Clinton Speaks about Bush-

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So, then, WB, what you are saying then is that it is more important to make sure that those passing out food don't allow certain religious beliefs to influence their hiring practices and don't dare mention the name of Jesus or Allah or whomever.

I thought the important thing was making sure they got fed and had their needs met.

While we're at it, we better make sure no Christians take in foster children. Foster parents take state money to care for them and they might dare bring them to church.

The whole idea is to limit government regulation so that the help gets to where it is needed in a more efficient fashion. Current government regulation makes overhead ridiculous and the process as inefficient as possible. I do not believe that government can do it better than relifgious organizations.

Would there be fraud and misuse? I have no doubt. I would dare say that there may be just a bit of that going on in the current way of the government handling things.

Scaeagles, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Separation of church and State- that "little line" is there for a damned good reason. Every word you say only convinces me more how very, very intelligent our Founding Fathers were.

As it stands now, the churches can go and do good deeds relatively easily. I can choose not to give to a church or organization that discriminates , and they are free to discriminate against me or my loved ones, so long as they don't do it on the public dime.

[sleepyjeff]

When did a line in the Constitution deigned to protect religon from the Government get warped to mean just the opposite?

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

When did a line in the Constitution deigned to protect religon from the Government get warped to mean just the opposite?

Many of the early settlers of this country also experienced life in a country that was taken over by religious zealots for a period of time. They knew what it was like to have one ruling religion, and I see that 'little line' as a protection against such a type of government. Tell me, would either of you be so eager to have religion play a larger role in government if that religion was Islam?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Many of the early settlers of this country also experienced life in a country that was taken over by religious zealots for a period of time. They knew what it was like to have one ruling religion, and I see that 'little line' as a protection against such a type of government. Tell me, would either of you be so eager to have religion play a larger role in government if that religion was Islam?

I see your point. I guess to me I have always read it "freedom of religon" not "freedom from religon"....although to some I suppose there is no difference. One of those shoe things I suppose

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I see your point. I guess to me I have always read it "freedom of religon" not "freedom from religon"....although to some I suppose there is no difference. One of those shoe things I suppose

Yes Sleepyjeff! Keep nudging your thoughts in this direction. Because Freedom OF Religion and Freedom FROM Religion are MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE, in fact they are pretty much the exact same thing and they are both necessary! We must be certain that both are guaranteed.

I've never understood those who separate the two, and who, on occasion, tell me that my freedom FROM religion is not included. Really? I thought that personal beliefs were supposed to come from one's deepest moral, intellectual and spiritual convictions. You just can't mandate that one way or the other. In my case, earnest inquiry has led me to conclude that there aren't any gods or skyhooks, and I treasure my right not to participate in the celebration of same. (And no, I don't accept that atheism is a religion. To say it is makes the word religion pretty much meaningless. Though, if it IS a religion, I guess it's protected, eh?)

I couldn't be happier that such a mind-boggling array of churches and sects flourish in this country, and I'm not in the least bothered when politicians allow their own faiths to guide their decisions. I am free to disagree when necessary. As long as they leave the establishment clause alone. That is sacred sacred sacred!

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Yes Sleepyjeff! Keep nudging your thoughts in this direction. Because Freedom OF Religion and Freedom FROM Religion are MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE, in fact they are pretty much the exact same thing and they are both necessary! We must be certain that both are guaranteed.

Wow....at first I was saying who dredged up this old thread....but then I realized who

So long as we agree that "both" includes "of" I guess I can kinda agree with your thoughts here.

[scaeagles]

Well, WB, we are certainly not going to come anything close to agreement. So, I suppose it is time to remove the proverbial brick wall so that both of our foreheads are saved the pain.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, WB, we are certainly not going to come anything close to agreement. So, I suppose it is time to remove the proverbial brick wall so that both of our foreheads are saved the pain.

Hey! I missed this one. You're right, we are not going to agree and there's no point in continuing. (At least I said you were right on this matter!)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I said you were right on this matter

I'm thinking of adding this to my signature line.

[innerSpaceman]

Not all sarcasm is mocking of a particular person. Often it's mocking of the subject matter of the sarcasm. Let's not go getting personal here when there's no need to.