Posted on 11/27/2004 2:50:54 PM PST by wagglebee
I also think our positions are very close, but the rhetoric we use is important and I understand we may continue to have our differences. I respect your positions, though. And like you, I am adamant about allowing Christianity in our public arena. Christmas, memorial crosses, 10 commandment icons, civic prayer, all of those things should be welcomed. I think it's important to be careful about how we refer to those religious practices, however. I'm clearly more worried about that than most here on FR.
The question at hand has several facets. On a "conservative forum," the interesting ones beyond mere advocacy are where we might learn from our differences. I think rhetoric is important, and I think those who would manipulate the faithful know this.
On the issue of federal, state, county, and city funding for Christian outreaches (e.g. faith based ministries) I haven't made up my mind. I think involving faith in ministry to the poor is a very positive thing, and I think the secular approach of the government is aseptic and unfeeling; it is also easy to corrupt. Maybe what I really want is an option to donate a portion of one's taxes to an approved charity list. But the Islamic outreaches will sneak in and snag their share; they also get into our prison systems this way. So will the Wiccan, and the other non-western belief systems which I find to be superstitious and backward.
That only defers the problem. The feds would be able to determine who gets on and off the list.
Constitutionally (speaking of using language the right way), the federal government has no power to be involved in charity at all, either religious or secular.
It matters to a-theists. If they come from God, then they are "bad" and must be eliminated.
And the funny thing is that every religion in the world has the same basic rules.
Those rules are a manual from the manufacturer.
Try again, I said recent history.
I don't think the gov't should be involved in the "charity" business. I refer to gov't "charity" as "coercive philanthropy". I think all charity should be non-gov't, and no one should be forced. However, if gov't is to be involved, religion should not be used as a factor for exclusion from such programs.
Ping
I could just say that Allah and Karma would be different in that situation because they are false religions.
But leaving that aside for the moment, if our government were to fund Muslim "mentoring" programs (do Muslims "mentor"?) then that is a legal decision. If I would accept Christian mentoring, then I would have to accept Muslim mentoring. I wouldn't sue to stop it. I might work against it because I would worry about the results of raising children in the Islamic faith, but I wouldn't see it as illegal.
It seems that you have only selected one small slice of the problem to focus on. One can only speculate why.
Don't get paranoid...just being specific to the matter at hand. I'm a strict constitutionalist.
I'm not paranoid at all. I just always wonder why people look past the big issues to the peripheral ones.
Separation of church and state? Fine. Let all Christian charitable organizations from here on in give aid only to Christians. And Jewish charitable organizations also.
Let's see how many Muslim and pagan and third world people in this country step up to give aid to EVERYONE, like Christian organizations like the Salvation Army and others do.
I hope none of these bastards ever come looking for aid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.