not observing some kind of state religion. If there were, I would be standing right next to you in opposition to same.
I never once made a remark about people trying to stop me from exercising my faith in private. The only person who stops me from being a more committed Christian in my private life is me. Moreover, I view that claim as something of a strawman. I have never heard any Christian, ever, talk about an army of atheists trying to get Christians to stop worshipping in private. My point is solely that some who demand tolerance and freedom form the opinions of others have precious little ability to display it. I don't include anyone here in that assesment.
|
|
If your religion can survive in a free-market place of ideas, why do you need the government to support it?
You can celebrate your religion as much as you like. That's not the issue. The issue is when you demand the government force your religion on the people who don't agree (which is what the Founding Fathers [including the non-Christian ones!] warned against and why the Constitution prohibited establishing a religion). "Because it's in [insert name of Holy Book as appropriate] does not make a good and sufficient basis for the laws of a country that is not a theocracy.
EDIT: Could you please point out where these mysterious people who want to prevent you from celebrating your religion in a private capacity are?
No one advocates the government support a religion. That is a mischaracterization. To sue the state in an attempt to force it to scrub the ten commandments of its walls is not a serious claim that the government 'supports' one religion over another. It's a part of our heritage, it's a component of the beliefs of millions of our citizens, and for a small group of citizens to get their blood up over a traditional religious display smacks of a greater level of intolerance than we Christians are so often accused of. Absolutely no one ever goes to an atheist and says 'you have to observe our state religion this Christmas'. There isn't a state religion, and efforts to call a small display, commonly taken for granted by everyone else, some sort of offensive sign of religious oligarchy should be dismissed as an unwarranted cry for attention. It isn't like over 80% of America isn't sleeping in til football every Sunday. you can hardly argue there are consequences for not observing some kind of state religion. If there were, I would be standing right next to you in opposition to same.
I never once made a remark about people trying to stop me from exercising my faith in private. The only person who stops me from being a more committed Christian in my private life is me....
Steven,
This is the line in your quote that resulted in the edit, the really problem part bolded by me for emphasis:Now, that is not the same as what some pursue in this country, which is the bleaching of faith or religion of our culture. Those who pursue tha are necessarily saying 'you may not enjoy your faith because it offends me', which is often rooted in 'i am enlightened and i have no patience for your fiction'.
That does look like you're saying people are trying to remove religion from the country, not the government. You can enjoy your faith as much as you like, but I fail to see what that has to do with asking the government to stop giving one religion a privileged place.
As to the Ten Commandments, what does it have to do with the law? Only two or three of the commandments are instituted as laws and they're there because they make sense, not because of the Commandments. If people wanted the Haditha prominently displayed in the courthouse would you accept that? If not, then that's exactly the position of the people who want the Commandments out. By having them there, it gives a massive boost to the idea that "this country is for Christians only". And you may not have heard that sentiment, but I have.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
<SNIP> The fact that Christian men built a nation and founded it on Christian principle <SNIP>Can someone please shoot this fallacy D-E-A-D?
Edit: MUST RESIST...FURTHER POSTS...ON RELIGION...
No one can because that would not be accurate. Of 50-60 founding fathers, the three quoted most often on matters of religion are the most dubious. So our public schools give us the three most skeptical voices on matters of faith from our founders. The vast majority of them were accomplished men of faith, including pastors and theologians. Fortunately, I would say many of them were committed Christians and not merely 'religious people'. It is that freedom of faith that enabled them to craft a government that rewarded acheivement and offered complete freedom to worhsip or not worship.
Even the desit claim encounters assertions of revisionist history. As we only hear from a few founding fathers on a regular basis, and we are often only exposed to quotations that cast them in a scholarly, agnostic light, it's tough to conclude much besides this deist claim. But even a brief examinations of the writings of those three, in context and ove time, shows that they were men who explored matters of faith in a very persnal way. They were not really dismissive of the idea of God in human history, as some suggest. They did find compelling arguments, and they did have an open dialogue about the nature of God and His role in human history (shouldn't we all?). I would add they were not easily dismissive of critics of their beliefs, either. But that doesn't mean a large number of them weren't committed to the gospelthey felt was responsible for the formation of a greater, freer nation than the world had ever seen.
