84 replies to this topic

[Morrhigan]

G1223, on Aug 12 2004, 06:27 AM, said:

Sorry Morrhigan.

What was he suppose to say to the country. The speech that so upset you is  a prayer for the people who lost family on 9/11.

FDR ended his famous Dec. 7th Speech with the words "so help me God."

The Shuttle disaster under Regan had a religious ending for the souls of those men and women lost. The recent one also did.

Basically people at a time of death turn to their faith for strength and comfort. I did after my mother's death.

Sad to say when the president is making such a speech he is not saying that your grief for the dead is wrong,but that he is trying to reach us all. Yes everyone knows someone will not be reached that is the part as good people we reach out to those missed and bring them comfort.

If the President was wician and called on the Lord and Lady he would need to explain what he was doing. If he called upon Kali he would need to as well. But that use of the bible told a majority of us that we had to have faith that those who had died were with God and suffered no more.

That was actually comforting to a lot of people.

In my opinion (of course), he should have said something that comforted all of us, not just the ones who shared his religious beliefs. People who aren't Christian actually do find ways to share love and concern, to grieve, offer solace, and honor the dead. So, while you contend that GWB was trying to reach us all, I would argue that either he is incapable of looking past his own religious beliefs enough to embrace every American, or he doesn't think he should have to. Neither one of those things strike me as presidential.

Have other presidents invoked their religious beliefs on occasion? Sure. I wish they'd cut it out, too.

I'm not trying to deny Christians, or anyone else, the right to find comfort where they can. I don't want to belittle what anyone finds comforting. I'd just like for the leader of my country to lead all of us, not just Christians. Is that really too much to ask?

[G1223]

Hambil, on Aug 12 2004, 03:52 PM, said:

Faith based initiatives which don't include Wicca do just that. Not to mention they pervert the intent of the establishment clause and, like the patriot act, subvert my freedoms in ways far more dangerous than an obvious attempt to modify the constitution.

What faith based initiatives? Funding privates schools owned by the catholic church?  Those schools are being given funds to allow students from poor families to send their children to them.  I did not hear of a Wician school existing and if it did it should have equal access to the funding . That is if it applied.


As to the patriot act you mean your rights to do what? You have said your rights are being suppressed in a number of threads.

Is it the right to bank in the US without identifing yourself when you open the account.

Having to have photo ID when boarding an airplane.

Post on the internet comments about actively killing americans or committing crimes. That's been watched since before 9/11.

The fact that the CIA,FBI,NSA,INS & IRS all are required to share certain amounts of data.

The act allows congress to modifiy the law as time goes by to meet the needs of the US.

[QueenTiye]

Hambil, on Aug 12 2004, 11:52 AM, said:

Quote

But he is not working with congress in the making of laws against your faith or anyone's faith.

Faith based initiatives which don't include Wicca do just that. Not to mention they pervert the intent of the establishment clause and, like the patriot act, subvert my freedoms in ways far more dangerous than an obvious attempt to modify the constitution.

Two questions - what faith-based initiatives, and in what way do they exclude wicca?

HM07

[Hambil]

Quote

What faith based initiatives?

http://www.whitehous...alog-index.html
http://www.whitehous...overnment/fbci/

There are over a 150 different programs, each available to I don't even know how many faith-based organizations. It's a long, long ways from being just about private catholic schools.

This from Jim Towey - Director of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives

Colby, from Centralia MO writes:
Do you feel that Pagan faith based groups should be given the same considerations as any other group that seeks aid?

Jim Towey
I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.

http://atheism.about.../b/a/046546.htm

As for the patriot act, you seriously haven't had any threads on this yet? Because I can pull up the text of the act, and present lots of info, but I'd rather not repeat existing arguments in a thread where it will be largely off-topic.

Edited by Hambil, 12 August 2004 - 01:30 PM.

[QueenTiye]

Thank you.  The fact that Jim Towey made a bigotted statement doesn't mean that the adjustment allowing faith-based groups to compete on equal footing are unfair to pagans (or, for that matter, atheist groups).  They merely suggest that Jim Towey should be removed from office.

HM07

[G1223]

Hambil the group in the article. Did they apply? Were they refused? What reasons were given for the refusal? I got halfway through and after the comments of 'He did not say that such groups would accepted'. I got the impression they did not even try. So if I am wrong correct me.

[Hambil]

Handmaiden07, on Aug 12 2004, 06:39 PM, said:

Thank you.  The fact that Jim Towey made a bigotted statement doesn't mean that the adjustment allowing faith-based groups to compete on equal footing are unfair to pagans (or, for that matter, atheist groups).  They merely suggest that Jim Towey should be removed from office.

HM07

But he hasn't been. And so far not one Pagan faith-based group has been approved.

[QueenTiye]

Hambil, on Aug 12 2004, 02:43 PM, said:

Handmaiden07, on Aug 12 2004, 06:39 PM, said:

Thank you.  The fact that Jim Towey made a bigotted statement doesn't mean that the adjustment allowing faith-based groups to compete on equal footing are unfair to pagans (or, for that matter, atheist groups).  They merely suggest that Jim Towey should be removed from office.

HM07

But he hasn't been. And so far not one Pagan faith-based group has been approved.

**That's a problem.**

The ACLU should be contacted, and a civil suit should be filed.  Personally speaking, I LOVE the fact that this measure was approved, and I approve of others like it.  But I only approve if they are going to be fairly applied.

HM07

[G1223]

What were the reasons stated for the denile. I mean if it's facilities or support reason there could be valid claims.

[Hambil]

G1223, on Aug 12 2004, 07:00 PM, said:

What were the reasons stated for the denile. I mean if it's facilities or support reason there could be valid claims.

I can look them up. And there are ACLU lawsuits being filed. But, the reality is, if the mentality and 'mood' of the people making the choices (as set by their leader) is anti-pagan, then the reasons for the denials can't be fully trusted.

Edited by Hambil, 12 August 2004 - 02:07 PM.

[Bad Wolf]

Going back to what HM said about fringe elements, I'd like to ask Hambil and those who agree with him some questions:

1.  Do you blame all Muslims for 9-11?

2.  Do you attribute the conduct of fanatics to an entire belief system?

I'm going to guess that the answer to both of these questions in no (and if I'm wrong then we have another issue and perhaps even a different thread).  If I'm right then don't the same rules apply to Christianity?  Yes there are fanatic Christians. Yes I even believe that our President is one of them.  But that does not make Christianity wrong nor does it make all Christians to blame for the conduct of a few.  Right?

Lil

[Godeskian]

never mind

Edited by Cyberhippie, 12 August 2004 - 05:50 PM.

[Bad Wolf]

^  CH I love you but I want to tear out my hair when you do that!  I WANT to know what you think.  What you think actually matters to me.

Lil

[Hambil]

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 12 2004, 10:33 PM, said:

Going back to what HM said about fringe elements, I'd like to ask Hambil and those who agree with him some questions:

1.  Do you blame all Muslims for 9-11?

2.  Do you attribute the conduct of fanatics to an entire belief system?

I'm going to guess that the answer to both of these questions in no (and if I'm wrong then we have another issue and perhaps even a different thread).  If I'm right then don't the same rules apply to Christianity?  Yes there are fanatic Christians. Yes I even believe that our President is one of them.  But that does not make Christianity wrong nor does it make all Christians to blame for the conduct of a few.  Right?

Lil

I do agree with both those statements.

I guess my response - a little off the cuff here so I might 'flip-flop' later - is:

Religion, among many good things, is also a breeding ground for fanatics. If it (whatever faith in whatever country) can't, or won't self police, then there are those of us who will fight to our dying breaths (figuratively and even literally) to police it. Has religion in this country reached that stage yet? No. But, it's making me uncomfortable, and I'd rather not wait until the figurative dying breath becomes the literal dying breath.

[Hambil]

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 12 2004, 10:50 PM, said:

^  CH I love you but I want to tear out my hair when you do that!  I WANT to know what you think.  What you think actually matters to me.

Lil

I agree!

[Godeskian]

okay Lil, here you go.

Islam, as does Christianity, compells it's followers to go out and convert the heathen, and in the case of Islam, the Qu'Ran specifically allows it's followers to use just about any means necessary to enter the land of the infidel and seize power, and install Sharia law.

Sharia law, which denies rights to women, which makes a mockery of free speech, of fair trial, and of being innocent till proven guilty scares the hell out of me, and it's already the law in half a dozen countries.

and what scares me even more is that despite the fact that 99% of islamics are probably perfectly ordinary people, they have a holy book that permits violence against the non-believer.

it doesn't matter if it will actually screw the pooch, it matters that it *can* screw the pooch somewhere down the line with FULL support of written scripture.

i figured that statement wouldn't be appreciated.

[Bad Wolf]

Hambil, on Aug 12 2004, 03:50 PM, said:

I do agree with both those statements.

I thought you might.

Quote

guess my response - a little off the cuff here so I might 'flip-flop' later - is:

Religion, among many good things, is also a breeding ground for fanatics.

