|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2006 : 07:47:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaccaBerri
alright here's my take.....No governing body should be paying for anything religious of any kind it's that simple, unless of course they are spending equal money on each and every religion within the area of which they govern. So basically unless the government wants to spend money to help build and keep running builidings for witches, pagans, satanists, occultists and everyone else no money should be spent on any relgion. As for the idea that because this place has some historical signifigance that it makes it ok, well a new one will no longer have that same signifigance so the point is basically mute.
The government is only giving money out to religions who have lost buildings in natural disasters, they do not pay for new construction or day to day operation of any religion. And witches and pagans did get money in Katrina. Very few temples have distinct buildings for worship and tend to be in someone's house.
The place in Iraq has significance for the Shiites. While I am afraid that beskeptigal may be right about the effect of the US rebuilding it, I don't see how trying will hurt.
quote:
Also there is comments about political leaders speaking of their personal religious choices. well That is all fine and dandy except they use those as a tool rather then a belief, and if you don't think they do ask yourself if a pagan would ever be elected if they came out and said that.
The same could be said of atheists. It's the manner in which a great deal of the population selects leaders. Some churches have encouraged that sort of thinking. Politicians, being the media whores that they are, need to sell themselves to their constituents. They are most effective when playing the religion card. It's not good for the nation, but human stupidity knows no bounds.
quote:
....the point is not that these people have personal beliefs the fact is that they use thier religious beliefs and ideas to impose legislation onto the masses and that is not right. As anyone in the US knows the guy marriage and abortion issues are being fought by people who have a religious agenda and belief with no thought or care of the fact that there are actual people that want these things.
While there is some merit to the "with no care", plenty of thought goes into it. It's just that the people equate the actions with other legislatively defensible morality based law. The two here would be pediophillia (sheeple have been led to believe that there is a causal relationship between homosexuality and pediophillia/moral decay) and murder. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
BaccaBerri
New Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 10:44:00 [Permalink]
|
| the idea that a government should be using money to fund anything that has to do with religion is something that i find bothersome(in case ya'll haven't noticed that yet) the problem here is that because some people believe in god they say of go ahead a place of worship is important....well last time i checked god wouldn't care if you went and prayed in a field or an empty lot or in your own home. A church is not necessary. Although I suppose that to religious people a church is more important then say a school or a library or a grocery store? Never mind homes and hospitals right? please churches don't pay into the government they should not be getting money back. The government is not there to be rebuilding everything that is lost or destroyed by either natural disasters or terrorist actions and if you personally want those buildings rebuilt i have a suggestion for you go get your check book and send them your personal money. Send them the money that you earn, leave the money that i send to the government to be used for important things..... |
Commit Random Acts of Kindness |
|
|
|
InsultMohammed
New Member
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 13:39:20 [Permalink]
|
| If insurgents blew it up, then no, we shouldn't be paying for it. If we blew it up, then we should rebuild it. Isn't this all very simple? Sometimes I just wish a Libertarian would have a chance in an election, just so I wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
