[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace

On the same token why should I have to pay for offensive art or services I don't use.

Because someone else pays for the services you do use and which they don't?

[Bobboau]

Given: there exsists an organisation with a religious base that has a proven track record of provideing some sort of service.

I have no problem giveing this organisation government cash to preform this service so long as they adhere to the same rules as any other government contractor.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Because someone else pays for the services you do use and which they don't?

TOUCHE!

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Bobboau
Given: there exsists an organisation with a religious base that has a proven track record of provideing some sort of service.

I have no problem giveing this organisation government cash to preform this service so long as they adhere to the same rules as any other government contractor.

which requires them to keep their preaching and charity entities COMPLETELY SEPERATE - ie the money is not going to the church, but ti a charity organization


that just happens to be run by a church (they cannot use it to preach passively or actively)

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
Given: there exsists an organisation with a religious base that has a proven track record of provideing some sort of service.

I have no problem giveing this organisation government cash to preform this service so long as they adhere to the same rules as any other government contractor.

Ah, but do they adhere to the same rules or do they start giving preferencial treatment to those who have the same faith as them?

Remember that big stink about the boy scouts refusing to take on non-christians. Why should the government be funding that?

Originally posted by redmenace
On the same token why should I have to pay for offensive art or services I don't use.

The point is that you can use it. If you choose not to then fine. Whether you likes it or not or use it or not is completely irrelavent. What matters is that the choice to go see it or not is yours.

If the government started saying that only members of the so called liberal elite could see it then I'd have a real problem with it too. If only they could see it then only they should pay for it.

[Tiara]

Soon, the wheel will come into motion and the world shall be divided into three casts. Warrior, Religious and Worker. We will go bald, grow a bone on our skull and fly fish-like ships into space.

...

What? Someone needed to lighten up this dark, dreary thread with a bad joke...

[redmenace]

But I have no need for certain services offered. My view on this is that the Gov't is to provide for common defense and postal system etc. Such things and as a common defense we all use. However, I promised my self I would no get entrenched into this argument because I have a über economics paper and midterm I have to write.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by redmenace
But I have no need for certain services offered. My view on this is that the Gov't is to provide for common defense and postal system etc. Such things and as a common defense we all use. However, I promised my self I would no get entrenched into this argument because I have a über economics paper and midterm I have to write.

Tough. You're in now.

Whether you have no use is irrelavent too. If we discontinued every service that people said they had no use for there wouldn't be much left of anything. The government spends bucket loads of money on things that you don't use. Should we cancel them all just because of that?

Remember the example of the boy scouts? The big stink was over them being faith based but by your logic we shouldn't funding them at all regardless of that because you don't use them.

Space probes. You don't use that. Bin them.

Foreign aid (including money sent to Israel!). Don't use that. Dump it.

I could go on.

The argument is silly. The government always has funded projects that the majority of the citizens don't use. The simple fact is that the faith based agencies that are the entire topic of this thread are one such entity. So for once we agree on something. The money for them should be binned.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
But I have no need for certain services offered. My view on this is that the Gov't is to provide for common defense and postal system etc. Such things and as a common defense we all use. However, I promised my self I would no get entrenched into this argument because I have a über economics paper and midterm I have to write.

In brief; other people have use of them.  I'd be there are other people have no use of services you use; regardless they are provided.  The old system of providing the bare minimum government 'interference' (laissez faire government) was pretty much proven not to be effective with the introduction of democracy.  

In addition there can be said to be a national interest in preserving the national identity of a country, which includes its art, for a specific example.

[redmenace]

In the US constitution, I think it is very explicit that the gov't role is to provide for the general welfare. In later writings, by the author, he said that the clause was meant to be a limiting factor of Gov't.

[aldo_14]

And does the preservation of culture not cover the general welfare of a country?

[redmenace]

No, not really.

[Deepblue]

Wait, so why is it not fair that a Catholic can't apply for a job in a Protestant organization. This is like the Boy Scouts vs. homosexuals if I understand it correctly.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
No, not really.

Why?

[LeGuille]

After Kazan's post about my ill-informed views of the constitution last nite, I decided to step back and read my constitution again... and I can say that, even though I am Independant in my political beliefs, I think I have to agree with the non-conforming government to a religious standard. I decided to discern what I was listening to: Christians - they obviously believe it was THIER god-given rght of foundation upon the country... and to make it a short story >> I concede my lack of constituional knowledge, And that the constituion was made as a broad document, able to change with a changing society.

That being the case: Kazan is right.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rejindo

That being the case: Kazan is right.

Don't say that, you'll give him a heart attack!

[LeGuille]

SSSShhhh! You'll give it away!

*SHIFTY EYES!*

[Kazan]

haha VICTORY IS MINE


maybe i'll go back to being patient again because for once one of them has finally understood

----

Kudos to Rejindo for proving beyond a doubt that they are mature by doing the thing that is hardest for us all to do: admit when we're wrong

[Zarax]

Kaz, you don't realize how much more effective you would be if you adopted a slightly less imposing approach.
People on the defensive are much less keen to listen you as they are too busy into finding a defensive mean depending on the nature of the subject.
I guess you would greatly benefit to trying teach some class somewhere, possibly with a non 100% receptive audience.

Also, when expecting people declare you're right it's like expecting them to drop much of their ego and pride, something very unlikely for most human beings

[KappaWing]

Atheism is not a religion.

Ummmm... Dont think so. Buddhisim, for example, does not believe in a god. (Buddha is considered a prophet), so they are atheists, but Buddhisim is a religion.