Prejudice against the religious

[brien]

So, is religion declining in effect? I don't think so, what with all the spending from government certain religious initiatives get in complete disregard of the seperation of church and state.

Society in general, I would agree that religion plays a very important role in the social fabric of the American society. Whether it is a disregard of Church and State is a matter for the SCOTUS. It seems, as in your allsuion to FBO's and government support, it is an accepted policy that has not been found in violation of the Constitution. I have to take that at face value.

I think this is because FBO's accept money from the government and not the other way around. Since FBO's are on the receiving end, what power do they hold over the government? However, the government does hold power over the FBO because they seek the funding to do the social work that is being done by so many secular organizations today. You did see the stat that over 2/3rds of the elderly homes are operated by FBO's. What shall we do, pull the plug?

I am completely in favor of funding privately owned social welfare organizations, and if that involves FBO's, so be it, as long as it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. So far, I know of no case where it has been found in violation, so until there is, I have to think it legal.

"But, I resent the influence that religious zealots have on society, and this causes a considerable anger that helps feed this bias. Clearly, I need to work on practicing a degree of initial patience, when I encounter those who are burdened with excessive religious belief."

I think this is known in the USA as tolerance and a celebration of diversity. To be tolerant of the RR is no more and no less deserving than of any other group in America.

there have been examples of public schools breaching the seperation between religion and education that is supposed to exist in such areas.

Maybe so, but government schools can't teach religious dogma. They would lose their certification if they persisted to do it.

what with all the spending from government certain religious initiatives get in complete disregard of the seperation of church and state.

If this were true, we would see an increase in the cases of violations of the 1st Amendment. Where are they?

As far as J Bush's religious prison, I will look into and comment later.
__________________

[brien]

Here is the prison on the database: Lawtey Correctional Institution -- Fl Dept. of Corrections

Lets look at it.

Faith- and Character-Based Correctional Initiative The Faith- and Character-Based Correctional Initiative is a bold and innovative effort to reduce recidivism and disciplinary infractions in correctional institutions by offering character-based programming in a positive environment to inmates committed to inner transformation. Without regard to religion, this initiative offers inmates a variety of activities and classes (both religious and secular) focused on personal growth and character development. Without additional cost to the state, this initiative employs residential clustering to concentrate program offerings among like-minded inmates, utilizes mentors and provides an open public forum for community volunteers interested in making a difference in inmates' lives. Volunteer programming is rich with positive reinforcement designed to help inmates take well-defined steps toward mature and responsible living. The exciting news is this young initiative is already working. As an example, we are starting to see substantially lower disciplinary rates

.

I don't see this as a violation of the 1st Amendment because it is a voluntary, not a mandatory, program in the prison.

[brien]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Anti gay marriage amendments Faith based initiatives Appointing anti-abortion judges What? Other than ordering that idiot judge to remove the 10Cs, what? Teaching religion in public schools has been forbidden for quite some time. What statistics can you provide to show that the government is making less references to Christianity now, than 10 years ago?

Anti gay marriage amendments Faith based initiatives Appointing anti-abortion judges

I have asked you 3 times how marriage is linked to religion and you don' t answer me.

FBO's; I have gone into in another reply.

Anti abortion judges are a good point because even though they remain anti abortion personally, they will not vote against Roe vs Wade. Abortion is still legal.

What? Other than ordering that idiot judge to remove the 10Cs, what?

Read my other responses.

What statistics can you provide to show that the government is making less references to Christianity now, than 10 years ago

None. I don't have to because teaching religious dogma in government schools is clearly against the law. The government can make all of the references it cares to with regard to any religion so long as it remains firmly behind the 1st Amendment.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Brien I have asked you 3 times how marriage is linked to religion and you don' t answer me.

I did not realize you were being serious.

Opposition to gay marriage is linked to religion. Do you dispute this?

FBO's; I have gone into in another reply.

This is not about whether or not it is ok for an FBO to receive government support. This is about whether Faith Based Initiatives was acceptable. There should be no effort to single out religious organizations for support, in one direction or the other. Charities should get support based on the quality of work they do.

It is also not about government control of FBOs. Do you deny that religious influence caused the government to pursue faith based initiatives?

Anti abortion judges are a good point because even though they remain anti abortion personally, they will not vote against Roe vs Wade.

You honestly think that?

I guess we will see, if and when RvW gets up to scotus again.

None because I don't have to because teaching religious dogma in government schools is against the law. The government can make all of the references it cares to with regard to religion so long as it remains firmly behind the 1st Amendment.

You shifted the target.

Previously, you said:

I see no evidence of religion taking an increased role in government of the US. In fact, I see just the opoposite in recent years with the removal of God from the pledge, the removal of references to God all throughout government buildings. The removal of any hints of Christainity during the Christmas season and the removal of any references to religion in the government schools.

Do you have evidence that the government is removing hints of Christianity during the Christmas season, in way that shows the opposite of religion taking an increased role in government.

[brien]

Opposition to gay marriage is linked to religion. Do you dispute this?

So what does this have to do with government? Because some religious people are anti gay what does that have to do with government policy?