On this we agree. That's one reason why I'm such a big fan of the Establishment Clause and why Bush's (and the platform of the Republican Party for anyone interested) disrespect for it is ALONE enough to cause me not to vote for him or the party.  

Quote

If it (whatever faith in whatever country) can't, or won't self police, then there are those of us who will fight to our dying breaths (figuratively and even literally) to police it.

Here's where we part ways.  Or at least partially we do.  I think that there are extreme circumstances involving things like sacrifice and the like where the government has not only the right but the duty to intervene in the name of saving human life.  That's just one of the prices we pay for living in a society rather than in chaos.  But *generally*, for me, separation of Church and State is the answer.  And for me, this means that religion has no business in politics AND it means that the government has no business in religion.  Hence, the idea of others "policing" religion strikes me wrong.  Now, it may be that I misunderstood what you meant by policing but imo the only way for that to have any teeth is for it to be official which means government involvment.  If I misunderstood then I apologize and I'd ask that you  clarify.

Lil

[Bad Wolf]

Cyberhippie, on Aug 12 2004, 03:54 PM, said:

i figured that statement wouldn't be appreciated.

Let's start with that one first.

Why?  All you're doing is expressing your concerns that the supposedly holy writing of some of these faiths seem to allow for some pretty scary stuff.  I share that concern.

Quote

okay Lil, here you go.

Islam, as does Christianity, compells it's followers to go out and convert the heathen, and in the case of Islam, the Qu'Ran specifically allows it's followers to use just about any means necessary to enter the land of the infidel and seize power, and install Sharia law.

Sharia law, which denies rights to women, which makes a mockery of free speech, of fair trial, and of being innocent till proven guilty scares the hell out of me, and it's already the law in half a dozen countries.

This is why I think separation of church and state is so important CH.  The "clout" of a lot of this would be severely compromised if it weren't accompanied by a large amount of political (and therefore military) power.  The religion is the religion.  Do you advocate governmental interference with religious doctrine and if so, under what circumstances and to what extent?


Lil

[Godeskian]

The problem is Lil, that unlike Christianity, Islam's hold on goverments was never broken.

With the destruction of the papal states and the wholesale disenchantment with church run goverment, Christianity has essentially been given the boot out of goverment.

There are still a dozen or so nations, where Islam IS the state religion, and by en large these are nations that keep showing up on the BBC as places where people get stoned to death for not being virgins, or get mutilated for stealing loaves of bread.

In those cases yes, I would like nothign better than to see all religion abolished from the goverment, and the power of the Islamic church broken the same way Christianity's control over goverments was broken.

Quote

Do you advocate governmental interference with religious doctrine and if so, under what circumstances and to what extent?

Only in the sense of saying 'get the hell out of the goverment'. I don't care what you believe, or who you pray to, i do object to you (that's a generic you, not you, Lil specifically) having ANY say whatsoever over how I live my life.

Quote

Why? All you're doing is expressing your concerns that the supposedly holy writing of some of these faiths seem to allow for some pretty scary stuff. I share that concern.

Because these days, objecting to a religion is seen by a lot fo people as attacking them as people. When I vehemently disagree with the bible or Qu'ran, I am not attacking the people who follow it, i'm disagreeing with the work itself, but I don't feel most people get that distinction and I end up labelled as a hatemonger or a bigot.

At a certain point Lil, i just get so tired of that, that I give up and don't post what I really think, because it's less trouble.

Edited by Cyberhippie, 12 August 2004 - 06:13 PM.

[Hambil]

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 12 2004, 11:00 PM, said:

Quote

If it (whatever faith in whatever country) can't, or won't self police, then there are those of us who will fight to our dying breaths (figuratively and even literally) to police it.

Here's where we part ways.  Or at least partially we do.  I think that there are extreme circumstances involving things like sacrifice and the like where the government has not only the right but the duty to intervene in the name of saving human life.  That's just one of the prices we pay for living in a society rather than in chaos.  But *generally*, for me, separation of Church and State is the answer. <snip> If I misunderstood then I apologize and I'd ask that you  clarify.

Seperation of church and state is what I have been arguing, and what I feel is being violated.

But, it is not the only example - simply the biggest.

'You', and 'I' below refer to 'religion' and 'people like me'

If you create a culture and rules and or lack of rules that allow Priests to abuse children - fix it, or I will.

If you burn books and force your innocent children - who can not choose - to live in ignorance, fix it, or I will.

If you let your children die because you don't believe in anti-biotics - fix it, or I will.

Religion cannot make laws - but it is not exempt from laws.