Obamacare Violates The Separation Of Church & State?

GOPtwin,

I don't think there have been any major or perhaps even minor instances....I agree with you, or I think you would look at it that way, that such laws would not be likely to go in or have not. But the laws are just on paper, how are they used and why were they put there to begin with. This is kinda like hate crimes, does it change what you are doing if you are thinking about it a different way. Abortion being illegal may come, and you can say that is not a religous law, it is just a law against an action, but it would be there because of religioius beliefs, though again, I am pretty sure a ban on abortion would be very brief.

...so on the primary level you are right, but no one realy lives there anymore, we live life in the 2nd, 3rd etc. level, religion of those in the us does ultimately rule the us...we whitewash all actions....we allow one group to do something and if another group does the same thing, it is wrong (insurgents in colonial america - insurgents in iraq), it is always a matter of opinion and for many opinion is rooted in religion/political parties...our parties are practically our religion now, or perhaps better put, they allow people to have two different religions, even religions in conflict, they may have to be separated from the state soon, but then again, mixing religion and state is legal, or can be, all we have to do is change the law...or even how we use it...or even think about it?

So I think your question makes no sense, though one can answer it, the answer is meaningless and almost implies that we have no sense as to why people do what they do, but we do...

Would printing "In Allah We Trust" on our money be equally as unreligious as printing "In God We Trust"? Would having a flag code that suggested we praise America in the name of the Buddha, but not require it, be any more religious that doing it under "God"? Something tells me that things sound less religious when they contain aspects or hints of YOUR religion or the one of most people around you.

So I ask you, do you realize that it is not nearly as simple as the question you asked or even my in side out explaination, I know you know better, you think a lot about this stuff and do follow up research?

67% of Catholic Charities money comes from Government

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/...nt.Doc?id=1924
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/

About Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is the national office for local Catholic Charities agencies and affiliates nationwide. CCUSA provides strong leadership and support to enhance the work of local agencies in their efforts to reduce poverty, support families, and empower communities.


Wow, I didn't know that. Glad they resolved the problem. Right wingers say this administration attacks the church when 67% of Catholic Charities money comes from the government.

How about a REAL separation of church and State?

JSG wrote: 67% of Catholic Charities money comes from Government

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/...nt.Doc?id=1924
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/

About Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is the national office for local Catholic Charities agencies and affiliates nationwide. CCUSA provides strong leadership and support to enhance the work of local agencies in their efforts to reduce poverty, support families, and empower communities.


Wow, I didn't know that. Glad they resolved the problem. Right wingers say this administration attacks the church when 67% of Catholic Charities money comes from the government.

How about a REAL separation of church and State?

I don't think your example actually works. In Ireland, the public school system is run by the church and financed by the goverment, do you really think the church is profiting from the deal, or maybe instead both organizations are helping each other out. The Irish Catholic church gets to educate young Catholics and the goverment gets to educate their population.

If Catholic Charities is a more efficient way of distributing relief than a branch of goverment, shouldn't it continue?

As long as they are distributing their own money, and not my tax-dollars, why not?

So Fred, you're FOR our government (not Ireland's) giving Billions of dollars to the Catholic church every year?

67% of $4,270,309,450 which comes out to about $2.8 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money.*

Would you be okay with our government giving millions of dollars to Muslim charities for Muslims in the United States every year?

* http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1924

http://taxthechurches.org/

photo-fish wrote: http://taxthechurches.org/

Now, THERE'S a plan I can get behind... :thumbsup:

popcorn eater wrote: GOPtwin,

I don't think there have been any major or perhaps even minor instances....I agree with you, or I think you would look at it that way, that such laws would not be likely to go in or have not. But the laws are just on paper, how are they used and why were they put there to begin with. This is kinda like hate crimes, does it change what you are doing if you are thinking about it a different way. Abortion being illegal may come, and you can say that is not a religous law, it is just a law against an action, but it would be there because of religioius beliefs, though again, I am pretty sure a ban on abortion would be very brief.

...so on the primary level you are right, but no one realy lives there anymore, we live life in the 2nd, 3rd etc. level, religion of those in the us does ultimately rule the us...we whitewash all actions....we allow one group to do something and if another group does the same thing, it is wrong (insurgents in colonial america - insurgents in iraq), it is always a matter of opinion and for many opinion is rooted in religion/political parties...our parties are practically our religion now, or perhaps better put, they allow people to have two different religions, even religions in conflict, they may have to be separated from the state soon, but then again, mixing religion and state is legal, or can be, all we have to do is change the law...or even how we use it...or even think about it?

So I think your question makes no sense, though one can answer it, the answer is meaningless and almost implies that we have no sense as to why people do what they do, but we do...