Warning This will be a long post ..... please take the time to read all of it. Especially the two paragraphs listed right under the signers of the Mayflower Compact
Ison,
Thank you for the reply. I indeed read all of it with interest, and I commend your scholarship, but at the end I cannot share your conclusions, for a number of reasons I'll summarize here.1. When one discusses the "Founding Fathers" of the U.S., typically one is referring to the men who had a part in its independence from Britain and/or establishment as a nation. The Pilgrims, while an interesting group historically, do not in any way speak for the laws on which the U.S. is founded. Your comments on the signatories of the Constitution are therefore of considerably more interest with regards to the topic at hand.
2. The word "God" is not a Christian trademark. Deists use the term to describe their "Great Architect of the Universe," for example, who bears little resemblance to the hands-on God of the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, any mention of "God" does not automatically imply "The Christian God, which is more important than the rest of what's being said." In the same vein, use of a time convention such as "A.D." does not automatically imply that Christ is the subject of conversation.
3. Your quotes are accurate... as far as they go. However, for the most part you quote only Christian founders, and ignore any opposing points of view -- of which there are ample examples, some of which I included upthread. Further, when quoting Jefferson, for example, you then come to the conclusion that his "wall of separation" was one-way, which is often shown in further reading of his letters (and of Madison's and Franklin's and Adam's) to be incorrect.
4. You are 100% correct in pointing out that the Framers' correspondence -- including that of James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") are not the official law of the land. Neither, however, is the Mayflower Compact, which you nonetheless cite as evidence. In looking for evidence of the Framers' thoughts regarding the Constitution, however, it would seem that their correspondence would outweigh the thoughts of religious pilgrims from the past, who had no part in its authorship. In so doing, we should look at all of the correspondence, then, not merely that which explicitly mentions God (see points 2 and 3).
5. This brings us to the Constitution iteself. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find in your reply any evidence at all that the Constitution is based directly on Scripture, which was your original thesis. Indeed, showing how the Constitution was directly based on Scripture --rather than on universally-accepted principles of government -- was what I had hoped to see demonstrated, and again don't. You do indeed show, correctly, that a number of the signatories (though hardly all) were devout men who believed they were doing God's will, but that's a far cry from demonstrating that the document itself uses a governmental model derived from Scripture.
6. Your conclusions regarding game theory are incorrect. Game theory can actually demonstrate that, in an open-ended game scenario with multiple players in which past "rounds" can be reviewed, what appears to be altruism, combined with punishment and then forgiveness of compact breakers, is an optimal strategy. This requires only multiple players, not a "God who can see into hearts and minds."
7. This last one is a minor nitpick, but the words "separation of church and state," as you correctly quote from the letter to the Danbury Baptists, predate Leo Pfiffer by some 150 years. In other words, he did not "invent" them, but rather recalled attention to them. See also Jefferson's and Madison's other correspondence, with regards to whether that wall was intended as 1-way (as you assert) or 2-way (as I do).
|
|
But the scout are religious and as such the members should be as well.Duty is not a strictly religious concept. So what about the cub scouts is explicitly religious, other than a single word in the oath? The BSA web page says "The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness." In what way is Christianity implicit in that? Or is it your (incorrect) opinion that only Christians have character? Or maybe fitness?
Or is it just that Christians feel all threatened if there are atheists around, and can't deal with it, or feel the need to exclude them? If the latter, then they shouldn't get the discount rate for building space, in my opinion. If you'd intentionally hurt what you claim as your own organization through sheer bigotry, then you ought to pay full price.
I was proud to be a cub scout, when there was no religious litmus test. If you want to add one, in my opinion they wouldn't be cub scouts anymore; they'd be Jesus scouts.
I am sorry that this is touching a nerve.
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in its Scouting program, and prohibit "avowed" homosexuals from leadership roles in its Scouting program. BSA has denied or revoked the membership of youths and adults for violating these prohibitions. These policies are considered by some to be unjust.The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law.The organization's legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards. In recent years, the policy disputes have led to litigation over the terms under which the BSA can access governmental resources including public lands.
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence 27 had Seminary Degrees. The first English Language Bible ever printed in the United States was printed in 1782 by the Congreess of the United States of America for the use of education in schools.
