Why Bush threatens secularism

Washington Times ^ | April 14, 2005 | Julia Duin

[swilhelm73]

The extreme left can't tolerate law and it can't tolerate morality. Christian moralists at the extreme will make any claims they like and base them on esoteric Biblical references. Neither side is capable of governing a free republic which bases its law on the fundamental belief that personal convictions have greater weight than the state's expression of others' beliefs. Neither extreme deserves the trust and confidence of the people.

This country was founded by people who would today be called "Christian moralists at the extreme".

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. -- George Washington

[risk]

Your rhetoric is superb, but you're just glossing over the fact that the Faith Based Ministries program gives money to mosques. That gives money to Islamic organizations. I don't like it. To me, it illustrates why there is a problem with this program. Be my guest and go on record supporting the federal funding of Islam in this country (even in such limited terms), but I will criticize you and the Whitehouse for it.

[MNnice]

Those at the extremes enjoy the greatest leverage. Mechanics 101.

[Aria]

Yes, see my tag line. Impossible to describe how upset I am by this.
The thing about these "what a woman wants to do with her own body" people is that they ALWAYS conveniently ignore that there is ANOTHER body involved...their own baby. How women can go against their own special place in the universe, to bring another person into this world, is sooo far beyond anything I can understand. I'm so happy my own mother wasn't so selfish!

[MNnice]

To a conservative, the abortion issue is a matter of life and death. To a liberal, the abortion issue is a matter of convenience.

[FreeReign]

...Faith Based Ministries program gives money to mosques. That gives money to Islamic organizations. I don't like it. To me, it illustrates why there is a problem with this program.

There are certain passages in the Koran I find offensive. There are certain things I find offensive about what some secular organizations advocate.

If you believe that the federal government shouldn't subsidize any form of charity then I wouldn't disagree with you on that. If you believe that the federal government should subsidize secular-based charity work but not all religious-based charity work then I disagree with you.

Be my guest and go on record supporting the federal funding of Islam in this country (even in such limited terms), but I will criticize you and the Whitehouse for it.

There is no federal funding of Islam. The following passage says it all.

whitehouse.gov |Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Providers | Excerpt:In fact, faith-based organizations have every right to hold, express and practice their deepest convictions, so long as any inherently religious and worship-centered activities are separate, voluntary, and privately funded.

Be my guest and go on record showing that you don't understand the above White House statement. I will criticize you for.

[Aria]

You are right of course, murder for convenience, selfishness. Birth control I can understand, abortion I can't. To me Terri was just an extension of abortion...sort of a post abortion...another inconvenient life "aborted".

[risk]

I think your positions are easy to discount. You argue that federal dollars issued to mosques are not beneficial to Islamic organizations in this country. That's false right on its face. How do you know that every dollar will go to "Islamic basketball," or "Ramadan period English lessons?" You don't. In fact, money given to mosques for any reason will benefit them in ways that will make Islam stronger in America. I don't want that, and even if you do, I will take a strong position against my tax dollars being used in any way that could benefit Islam here. Islam is free to flourish on its own, assuming we don't encourage a lot more Islamic people to immigrate, but it doesn't need my tax dollars to help it along.

[Raycpa]

Nowhere in any of our state constitutions or our federal constitution does it declare that we are a Judeo-Christian nation,

You do realize that some original state's constitutions required that representatives were regular attending Christians, don't you?

[FreeReign]

I think your positions are easy to discount. You argue that federal dollars issued to mosques are not beneficial to Islamic organizations in this country. That's false right on its face. How do you know that every dollar will go to "Islamic basketball," or "Ramadan period English lessons?" You don't.

The policy clearly states that any "religious and worship-centered activities are separate, voluntary, and privately funded."

Could there be some dollars that go to religious activity -- including Islamic activity -- instead of direct charity benefit? I don't know. I can't guarantee that there isn't. But there could also be some dollars that got to secular organizations and secular activities such as the advocation of statism.

The point is if you feel there is that much corruption, then shutdown all government funding of charities. Don't single out any charity for corruption without any evidence.

whitehouse.gov |Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Providers | Excerpt:In fact, faith-based organizations have every right to hold, express and practice their deepest convictions, so long as any inherently religious and worship-centered activities are separate, voluntary, and privately funded.

You think that it is easy to discount the above statement. I think that it is hard to discount the above statement and I think that it's even harder to selectively single out some organizations and not others when discounting the above statemnt.

Go figure.

[risk]

Yes, and some precluded Catholics (see the Know-Nothing movement). The most important founding fathers felt that Virginia was the model. They couldn't influence all of them, nor could their views of slavery be held consistent. In other words, the federal constitution was best, and the others were either close to it, or were open to criticism as failing to meet its standards.

[risk]

Organization X is Islamic. Organization X claims it's doing activity Y. It asks for Z dollars to support activity Y.

1. Organization X is getting money. That strengthens it.
2. Organization X can shuffle money it used to spend on activity Y to other activities.

People are free to draw their own conclusions.

[Raycpa]

How do you know that every dollar will go to "Islamic basketball," or "Ramadan period English lessons?"

Simple. They spend as much or more on the program than the gov't funds. Its not rocket science. In fact, all gov't funding as similar strings attached and they are monitored.

Using your test, how can we be sure the money for roads are not ending up in the pocket of a Muslim who will spend it on preaching Islam?

You create a straw dog designed to appeal to the fear of bigots rather than to beat instead of a substantive argument against.

[Raycpa]

You are claiming that the reason for eliminating the constitutional requirement for christians from a federal constitution had nothing to do with the various states different denominations?

[risk]

That argument is absurd. First of all, the organization is getting money because it is religious; Islam qualifies. A road construction company run by Islamic people doesn't qualify as a non-religious, non-charity. Second, charity is much harder to track than roadwork. Finally, you say I'm appealing to bigotry when we've illustrated time and time again on this forum that very few Islamic organizations are free from anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. I think you're simply defending the party when the party has gone out of bounds with its president leading the way.

[risk]

No. I'm saying that in the Federalist papers and other writings of the most prominent federal constitution's contributors, Virginia was considered to be the most ideal. Why? Because it placed the most articulate limitations on government power to sponsor and support religions by sect or dogma.

[Raycpa]

1. Organization X is getting money. That strengthens it. 2. Organization X can shuffle money it used to spend on activity Y to other activities. People are free to draw their own conclusions.

You just established a reason for the elimination of every government program, including social security and medicare.

In fact, I think I have to agree. We cannot trust the money on any program will be spent for its designated purpose so therefore we must end all government funding of all programs.

[risk]

You just established a reason for the elimination of every government program, including social security and medicare.

That's really absurd. Are you claiming that the FA/22 is being designed and developed by an Islamic charity? In any case, good night!

[Raycpa]

First of all, the organization is getting money because it is religious;

Your objection has nothing to do with why the money is being given, only its destination or its use.

Islam qualifies. A road construction company run by Islamic people doesn't qualify as a non-religious, non-charity.

Neither does funding a program run by a religious group for a non-religious purpose. Let me make it easier for you. Lets assume the local chapter of the Islams wish to build a road using unemployed's. Lets say the gov't thinks this is great. Lets assume that the gov;t funds it. You think its not right because they are run by muslims. Is that bigoted?

But your argument isn't the arguing against the Second, charity is much harder to track than roadwork.

I'm a cpa. There is no difference in tracking cash uses by charity or by company. Its quite simple.

Finally, you say I'm appealing to bigotry when we've illustrated time and time again on this forum that very few Islamic organizations are free from anti-semitism and anti-Americanism.

So what. We are a nation that allows freedom of thought.

I think you're simply defending the party when the party has gone out of bounds with its president leading the way.

You are free to think that.

[Raycpa]

But your original argument was that Christianity didn't play a role in ANY state or federal constitution. You know admit your error?