|
|
|
geo berri
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2006 : 08:37:36
|
|
Yesterday the inseargents blew up a mosque in bagdad. Bush is saying that the US will rebuild this religious structure. Bull F***ing shit. That is like saying that we the taxpayers will rebuild the churches in the south. Does anyone else out there feel as I do? Someone needs to refresh the memory of the bush admin on the wording of the constitution. They have forgotten that we don't pay to support religious structures. This whole farce of a war is clearly becoming a jihad and I for one am fed up. Anyone else?
|
Throw open the windows of your life and let the winds of knowledge blow through your mind, geo |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2006 : 08:46:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by geo berri
Yesterday the inseargents blew up a mosque in bagdad. Bush is saying that the US will rebuild this religious structure. Bull F***ing shit. That is like saying that we the taxpayers will rebuild the churches in the south. Does anyone else out there feel as I do? Someone needs to refresh the memory of the bush admin on the wording of the constitution. They have forgotten that we don't pay to support religious structures. This whole farce of a war is clearly becoming a jihad and I for one am fed up. Anyone else?
If you were talking about the government foisting religion on schoolchildren or giving preferential treatment and funds to religious organizations within the US, I'd agree with you.
This is rebuilding a structure with historic import and a possible way to quiet the tensions in the area. First and foremost, this action has a valid non-religious purpose of quieting an occupied land. Under Lemon, this action is permissible. That it is occuring outside US soil as a means of repairing foreign policy is an acceptable use of funds.
The farce of the war was never a jihad. It seemed more personal vendetta. Bush 43 was spoiling to take a swipe at Saddam becuase Saddam tried to have Bush 41 whacked. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
geo berri
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 10:27:39 [Permalink]
|
I could agree with you if this rebuild was being done with private money but it will be done with american tax money. This does clearly violate the separation of church and state no matter what country it's in. I haven't heard anything about the other countries involved. Are they donating their tax money for the rebuild? If so I wonder how those people feel about forking over millions?
I believe that this war WAS a vendetta when bush first went in but we have placed ourselves in the middle of a civil war. I have a feeling it (the mosque) would have been damaged by the natives anyway.
I am a firm believer that bush and his fundementalist croanies are forcing their biblical prophesy's onto the world along with the rest of the religious fanatics. As a nontheist I am angered and appaulled that they are allowed to get away with this nonsense. |
Throw open the windows of your life and let the winds of knowledge blow through your mind, geo |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 11:11:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by geo berri
I could agree with you if this rebuild was being done with private money but it will be done with american tax money. This does clearly violate the separation of church and state no matter what country it's in. I haven't heard anything about the other countries involved. Are they donating their tax money for the rebuild? If so I wonder how those people feel about forking over millions?
I believe that this war WAS a vendetta when bush first went in but we have placed ourselves in the middle of a civil war. I have a feeling it (the mosque) would have been damaged by the natives anyway.
I am a firm believer that bush and his fundementalist croanies are forcing their biblical prophesy's onto the world along with the rest of the religious fanatics. As a nontheist I am angered and appaulled that they are allowed to get away with this nonsense.
No. It doesn't. The 1st Amendment does not prohibit money from being transferred to a religious entity by the government. Lemon v. Kurtzman set the standard that church/state entanglements had to be judged. As this has a valid non-religious purpose and we are currently occupying the country (and responsible for security), it is a Constitutionally valid use of governmental funds. The concept of seperation of Church and State is based on Jefferson's writing to a minister concerning religions role in the fledgeling nation. As it is quoted in Abbington v Schempp, it refers to government using public money to support religion and a particular religion above others. This contention later came up in Lemon v Kurtzman where a set of criteria was first used to determine what was and what was not a violation of the concept of the seperation of church and state. The case of Marsh later expanded the carve outs that were valid.
And secondly, the civil war was suppressed by Hussein for decades. Iraq under Hussein was a violent and oppressive regime. However, they did suppress the civil war that was simmering below the surface. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 11:17:28 [Permalink]
|
| Also this is a historical site of vital importance to many muslims, not just a church. I think its a good idea to help fund it, bad idea to help build it. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
geo berri
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 12:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Valiant dancer, I'm aware of the letter jefferson sent to the danbury baptists but I'm also aware of the lemon test. In the third part of this it states "It (government) must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state". This would possibly qualify in that arguement. Couldn't it? A rebuild of a religious institution would be considered excessive entanglement,IMO. Although our most stringent laws are enforced on the state level they would encompass the US constitution as well.
I don't mean to argue your point, I do understand your position but with the climate the way it is right now I don't see how the people of our country will allow their tax dollars to be used for this. |
Throw open the windows of your life and let the winds of knowledge blow through your mind, geo |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 12:34:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by geo berri
Valiant dancer, I'm aware of the letter jefferson sent to the danbury baptists but I'm also aware of the lemon test. In the third part of this it states "It (government) must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state". This would possibly qualify in that arguement. Couldn't it? A rebuild of a religious institution would be considered excessive entanglement,IMO. Although our most stringent laws are enforced on the state level they would encompass the US constitution as well.
I don't mean to argue your point, I do understand your position but with the climate the way it is right now I don't see how the people of our country will allow their tax dollars to be used for this.
No, it couldn't. This is not an excessive entanglement. This is re-constructing a building which will have a considerable benefit to the government. It does not aid religion as it does not forward any religion at all. It merely pays for the damages caused by an inability of the security forces to protect this piece of property. The reasons for re-constructing this particular building are not forwarding that religion as the only right one or even a preferred one.
Re-building of churches is happening with federal dollars in the aftermath of Katrina. The idea of paying for re-construction of churches in extreme circumstances is not unusual.