Again, the fact that many signatories were seminary-trained in no way proves the document itself was written using a Scriptural model. The Bible is a great work of literature, and a good choice for reading comprehension and Jewish tribal history. I'd pick it as a reference myself, for use in education.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
You can celebrate your religion as much as you like. That's not the issue. The issue is when you demand the government force your religion on the people who don't agree (which is what the Founding Fathers [including the non-Christian ones!] warned against and why the Constitution prohibited establishing a religion). "Because it's in [insert name of Holy Book as appropriate] does not make a good and sufficient basis for the laws of a country that is not a theocracy.
I appreciate your reply. My sentence might be taken to say people are trying to interfere with my private exercise of my faith, but that isn't neither what I said nor what I meant. I don't use the word private at all, and to assume that's what I meant is to choose to take it that way.
Rather, my point is that it is not enforcing a state religion to have anativity scene on the lawn of city hall, or a relief of the ten commandments maintained at the Supreme Court. Those things are art and culture, and important to a wide number (and variety) of people. People celebrate Christmas (as an example - I realize this conversation is not about Christmas) in many ways, but any effort to rob the community of this display or that carol on the fragile basis that it establishes a state religion is merely offensive posturing. No one is shackled for not honoring the nativity scene. No one's taxes or any other part of their lives is any different because of that nativity scene, or becaue of the lyrics to a Christmas carol, or because a government office decides to wish people a merry Christmas instead of a happy holiday. Nothing comes of it. And if one person can feel so isolated in such an immersive, oppressive Christian society that they can't sleep at night worrying about the nativity scenes in city hall, they need to seek psychiatric help or maybe take something for their narcissism.
We in America sometimes lack perspective. Some scream and yell because the Southern Baptist convention won't allow women to be pastors, without ever once asking why that is, or without considering that here, in America, you don't have to have a clitorectomy. Or we criticize a country that send misisonaries out to convert lost sould to Jesus, while ignoring the number of people that would not be fed or clothed or literate without that same effort. Our Christian heritage does a lot of good here and abroad, and yet we still have the freedom to worship, to worship diferently, to mock or blaspheme, or to debate as friends. That is reall freedom of religion, and I am grateful we have it.
But we do have it. And no effort to ban a crucifix from a city office, or protest the national day of prayer is going to offer better freedom of religion than we have right now.
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in its Scouting program...
Wow. I'm glad they waived those policies, in my case. OK, say they're universally applied now -- as you correctly point out, that's their right as a private organization. Why, then, should my tax dollars support a private organization that specifically excludes me from participation?
That does look like you're saying people are trying to remove religion from the country, not the government. You can enjoy your faith as much as you like, but I fail to see what that has to do with asking the government to stop giving one religion a privileged place.
Well of course all groups have some fringe elements. There are folks some times called "militant atheists".
Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong disagreement with religion - it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful"
Of course no group should be judged solely on those most extreme members. But we should not assume that there does not exist anyone anywhere that doesn't want to remove religion from existence.
I wonder what effect that would have on my beloved games, if such people were successful. "No Divine casters at all! That is religion!" As a gamer, I have to oppose such. ;)
There's more than three in there, and several of the statements, should one choose to read them, are pretty darn specific in nearly any context. In any event, it's certainly enough to make a reasonable person question the "Christian nation" claims.
Not that evidence will change many made-up minds...
|
|
That does look like you're saying people are trying to remove religion from the country, not the government. You can enjoy your faith as much as you like, but I fail to see what that has to do with asking the government to stop giving one religion a privileged place.Well of course all groups have some fringe elements. There are folks some times called "militant atheists".
Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong disagreement with religion - it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful"Of course no group should be judged solely on those most extreme members. But we should not assume that there does not exist anyone anywhere that doesn't want to remove religion from existence.
I wonder what effect that would have on my beloved games, if such people were successful. "No Divine casters at all! That is religion!" As a gamer, I have to oppose such. ;)
And I'd agree with you. Those people are nuts and as bad as the nutcases on the fringes of all religions.
Oh, look at that. Satan's buying ice skates.
<SNIP>Why, then, should my tax dollars support a private organization that specifically excludes me from participation?
*cue tumbleweed*
Oh, look at that. Satan's buying ice skates.
No, that's Krampus, he's just relaxing after birching so many this holiday season.
Well of course all groups have some fringe elements. There are folks some times called "militant atheists".
Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong disagreement with religion - it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful"Of course no group should be judged solely on those most extreme members. But we should not assume that there does not exist anyone anywhere that doesn't want to remove religion from existence.
I wonder what effect that would have on my beloved games, if such people were successful. "No Divine casters at all! That is religion!" As a gamer, I have to oppose such. ;)
As a former militant atheist I have to say I would have back handed a person who said that. I don’t believe most militant atheists would have a problem with divine casting in a D&D game as long as everyone at the table agreed that the game they are all playing is fiction. I think most militant atheists would be happy to see all religion looked upon the same way as the deities in role playing games.
I believe celebrrating our religious heritage is important to making sure we don't lose our national identitiy. You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate that Christian founders felt their faith could survive in a free market of ideas, or that our nation still sets the standard for political and religious freedom.
Say, you don't get out much do you?
I know that sounds harsh, but seriously, you really think the US is the pinnacle of political and religious freedom?How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?
Say, you don't get out much do you?
I know that sounds harsh, but seriously, you really think the US is the pinnacle of political and religious freedom?
How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?
I have only one question for you, GG:
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!
;-)
|
|
Say, you don't get out much do you?
I know that sounds harsh, but seriously, you really think the US is the pinnacle of political and religious freedom?
How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?I have only one question for you, GG:
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!
;-)
Because he's a no-good pinko commie Scandanavian euroliberal atheo-evolutionist, of course. I think that includes all the buzzwords. ;-)
Because he's a no-good pinko commie Scandanavian euroliberal atheo-evolutionist, of course. I think that includes all the buzzwords.
You forgot about "death panels." Get it right, you socialist!
<SNIP>Why, then, should my tax dollars support a private organization that specifically excludes me from participation?*cue tumbleweed*
Anyone?...
Anyone?...Bueller?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?
you mean besides that people are still allowed to vote their conscience and that religion may have a factor in that? The Government can't ahve a religious test. John and Jane voter can.
Or that most of the people still vote (wrongly or rightly) for the two large parties?
Oh sorry, that pesky human free will keeps popping up doesn't it?
(Not to mention the majority voted for a Jewish VP in 2000)
How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?you mean besides that people are still allowed to vote their conscience and that religion may have a factor in that? The Government can't ahve a religious test. John and Jane voter can.
Or that most of the people still vote (wrongly or rightly) for the two large parties?
Oh sorry, that pesky human free will keeps popping up doesn't it?
(Not to mention the majority voted for a Jewish VP in 2000)
Which just goes to prove that there really isn't such freedom. The illusion of such freedom, yes, but not actual freedom.
Also, how is that the pinnacle of political and religious freedom as opposed to e.g. many European countries?
Say, you don't get out much do you?
I know that sounds harsh, but seriously, you really think the US is the pinnacle of political and religious freedom?
How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?I have only one question for you, GG:
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!
;-)
For the same reasons Zombieneighbours does. ;-)
For the same reason people want to use my tax money for abortion?
Hey, don't look at me -- I've got no horse in that race, so to speak. But it certainly wouldn't be my preference -- don't people give money to Planned Parenthood? Seems like they could fund it, instead of you. Doesn't in any way invalidate my question, though -- two wrongs, and all that.
Either you're against unfair religious-based (or antireligious-biased) taxation, or you're not. If you dislike taxes for abortion, one would think you'd be equally against taxes for Christians-only organizations... unless the underlying position is not about unfair taxation, but rather a conviction that the government should enshrine Christianity by funding it with taxes, to the exclusion of other beliefs (or lack thereof).
EDIT: You, Matt, don't personally strike me as having the latter motivation. Not so for one or two others on the thread, however.
For the same reason people want to use my tax money for abortion?Hey, don't look at me -- I've got no horse in that race, so to speak. But it certainly wouldn't be my preference -- don't people give money to Planned Parenthood? Seems like they could fund it, instead of you. Doesn't in any way invalidate my question, though -- two wrongs, and all that.
Why should gays have to pay taxes that fund a military that they can not serve in (openly)? We all pay for lots of things that either we won't, don't want to, or can not use. I pay tax dollars for government food programs that I can't recieve aid from (nobody is sending my a food stamp card) currently.
|
|
Some of us assume that not everyone is an unabashed Dominionist, and most people on the thread support that conclusion. I have never gotten the sense that Court Jester wanted unfettered access to all public land and money, for example.I'm aware that it isn't everyone; I just think continuing to respond to those who have demonstrated they cannot be reasoned with is a frustrating waste of time.