This is not about whether or not it is ok for an FBO to receive government support. This is about whether Faith Based Initiatives was acceptable. There should be no effort to single out religious organizations for support, in one direction or the other. Charities should get support based on the quality of work they do. It is also not about government control of FBOs. Do you deny that religious influence caused the government to pursue faith based initiatives?

Yes I do deny this.. I showed in another post that 2/3rds of the elderly care facilities are run by FBO's. This is nothing new. The government must treat all providers with the same discretion. I also showed this in the other post as well. GWB's FBO's were spotlighted by the media but the government has been hiring FBO social care facilities for years. It is not a matter of government money flowing to these providers, it is a matter of whether the FBO's can control and make government policy. Clearly this has happened, otherwise it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Where are the court cases that spotlight the violation of the 1st Amendment?

Do you have evidence that the government is removing hints of Christianity during the Christmas season, in way that shows the opposite of religion taking an increased role in government.

I listed several examples of government removing Christianity from the celebration of Christmas.

Bottom line, because I am leaving for the evening, if you have evidence of Court cases showing where the RR and other FBO's are in violation of the 1st Amendment, please present them. Otherwise, the issues you raise are without merit when it comes to the RR influence in the government. They just aren't big enough in numbers to do what you are claiming they are resposnible for here. If they had their way Roe vs Wade would be history. Staes like CT, NJ, Ma and others would not be making laws that protect the right of gay marriage. They just don't call it gay marriage. They call it civil unions but all the same rights in marriage come with these civil unions.
And most important, FBO's would be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

I really think you are over reacting to an irrational fear of religious zealots. If I genuinely saw what you say is happening in government, I would be the very first person to condemn and validate your fear. I just don't see it. All I see is yourfear and laothing of religoius groups based upon nothing more than an irrational stretch of the imagination. The RR is not using any influence to take over the government any more than the sky is falling. :)

[Captain Chaos]

So what does this have to do with government? Because some religious people are anti gay what does that have to do with government policy?

Brien, are you just trying to run us in circles on purpose?

Many states passed anti-gay marriage amendments. It was the influence of religion that drove those efforts, and inspired people to vote for those amendments.

I showed in another post that 2/3rds of the elderly care facilities are run by FBO's. This is nothing new.

In which, case, faith based initiatives are unnecessary. They can get their funding because of their work with the elderly, independent of any religious affiliation they have.

Right?

GWB's FBO's were spotlighted by the media but the government has been hiring FBO social care facilities for years.

So, you are claiming the GWBs faith based initiatives thing was just P.R., and that it had no actual ramifications on government spending?

It is not a matter of government money flowing to these providers, it is a matter of whether the FBO's can control and make government policy.

It is not a matter of whether FBO's are controlling government or making government policy. It is a matter of whether religious influence has led to prioritizing money for religious charities, based on the faith based initiatives effort of GWB.

Are you claiming his effort was just words, no change in action or funding?

Bottom line, because I am leaving for the evening, if you have evidence of Court cases showing where the RR and other FBO's are in violation of the 1st Amendment, please present them.

Another shift in the target.

No thank you, does not interest me.


You believe religion does not influence government. I will stick with that topic. The non-existence of such court cases does not prove there is no influence.

Otherwise, the issues you raise are without merit when it comes to the RR influence in the government.

They have merit, you just do not want to admit it. The RR influence drove the adoption of anti gay marriage amendments. There is an example for you. I bet though, rather than acknowledging this, you will just shift the target again.

They just aren't big enough in numbers to do what you are claiming they are resposnible for here.

Please, do tell me what I am claiming they are responsible for.

Staes like CT, NJ, Ma and others would not be making laws that protect the right of gay marriage.

unbelievable. You bring this up, to support your point, and ignore all the other states that have passed amendments against gay marriage.

Are you trolling?

And most important, FBO's would be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

???

Pure invention.

I really think you are over reacting to an irrational fear of religious zealots.

That may be.

If I genuinely saw what you say is happening in government, I would be the very first person to condemn and validate your fear.

Brien, you even tried to deny that blue laws and anti-vibrator laws have anything to do with the influence of religion. You don't wanna see it, man. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

The RR is not using any influence to take over the government any more than the sky is falling.

They are trying, just not succeeding.

Do you deny, though, that our president is a member of the RR?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Zhavric, declaring things does not make them so.

Of course it doesn't. Kame, a die-hard fundamentalist agnostic (like yourself) admitted as much here by stating "No evidence is required to take an agnostic position." i.e. agnosticism is faith based.

This is already settled. Why are you still on about it?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Of course it doesn't. Kame, a die-hard fundamentalist agnostic (like yourself) admitted as much here by stating "No evidence is required to take an agnostic position." i.e. agnosticism is faith based. This is already settled. Why are you still on about it?

If whatever you are going on about is settled in you mind, then that is great, and you need not bug me about it.

Go play with your Richard Dawkins action figure, Z, and please please please leave me alone.

[brien]

Many states passed anti-gay marriage amendments. It was the influence of religion that drove those efforts, and inspired people to vote for those amendments.

