Protestantism

» redback - An election year....

In response to An election year.... posted by Migisi:

It's interesting to read a continuing debate over what the US really means within its constitution and amendments... therefore, to me, what the resolution really means in relation to its recognition of Islam as "...one of the great religions of the world..."

Incidentally, I don't recall reading of the US commitment, even if not legally binding, here in a faraway land. It may have made it to a paper I read but I don't recall any media attention to it.

Assuming Christianity is up there somewhere, what does the USA mean by 'great religion'? And can I read between the lines that the USA believes not all religions are equal?

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - George W. Bush

In response to Establishment of Religion posted by BrianTubbs:
.
It is perfectly plain that they did not want our government to take the slippery slide to provide esteem and support for any ESTABLISHMENT of religion.
.
Once that slope would be entered, we would be on our way to the destruction of our free society. THAT is why we have the First Amendment.
.
Cut it any way you like.
.
George W. Bush has circumvented a way around the Constitution with his OFFICIALIZED RESPECT for FAITH BASED CHARITIES which are the ESTABLISHMENTS of religion.
.
That WILL be brought to an end.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - George W. Bush

In response to George W. Bush posted by pink101:

George W. Bush has circumvented a way around the Constitution with his OFFICIALIZED RESPECT for FAITH BASED CHARITIES which are the ESTABLISHMENTS of religion.

Technically, Alcoholics Anonymous could be considered a faith-based charity.

I think the government should support those initiatives that WORK. If a faith-based initiative does a better job of reforming drug addicts than a fully secular entity, then the faith-based entity deserves support. Period.

And the Founding Fathers would have NO problem with that.

If the First Congress, Pink, printed Bible (at taxpayer expense) for the Indians and encouraged missionaries (incl medical missionaries) to the Indians - I doubt that they'd have a problem with faith-based charity help today.

And, the First Congress was the SAME Congress that sent the First Amendment (incl its establishment clause) to the states.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - George W. Bush

In response to George W. Bush posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I take Faith-based to be an euphemism for religious.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Faith-based, religious, etc.

In response to George W. Bush posted by pink101:

I don't believe the government should fund organizations that are exclusively religious and committed to evangelism. The government shouldn't interfere with these orgs either. The govt should be completely hands off with organizations like that.

HOWEVER...there are other organizations that have religious undertones or overtones that nevertheless have feed the hungry, house the homeless, provide job training assistance, etc. And some of these orgs are only 'religious' to a limited degree - i.e, they affirm the existence of God and the importance of having a personal faith. And that's as far as some of them go.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Faith-based, religious, etc.

In response to Faith-based, religious, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:

.
The Seventh Day Adventist Church is growing in our area.
.
They have been able to obtain a dominating facility in a central location with a large sign that proclaims it is a center where persons can get substantial aid. An acquaintance has informed me that they ship goods all over the country for charitable purposes.
.
I do not know it for a fact; but, it seems as though they would never be able to perform such a large service without government aid as a faith based charity.
.
Organized charity is big business in America.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Faith-based, religious, etc.

In response to Faith-based, religious, etc. posted by pink101:

I'm going to kick into my Ron Paul mode for a second, but...

Better to have non-profit organizations and even (in some cases) for-profit organizations do the bulk of charity work and aid work in America than the government. The government's job (in this area) should be to look at the Big Picture, identify the gaps in service provision, and then take steps (through tax incentives, financial assistance) to find the best private organizations (preferably non-profit) to fill those gaps.

And, of course, through it all, the government should do what it can through education, the tax system, regulations, etc. to REWARD hard work, entrepreneurship, and such - so that we encourage people to improve their lives and better their situation.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Faith-based, religious, etc.

In response to Faith-based, religious, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Better to have non-profit organizations and even (in some cases) for-profit organizations do the bulk of charity work and aid work in America than the government.
.
It sure looks as though what you're saying there would be correct, doesn't it?
.
But, I can tell you from personal experience about the Urban League and the United Way and all their associated charities.
.
You're living in a make believe world, Brian, when it comes to thinking that non-profits are organized for good in America.
.
I can go into great detail about how non-profits are a major problem for society.
.
By the way, are you familiar with the move in America to privatize public safety?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - An election year....

In response to An election year.... posted by redback:
.
It's interesting to read a continuing debate over what the US really means within its constitution and amendments...
.
Even more interesting to me are the Supreme Court Justices' opinion papers - and how they arrived at them over time. I compare them to a Board of Rabbis' interpretations of the Bible. The final word on most questions on interpretation is that not every one agrees.
.
It may have made it to a paper I read but I don't recall any media attention to it.
.
Nor do I remember any announcement for or congressional discussion on either resolution (Christian/Islam). If there was, surely someone here would've posted on it. Guess I should tune in to CSPAN more often.
.
Assuming Christianity is up there somewhere, what does the USA mean by 'great religion'?
.
It does leave an open question on what they intended by 'great'. Great - in the number of adherents? Great in substance? Great in doctrine?
.
And can I read between the lines that the USA believes not all religions are equal?
.
Comparing the Christian/Christmas and the Islam/Ramadan resolutions, I see a significant difference in tone. The Christian resolution has a positive focus: religious doctrine - specifically "..God's redemption, mercy, and Grace..", and the "..Jesus Christ, the Son of God..". The Islam resolution has a negative focue: 9-11 terrorist attacks, Muslim extremists, and commends Muslims who've condemned violence. God or Mohammed aren't mentioned at all. It only states that Ramadan is a month for spiritual renewal. A vague reference to doctrine, at best.
.
There's no question in my mind that the US Congress does not see all religions as equal. Never has, and never will.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Faith-based, religious, etc.

In response to Faith-based, religious, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The government's job (in this area) should be to look at the Big Picture, identify the gaps in service provision, and then take steps (through tax incentives, financial assistance) to find the best private organizations (preferably non-profit) to fill those gaps.
.
Once a nonprofit accepts government funding - "tax incentives and financial assistance" - the government controls the org. The gov giveth ($), the gov taketh away (independence). I guess this $/dependence relationship would be okay if money was the sole purpose for the org's existance.
.
The government is NOT famous for finding the 'best' orgs or corps to fill gaps. The government IS noted for nepotism and political patronage in its selection process.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds