Buffman

themistolcles

(This post is more rhetorical than aimed at you. I appreciate your views because they were pretty much my views until this current administration took office without a majority of the American public behind it.)

What is important to me is whether or not someone's religious beliefs are contrary to the public good.

There's the rub! Who defines "the public good?" (Whose beliefs? Whose fictions rather than facts?)

Is it good to give taxpayer funds to religious voucher schools who practice discrimination in their hiring/firing procedures or teach only Creationism in their science classrooms...and all without any state monitoring, supervision or reporting?

Is it good to give taxpayer funds to religious social organizations that discriminate and proselytize?

Is it good to defund international organizations that promote family planning education/programs throughout the undeveloped nations of the world?

Whose "good?"

Why does Florida employ James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" to administer the state voucher program that was instituted by the Governor and legislature without a vote of the taxpayers? Why did that same Gov. hold a meeting with religious leaders and tell them how to qualify for voucher funds? Why would that bother anyone? He is only doing what the current federal administration of his older bother is doing...using taxpayer funds to support specific religions/religious beliefs...without any oversight. What's bad about that? Plenty!

(Extract from the 28 Jul 03 "Orlando Sentinel" Editorial page. Sub-headline: "Florida's school voucher program is out of touch with reality.")

"More than 100 students last year attended the Islamic Academy of Florida through the corporate tax-credit voucher program. The school's co-founder was Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor whom a grand jury accused of being the North American leader of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

By the end of next year, $138 million tax dollars will have been diverted to private voucher schools. How well are these students being served/educated? The state doesn't know. How is that in the "public good?"

It's a dandy article with considerable meat in it. It is one of several on this issue of accountability that I have read over the last few months on that same feature editorial page). ---These major corporations get a dollar-for-dollar tax break. Naturally they love it and can show their appreciation in an election year. However, the state continues to demand improvement in public education scores and fail schools not meeting their standards so the students at those public schools can qualify for more vouchers. (Talk about a Catch-22 convoluted decent into educational chaos...all under the questionable and totally unproven rubric of improving public education. Who designs these state tests? Exactly for what are they testing.)

What brought all this on? Religious zealotry, a desire to eat from the public money trough, and an extremely successful public propaganda campaign...using the same techiques that convinced Americans that we should pre-emptively attack Iraq regardless of what the rest of the world thought or how much of a threat it really was to America. How has that proven to be in the American public's good?

Vylo

Fill me in on his religious practices and I could probably answer that more accurately. I don't follow the Attorney General's career, but perhaps I should watch him more closely.

That isn't personal, that is blantantly public. Having one say, on your own desk though would be personal.

That just promotes friciton between atheists and theists, and they outnumber us. Besides ingorant people are easier to control and exploit (not that I would do such a thing ).

I will at least agree with the last part, most certainly they must use their own personal money for any personal displays, only fair, but I still see no harm in them displaying in a personal manner their religion, some religions require people to do so.

Untasteful would be what I would say, but I still see no reason to prevent them from doing as they please in this regard. If a judge wants to taint his own image by giving people the impression he has a religious preference, that is his own decision, although not a good one for him.

The law will tend to agree with the majority, but not the majority meaning the most number of people. It is the majority of resources that will have the say. Put 1000 homeless people up against Bill Gates in a legal battle and see how far you get.

Any social problem is defined by those with power. Those in political positions, the rich, the famous, the prestigious. Basicly anyone with a large source of capital.

Jewel

Notice I said promote -- and I was speaking specifially about religious displays on government property. I don't care if their screen saver says Jesus Saves or if they wear a cross around their neck.

Vylo

I understand jewel, I was just clarifying what I said. I hadn't covered what you said previously.

Jewel

Fair enough.

Buffman

Vylo

Fill me in on his religious practices and I could probably answer that more accurately. I don't follow the Attorney General's career, but perhaps I should watch him more closely.

This first URL contains ample information to help you improve your background knowledge about "our" U.S. Attorney General. You might find the "1st Year Report" particularly informative. The rest of these URLs provide additional background information. Please note how each new inclusion of a religious reference into our official federal republic government is used to substantiate and promote the next inclusion. Additionally, please note the existing national or world situation when these official inclusions enjoyed the most political support. (Fear is the most fertile ground for the growth of the biggest lies. It is also a time when a herd mentality tends to run roughshod over the expressions of individual conscuence.)

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2355

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.2...t.Religion.htm

http://www.adl.org/presrele/rel_chstsep_90/3740_90.asp

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/pledge6.htm

(Extract)
The Attorney General also cited the presence of religious mottoes and themes in the country's history. "For centuries, our nation has referenced God as we have expressed out patriotism and national identity in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, national anthem, on our coins, and in the Gettysburg Address," declared Ashcroft. "The Supreme Court of the United States opens each session by saying, 'God save this honorable Court.'"
(End extract)

Where is God in the Constitution? The Constitution which Ashcroft swore to defend and uphold. And where did the Supreme Court cry originate? And exactly what did the original texts of the Lincoln speech contain concerning God? When and why was it decided to place the North's trust in God? (Perhaps because the South was winning the Civil War at the time and a preacher decided that perhaps the Union could buy some supernatural support by placing God's name on a coin?)

These last two URLs present a seldom heard, in this country, socialist view concerning Ashcroft. (IMHO, the source is irrelevant as long as the evidence is verified and found to be valid.)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ma...ashc-m15.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ju...corr-j04.shtml

Vylo

OK wow buffman thanks for those links, yeah I think he crossed the boundaries of personal and public expression pretty blantantly. I would certainly not approve of such actions under the first amendment.

Buffman

Check these out.

A few more insights....pro and con.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/w051401a.html

http://www.mcjonline.com/news/01a/20010514a.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story...661458,00.html

http://www.christiantimes.com/Articl...evotional.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=22829

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...29/statues.htm

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...2102002/517861

Dingus

The screen saver in this case belongs to the government - the government that does not tell us what religion we must or must not prescribe to - and hence, I don't want to see the government clerk's screen saver say 'Jesus Saves'. The cross around their neck is a personal item and is acceptable. The religious banners even if they say "In God We Trust" on the government buildings, desks, etc. are not acceptable. I am an American and I have thrown off the religious attaire (mind and body) and I do not trust in God and I definitely do not trust the politicians. The religious icons displayed on public grounds is a violation of our U.S. Constitution as it is presented by the government' permission use of government property and use of government workers. I am not paying taxes to permit any religion to be enhanced by our government.

StrictSeparationist

Very good point with the incorporation problem, SLD, and one that I confess I had not even considered. You're certainly right that under the analysis that I think is correct, the Establishment Clause couldn't be applied to the states, at least not under the current model. The only possibility I can see for remedying that is constitutional amendment, but I'd be intrigued if someone could come up with a solution within the existing framework.