The people don't like a lot of things. But the law is not a popularity contest. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/23/2006 12:37:06 |
|
|
|
geo berri
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 12:56:28 [Permalink]
|
It all follows the old interpretation rule. I see a religious institution as a tax exempt property and therefore exempt from paying them and receiving them. These may be my interpretations of the law but I'm not the one making the decisions.
BTW from what I can see the federal aid going to the cleanup and rebuild after Katrina is nonexistent do to the old governmental shuffle. This is a shame. The only thing these people can count on is the nonprofits and private donations. Our government has more important things to spend our money on besides rebuilding churches. Another thing don't these religious institutions have insurance? That should be paying for their rebuild.
I have a question. Are you a lawyer? If so are you knowledgable in the field of governmental law?
|
Throw open the windows of your life and let the winds of knowledge blow through your mind, geo |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 13:09:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by geo berri
It all follows the old interpretation rule. I see a religious institution as a tax exempt property and therefore exempt from paying them and receiving them. These may be my interpretations of the law but I'm not the one making the decisions.
BTW from what I can see the federal aid going to the cleanup and rebuild after Katrina is nonexistent do to the old governmental shuffle. This is a shame. The only thing these people can count on is the nonprofits and private donations. Our government has more important things to spend our money on besides rebuilding churches. Another thing don't these religious institutions have insurance? That should be paying for their rebuild.
I have a question. Are you a lawyer? If so are you knowledgable in the field of governmental law?
I am not a lawyer. I am fairly well read on caselaw and have tested my own interpretations of that caselaw in debates. I really don't see a compelling argument that what is being done here violates Lemon. Just the transfer of funds to the institution does not constitute an excessive entanglement. As for the churches, several did not have flood insurance. The feds have been paying for the damages. The funds are there and being paid out. Katrina was just the latest example of the government paying for religious institution rebuilds. See Andrew in Florida for other examples of this. Also, religiously run hospitals are able to bill Medicare for services rendered. This is also a direct transfer of funds to a religion that also have significant and compelling non-religious purposes.
I have studied quite a bit about governmental law and how it is applied. If you have examples of how what I have said here is inaccurate, I'd like to see them. I don't see myself as infaliable and I'm always ready to learn new things. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
geo berri
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 13:48:50 [Permalink]
|
It appears as though it stands as the old "we've always done it this way and so it's right" thing. I'm really not trying to nor am I prepared to argue the points of law but many of our laws are twisted to conform to the masses and that would have been christianity back when it all began.
If we followed the laws we wouldn't be supporting chaplains in prisons or municipalities. But, They've always done it that way so it continues. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT! I'm not yelling I'm just stressing a point. |
Throw open the windows of your life and let the winds of knowledge blow through your mind, geo |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 14:18:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by geo berri
It appears as though it stands as the old "we've always done it this way and so it's right" thing. I'm really not trying to nor am I prepared to argue the points of law but many of our laws are twisted to conform to the masses and that would have been christianity back when it all began.
If we followed the laws we wouldn't be supporting chaplains in prisons or municipalities. But, They've always done it that way so it continues. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT! I'm not yelling I'm just stressing a point.
The law is a combination of enacted statues and interpretations of courts. The chaplains in prisons, military, and government are covered under the Marsh case under ceremonial deism. It is the balance of harm that the courts must strike. With chapliancies, the balance of seperation is butted against the religious expression rights of the inmates/employees. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:56:31 [Permalink]
|
But Geoberri, the Iraq oil revenues are supposed to pay to re-build Iraq.  |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 22:56:42 [Permalink]
|
I agree fully with every point made by Valiant Dancer in regards to separation of church and state issues.
A friend of mine who is a full time secular activist and I had a discussion a little while ago about how the spread of the hard-core secular movement has caused a strain of ignorant fanaticism that more advocates separation of all things religious from government, rather than true church-state separation. The example he brought up to me was a debate among some activist in a particular organization who were debating whether they should publically attack a political candidate for talking about his religious beliefs during campaigning. My friend and I both thought of course the politician has every right to express his own religious beliefs and to publically admit that many of his stances on issues are rooted in religious values. But other secular activists were saying this should be considered church-state entanglement. The problem with the second stance is that it leads to all public figures being forced either to closet their beliefs or not run for office if they are religious. Obviously both become a limitation to their personal freedom of religion.
Church-state separation is not a simple, black and white concept. But in the case of funding the rebuilding the golden domed mosque (I assume that is the structure geoberri referred to) the beneficial secular reasons for doing it far outweigh any possible church-state entanglement. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/23/2006 22:58:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 23:45:52 [Permalink]
|
I have to agree with Val on this. Funding the reconstruction of the building could have a very clear non-religious benefit, helping limit violence in retribution and calm the area somewhat.
I personally favor a very strict seperation of church and state. But as marfknox pointed out.... it is not always clearcut.
This one seems to be a reasonably secular use of taxpayer money, even if a particular religion/sect also benefits.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
geo berri
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 12:52:23 [Permalink]
|
| I'm sorry people but I can't justify it. I know I'm being stubborn but I don't think that it's a good enough arguement. I understand what all of you are saying but I still don't think the mosque is our responsibility. This war would be going on without our interference. Bush just put the bee in their turbans and now it's just a bigger mess but reguardless the fighting would still be going on and houses of worship would be destroyed I'm sure. |
Throw open the windows of your life and let the winds of knowledge blow through your mind, geo |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 15:19:54 [Permalink]
|
| Really it's the Sunni moderates that should be stepping up to rebuild it. I don't agree it's a separation of church and state issue, especially since it isn't Bush's religion and it isn't in this country. But I don't think Americans rebuilding it will do anything to impact the situation in a positive way. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