Would printing "In Allah We Trust" on our money be equally as unreligious as printing "In God We Trust"? Would having a flag code that suggested we praise America in the name of the Buddha, but not require it, be any more religious that doing it under "God"? Something tells me that things sound less religious when they contain aspects or hints of YOUR religion or the one of most people around you.

So I ask you, do you realize that it is not nearly as simple as the question you asked or even my in side out explaination, I know you know better, you think a lot about this stuff and do follow up research?

I have no religion, I'm an atheist. I don't do fantastical thinking or base my life on myths (gee... haven't you noticed my avatar?). And the question is simple. It's a red herring to suggest that this candidate or that candidate is going to be able to effect the Constitution just because he is a believer in a religious moral code. And those that actually really believe that a president can start a theocracy has not faith in our Constitution. We have had very religious presidents in the past... and I don't see any theocratic laws or a makings of a theocracy any where.

It's a bunch of bullshite, something the left uses to try to deflect from the real issues that are facing this country. You say my question is not simple because you simply can't answer it. And no one else has been able to answer it, because it can't happen. So I ask again for the second shift 285 Bounders... "Answer me this. When was the last time a president issued a executive order or a congress voted in a bill or law that installed a theocratic principal into our body of law?"

popcorn eater wrote: Would printing "In Allah We Trust" on our money be equally as unreligious as printing "In God We Trust"? Would having a flag code that suggested we praise America in the name of the Buddha, but not require it, be any more religious that doing it under "God"? Something tells me that things sound less religious when they contain aspects or hints of YOUR religion or the one of most people around you.

Tell me PE - what religion is God? Isn't Allah, and Jehovah, and for the matter The Great Spirit, the same Creator referenced when God is used? Is there a difference between a Muslim saying "One nation under Allah" and a Christian saying "One nation under God?" Not that I believe we are simply a single nation mind you, nor do I believe that the union is indivisible if indeed we have a right, a duty, to alter or abolish any current form of government if it is believed that by doing so our future security and happiness will be better effected by doing so, but I fail to see how the recognition of a Creator establishes or codifies any particular religion as being a national religion.

We have "evolved" to the point where we are now paying taxes to provide charity rather than leaving those who have come to depend on it, or find themselves temporarily in need of it, at the mercy of the favor of their fellow citizens to willingly provide it. Catholic Charities may indeed receive an amount of money from the general government to be thus distributed, but there are equally secular charities and other religious charities which also act as distribution nodes for the charity that our tax dollars are remitted to provide. Goodwill is a Protestant charity (started by a Methodist minister), as is the Salvation Army, which was started in order to preach the Gospel to the poor, destitute, hungry and homeless and convert them to Christianity. That the charity is itself religious in no way runs afoul of any "wall of separation" doctrine. It is not as though Catholic Charities reserves the charity grants from the public treasury solely for Catholics, or even solely for Christians - it disperses the public charity in keeping with the purpose of those grants - to assist the poor, the elderly, the disabled in need of our tax funded charitable activities without discrimination regarding the religious beliefs, or the lack of religious beliefs, by the person who ultimately receives that charity. That is as true today as it was when none of the charity disbursed by Catholic Charities came from any public treasury. The mission of any charity, religious or not, is to provide what the Catholic Church calls the Corporal Works of Mercy. Feed the hungry, give the thirsty something to drink, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, tend to the sick, visit the imprisoned and bury the dead. Are these things that should be denied to those that need them simply because the group which is dispersing the public funds appropriated for these very purposes happens to be a religious group? Seriously?

JSG wrote: So Fred, you're FOR our government (not Ireland's) giving Billions of dollars to the Catholic church every year?

67% of $4,270,309,450 which comes out to about $2.8 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money.*

Would you be okay with our government giving millions of dollars to Muslim charities for Muslims in the United States every year?

* http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1924

I don't see it as giving money to the Catholic Church. More one hand washes the other. The federal goverment finds an efficient way of distributing aid to the poor, and the charity gets extra buying power.

I suspect some Muslim charities already get federal aid to help out Islamic people in need. I wonder if there is a vetting process to make sure that cash doesn't wind up overseas supporting terrorists. But I wonder if Catholic Charities was vetted to see if in the past it was supporting the IRA or like organizations.


One more thing to consider, the Left throws out the idea that 95% of Catholics have used birth control at one time, but that doesn't mean they continue to support birth control. I know more than a few Catholics who no longer support abortion rights, something they did while they were young and worried about getting pregnant.
I would suspect the idea of free birth control would anger social conservatives of both parties. Some people forget that there are a lot of religious Democrats who could waver depending on certain issues.