Bahhhh. There is a large secular movement that is passing laws which join gays in civil union offering the same protections as marriage in many states. For every state that passes a "marriage protection" law, there is another that establishes a civil union law to protect gays so I don't share your concern there as well. It is a non starter for me.

In which, case, faith based initiatives are unnecessary. They can get their funding because of their work with the elderly, independent of any religious affiliation they have

.

I already showed you how they aren't in violation of the 1st Amendment. So you can imagine FBO's are a product of the influence of the RR, but since they existed well before GWB, I fail to see you connection to the RR. Some may have been initiated by GWB but since the SCOTUS hasn't struck them down as illegal, I can't share your concern for them.

So, you are claiming the GWBs faith based initiatives thing was just P.R., and that it had no actual ramifications on government spending?

No I wrote that since they existed well before GWB, they have passed muster with the 1st Amendment and are therefore legal. They may have the support of the RR, but they also have the support of the seculars as well. So what's happening, are the seculars coopting the the RR or is the RR coopting the seculars? It is neither. I say if it is a undermining of the 1st Amendment, then the seculars in the DOJ would be all over it like a chicken on a June bug. Any evidence of ths?

You believe religion does not influence government. I will stick with that topic. The non-existence of such court cases does not prove there is no influence.

Well I say it does because if the influence was actually there, it would result in legislation that favored the RR and in a dimunition of the 1st Amendment, and plainly it hasn't.

Brien, you even tried to deny that blue laws and anti-vibrator laws have anything to do with the influence of religion. You don't wanna see it, man. If you don't want to see it, you won't

These laws are ancient holdovers from 100's of years ago. Blue laws and other laws against what you are alluding to are actually being repealed state by state. I see no trend to increase these laws but I do see the opposite trend. So how does that support your opinion?

Do you deny, though, that our president is a member of the RR?

No But there are 535 members of Congress and a secular judiciary that keep him in check. What is this problem with people having religion who particpate in government. You think they can't separate their personal beliefs from their government duty? I say they can and they do because I don't see the any branch of government being taken over, or even influenced, by any religious groups. Once again, I think your fear and loathing of religious people tend to exaggerate your claims of the RR influence in government. You also focus on the RR when there are many other religious groups who wish to influence government, but I don't see any meaningful legislation arising from their efforts either. Meaningful RR influence in government would result in legislation being generated by Congress that would affect every citizen of the US. This would result in challenges from SCOTUS. I don't see them therefore I can't agree with your premise.

I have to move on from this thread because we are going in circles. You believe the US government is trending toward increased religious influence from the RR. You cite three examples which are weak at best. I showed you how the trend in government is leaning toward favoring the secular progressives as some call them. The bottom line for me is the 1st Amendment generally takes care of keeping religious influence out of government and I see no erosion of this as you do. Sorry, I just can't agree with you in this matter.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Brien Bahhhh. There is a large secular movement that is passing laws which join gays in civil union offering the same protections as marriage in many states. For every state that passes a "marriage protection" law, there is another that establishes a civil union law to protect gays so I don't share your concern there as well. It is a non starter for me.

Okay, well, I guess we just disagree then.

Anti gay marriage amendments bother me. That is an example of religous influence that I do not like. If they are countered by something else, then great. But that does not change the fact that such amendments offend me.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. I cannot help it if such examples do not bother you.

No I wrote that since they existed well before GWB, they have passed muster with the 1st Amendment and are therefore legal.

Another shifting target. I do not recall saying they were illegal, and have no interest in debating that issue.

These laws are ancient holdovers from 100's of years ago. Blue laws and other laws against what you are alluding to are actually being repealed state by state. I see no trend to increase these laws but I do see the opposite trend. So how does that support your opinion?

Again, a shift in target.

If a state votes to keep blue laws in place, or to keep vibrators illegal, or to keep sodomy illegal, then that is an example of religious influence. If other forces are countering this influence, then that is great, but that does not change the fact that this sort of religious influence existed to begin with.

Once again, I think your fear and loathing of religious people tend to exaggerate your claims of the RR influence in government.

My father-in-law cannot marry his partner.
In Florida, gays cannot adopt.
In Georgia, sex shops get raided.

These are real things that affect real people's lives. You must either think these issues are not very important, or think religious influence does not play a role, right?

You believe the US government is trending toward increased religious influence from the RR.

I believe that, since the 2006 elections, the trend is moving in the opposite direction. Given the highly organized efforts of the RR to influence laws and government, I think it is crucial to fight them, so as to keep their influence minimized.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Unfortunately they have enormous political capital, namely, a growing voting population. And the trend started far before last year.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Unfortunately they have enormous political capital, namely, a growing voting population. And the trend started far before last year.

And many of the more strident "religious" people have some pretty strong prejudices themselves.
Through no fault of my own, I was reading (online at work) about that curly-haired guy who was voted off American Idol. It seems he is a Christian musician and was thrown out of Bob Jones University because he attended a "contemporary Christian concert." Not their kind of Christians, I guess.