Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Defiant Heretic · 10-07-2002, 08:29 PM

Perhaps if we included a clause stating that at least 1/10 of the money must be spent on anti-psychotics...

Buffman · 10-08-2002, 01:35 PM

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-religgrants5oct05.story" target="_blank">Religious Groups Get Federal Funds</a>

(copyright) Los Angeles Times
October 5, 2002 Saturday

. . . .

While grant recipients hailed their awards, not everyone was pleased. The award to Robertson's organization drew particular controversy. The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the group did not merit an award because of Robertson's public criticism of Islam.

"Anyone who exhibits such bigoted views is unworthy to receive taxpayer dollars," Nihad Awad, executive director of the Washington-based Islamic advocacy group, said in a statement. "The White House initiative must not assist, even indirectly, those who would defame Islam and divide our nation."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also criticized the Bush administration's plan to allow religious intermediaries to distribute public funds.

"Giving religious groups control over public funds is a blatant violation of the Constitution," Lynn said in a statement. "Under the 1st Amendment, religious ministries shouldn't become an arm of the government."

[edited by Toto to replace copyright material with link plus short quote.]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

dk · 10-09-2002, 09:39 PM

Quote:

While grant recipients hailed their awards, not everyone was pleased. The award to Robertson's organization drew particular controversy. The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the group did not merit an award because of Robertson's public criticism of Islam.

from above article

I think the "Islamic Council" has every right to criticize the award, just as Robertson has every right to criticize Islamic fundamentalists. I�m no fan of either but in a democracy that�s how issues get flushed out of the shadows, and people of good will learn to live in peace. What I find unseemly comes from the medias warped presentation.

Toto · 10-09-2002, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:

I think the "Islamic Council" has every right to criticize the award, just as Robertson has every right to criticize Islamic fundamentalists. I�m no fan of either but in a democracy that�s how issues get flushed out of the shadows, and people of good will learn to live in peace. What I find unseemly comes from the medias warped presentation.

1. What about the media's presentation is warped?

2. Why do you assume that Robertson is a person of good will? To me, he looks like a hukster who is running a vast financial empire based on taking in donations from the gullible.

3. Granted we all have a right to criticize each other in a democracy, but did you miss the part about First Amendment problems when the government starts throwing money at religious groups?

Buffman · 10-09-2002, 10:15 PM

Toto

Did I commit a "No-No?" Sorry. I thought I gave the newspaper and the journalist full credit for the article.

Toto · 10-09-2002, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buffman:
Toto

Did I commit a "No-No?" Sorry. I thought I gave the newspaper and the journalist full credit for the article.

You can't reprint copyrighted material, even when you give full credit, unless it falls under a "fair use" exception. Generally, quoting a short amount of the article in the context of a discussion constitutes fair use, but reprinting the entire article goes beyond fair use.

The LA Times puts their material on the web for free so you will go to their site, register and give them marketing information, and read the ads while you read the article. If you cut and paste the text, without even giving the URL, you are breaking that part of the bargain.

Some discussion boards have gotten into big trouble over reprinting full copies of articles. II doesn't need to spend money on lawyers. So we have a policy against posting copyrighted material.

dk · 10-10-2002, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
<ol type="1">[*] Toto: What about the media's presentation is warped?
dk: The secular media frames the issue in the context of a religious conflict to stereotype religion as unreliable. The truth is that Christians, modern Secular Nations and Moslems differ in many ways but they all fight wars to secure the peace from some (real or imagined) eminent and deadly threat.[*]Toto: Why do you assume that Robertson is a person of good will? To me, he looks like a hukster who is running a vast financial empire based on taking in donations from the gullible.
dk: I assume everyone to be a person of good will until persuaded by evidence to the contrary.[*]Toto: Granted we all have a right to criticize each other in a democracy, but did you miss the part about First Amendment problems when the government starts throwing money at religious groups?
dk: The article framed the issue upon a secular interpretation of the Constitution by a self anointed juridical oligarchy. It seems obvious to me that the rule of law can be used by unscrupulous people to censor religious speech and regulate religious activity, but in doing government displays open hostility towards religious people. It was the opinion of the Supreme Court that struck down the 1) Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, 2) rationalized Jim Crow laws under as "separate but equal� principle, and 3) erected an impenetrable wall between Church and State to expand the powers of the Federal Government contrary to the 10th Amendment.[/list=a]

I call this personality, not only because I�m offended (which I am), but because the law as a weapon in principle bodes for a tragic future. History marks the Civil War, de jure segregation and de jure integration with tragedy instigated by judicial fiat. I would think the Supreme Court would have realized by now justice can�t afford a personality.

Shadowy Man · 10-10-2002, 11:30 AM

Quote:

dk: I assume everyone to be a person of good will until persuaded by evidence to the contrary.

And you've managed to see no evidence that Pat Robertson is not a person of good will?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

10-08-2002, 01:35 PM	#12
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-religgrants5oct05.story" target="_blank">Religious Groups Get Federal Funds</a> (copyright) Los Angeles Times October 5, 2002 Saturday . . . . While grant recipients hailed their awards, not everyone was pleased. The award to Robertson's organization drew particular controversy. The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the group did not merit an award because of Robertson's public criticism of Islam. "Anyone who exhibits such bigoted views is unworthy to receive taxpayer dollars," Nihad Awad, executive director of the Washington-based Islamic advocacy group, said in a statement. "The White House initiative must not assist, even indirectly, those who would defame Islam and divide our nation." The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also criticized the Bush administration's plan to allow religious intermediaries to distribute public funds. "Giving religious groups control over public funds is a blatant violation of the Constitution," Lynn said in a statement. "Under the 1st Amendment, religious ministries shouldn't become an arm of the government." [edited by Toto to replace copyright material with link plus short quote.] [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 08:29 PM	#11
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	Perhaps if we included a clause stating that at least 1/10 of the money must be spent on anti-psychotics...

10-09-2002, 10:15 PM	#15
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Toto Did I commit a "No-No?" Sorry. I thought I gave the newspaper and the journalist full credit for the article.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.