I admit, though, my recent posts are largely just to keep poking at said individuals, because it's so darn easy (and fun). I'll cut that out; it's disrespectful to what you're trying to do.
EDIT: BTW, thanks for teaching me a new word ("dominionist").
I assume you speak of me.
Well, I get tired of people (that would be you) who seem to think wealth, the generation of wealth, and opportunity are zero sum games. Opportunity exists, but it seems it is better to convice whole segments of the popuation that they are unsuccessful because someone is holding them down. Not because they have kids they cannot afford, choose not to go to school or bother to open a book when they do, or any of a host of poor personal decisions that aren't anyone outside of the decision maker's fault. Do I feel for kids whose parents had them even though they couldn't afford to? Yep. Do I think continuing with the insane policies that have wasted billions (perhaps, over the last 70 years trillions) of dollars is a good idea. Oh. Hell. No.
Keep doing what we have been doing. It doesn't work, and, by definition, it makes us insane.
Oh, and people that seem to think that taking money out of my pocket by the initiation and threat of force isn't somehow theft. If the only way you can collect is by threatening people with dire consequences if they decline, you're no better than a gangster.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For the same reason people want to use my tax money for abortion?<SNIP>Why, then, should my tax dollars support a private organization that specifically excludes me from participation?*cue tumbleweed*
And you can use a wiki-link, good for you! Funny how you can't answer my point.
While I've said elesewhere my oposition to several taxes to pay for the functions beyond those limited to the constitution, I'd point out this actually loops back to my arguements about government recognized same sex unions. The Government can choose to promote certain functions in the goal of stability. Marriage licenses are one example, promoting organizations of social value (such as the Scouts) are another. Indeed, organizations that oppose the Scouts run smack into the irony that they're forcing their agenda on another, in the name of 'protecting' society from the other group's agenda.
(and again, this is a State vs Federal issue. I've less an issue if Ohio leases land to the scouts for a dollar than the Federal Government. Though I can't find where the Feds should have any land to lease anyway)
Indeed, if the government can seize my property because I have the unfortunate instance of dying, why can't they give that money to the Scouts?
Why should gays have to pay taxes that fund a military that they can not serve in (openly)?
Good question. I'd say they should be able to serve openly then, or at least get a tax cut. See point above about tax bias, vs. two wrongs.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For the same reason people want to use my tax money for abortion?Hey, don't look at me -- I've got no horse in that race, so to speak. But it certainly wouldn't be my preference -- don't people give money to Planned Parenthood? Seems like they could fund it, instead of you. Doesn't in any way invalidate my question, though -- two wrongs, and all that.
Either you're against unfair religious-based (or antireligious-biased) taxation, or you're not. If you dislike taxes for abortion, one would think you'd be equally against taxes for Christians-only organizations... unless the underlying position is not about unfair taxation, but rather a conviction that the government should enshrine Christianity by funding it with taxes, to the exclusion of other beliefs (or lack thereof).
EDIT: You, Matt, don't personally strike me as having the latter motivation. Not so for one or two others on the thread, however.
Thank you, I didn't think you meant me anyway.
I wonder what you think of my reply though ;-)
While I've said elesewhere my oposition to several taxes to pay for the functions beyond those limited to the constitution, I'd point out this actually loops back to my arguements about government recognized same sex unions. The Government can choose to promote certain functions in the goal of stability. Marriage licenses are one example, promoting organizations of social value (such as the Scouts) are another. Indeed, organizations that oppose the Scouts run smack into the irony that they're forcing their agenda on another, in the name of 'protecting' society from the other group's agenda.
Indeed, if the government can seize my property because I have the unfortunate instance of dying, why can't they give that money to the Scouts?
I should point out that your examples are starting to show a systematic bias, equating "Christian" with "good for society" and ignoring any organizations or issues that do not follow that narrow (and incorrect) definition. If you provided one counterexample, it would bolster your point quite a bit; as it is, leaving out any non-Christian things "worthy of funding" makes you seem like your agenda isn't about the good of society as a whole, but only of Christians in particular.