Christian Democrats in the United States
Conceptual Issues - Church and StatePublic government should enable good-spirited people to help each other become better people, regardless of our individual belief. Muddying the waters of law with religious preference quickly leads to a loss of the principles of common welfare that our American law is there to maintain. America was founded on the principles of religious freedom. That freedom defines her character as a nation. We do not sully her reputation by trying to enforce a narrow religious view on everyone. The United States should enable all people to find common ground together in spirit and actions, not in law or symbols.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
10:19 AM
It's ironic no one seems to care what the project residents want.
The argument of the religious accuser of Liberty Counsel does not work: the housing project is not a "public institution" in the sense that a public park or recreation
facility would be. The housing project is a community like a homeowner's association with public resources at their disposal and public oversight and planning.
Even though funding comes from the public, because public government recognizes individual people as the unit of its logic (and must, to avoid and survive war), the residents have some territorial rights, certainly to their own homes and also to the common space. As a non-resident if I wanted to "hang out" in the housing project on a bench, I would probably not be welcome if I didn't know anyone who lived there. But I can loiter in a public park and no one's entitled to bother me.
So really, it's not an issue of "state versus church" which the religious accuser can elevate into a cash settlement for Child Evangelism Fellowship (and himself.) It's a basic question of common law that does not need the invocation of divine power names to be settled fairly, or the division that can be misused to create, e.g. Fox News spin.
The charity is free to park their van on the public street and to be there giving out leaflets and information. If individual residents accept help, those residents have the right to invite charity members into the housing project.
What do the project residents want? Chea Redditt of the housing authority is the only person who mentions them, that it was a resident decision.
So if the residents think these particular people are pushy, or otherwise invasive then they have a right to kick them out. Perhaps they are tired of being accused of being bad people? There would seem to be other religious groups whom the residents welcome. Why's that?
some issues need not be elevated to divine conflict
An evangelical christian charity has been "banned" from a public housing project in Tulsa, OK.It's ironic no one seems to care what the project residents want.
The argument of the religious accuser of Liberty Counsel does not work: the housing project is not a "public institution" in the sense that a public park or recreation
facility would be. The housing project is a community like a homeowner's association with public resources at their disposal and public oversight and planning.
Even though funding comes from the public, because public government recognizes individual people as the unit of its logic (and must, to avoid and survive war), the residents have some territorial rights, certainly to their own homes and also to the common space. As a non-resident if I wanted to "hang out" in the housing project on a bench, I would probably not be welcome if I didn't know anyone who lived there. But I can loiter in a public park and no one's entitled to bother me.
So really, it's not an issue of "state versus church" which the religious accuser can elevate into a cash settlement for Child Evangelism Fellowship (and himself.) It's a basic question of common law that does not need the invocation of divine power names to be settled fairly, or the division that can be misused to create, e.g. Fox News spin.
The charity is free to park their van on the public street and to be there giving out leaflets and information. If individual residents accept help, those residents have the right to invite charity members into the housing project.
What do the project residents want? Chea Redditt of the housing authority is the only person who mentions them, that it was a resident decision.
So if the residents think these particular people are pushy, or otherwise invasive then they have a right to kick them out. Perhaps they are tired of being accused of being bad people? There would seem to be other religious groups whom the residents welcome. Why's that?
> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, September 5, 2008
1:28 PM
They make you feel like God's going to send you to hell if you spill your tea or say a bad word or if you challenge their self-serving policies of power and greed. There is a reason why the word "Satan" means "Accuser." Their layers of deceit are laid so deeply, and intertwined with so many subtle techniques to titillate our sensory perceptions, to raise our adrenaline and make us feel powerful, that it is almost impossible to unwind their devious bullshit from what is actually good about God and religion.
As for the everyday man, woman or child thrown into the meaningless rituals used by the state to control your mind, it is very difficult and embarrassing to admit that one has been deceived. It is even more difficult to admit that you have deceived yourself, and pulled the wool over your own eyes.
Because of this shame, anyone who attempts to think rationally and to criticize these mindless attitudes of self-righteous impunity is cast out of the group, becomes a pariah, even family and love are sacrificed for the purpose of greed and power. Even if it's someone else's greed and someone else's power. It's a sad state of affairs.
And when someone entrenched in the meaningless ritual and parroting propaganda of mis-used religion wakes up and sees what a crock it all is, they are tempted to decide that God is not real because their religion is bogus. The Deceiver plays and wins both sides, moving us away from God.
Luckily, the reality of God does not depend in any way on our beliefs, thoughts, or actions. He does not depend on sermons or prayers or sacrificial offerings. He is there for you when you wish to seek him. No prophet, preacher, church, mason, think-tank or politician can claim to build the bridge to God. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone" and "the domain of God is within you." All you have to do is reach out with love and ask God to show you the way.
"religious right" - who would Jesus bomb?
What strikes me as odd about the "religious right" and their insistence that there can be no "moral relativism," is, that when it comes to shooting or bombing a bunch of innocent people, in both deliberate and accidental circumstances, in a relentless and unmerciful pursuit of enemies, all that moral talk goes out the window, and it's "support our troops, rah rah rah." But this political fervor, the action of this mob, comes down to a thirst for blood, an exercise of the instinct for human sacrifice to appease demonic forces, whether the victims be innocent, or enemies, or our own.They make you feel like God's going to send you to hell if you spill your tea or say a bad word or if you challenge their self-serving policies of power and greed. There is a reason why the word "Satan" means "Accuser." Their layers of deceit are laid so deeply, and intertwined with so many subtle techniques to titillate our sensory perceptions, to raise our adrenaline and make us feel powerful, that it is almost impossible to unwind their devious bullshit from what is actually good about God and religion.
As for the everyday man, woman or child thrown into the meaningless rituals used by the state to control your mind, it is very difficult and embarrassing to admit that one has been deceived. It is even more difficult to admit that you have deceived yourself, and pulled the wool over your own eyes.
Because of this shame, anyone who attempts to think rationally and to criticize these mindless attitudes of self-righteous impunity is cast out of the group, becomes a pariah, even family and love are sacrificed for the purpose of greed and power. Even if it's someone else's greed and someone else's power. It's a sad state of affairs.
And when someone entrenched in the meaningless ritual and parroting propaganda of mis-used religion wakes up and sees what a crock it all is, they are tempted to decide that God is not real because their religion is bogus. The Deceiver plays and wins both sides, moving us away from God.
Luckily, the reality of God does not depend in any way on our beliefs, thoughts, or actions. He does not depend on sermons or prayers or sacrificial offerings. He is there for you when you wish to seek him. No prophet, preacher, church, mason, think-tank or politician can claim to build the bridge to God. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone" and "the domain of God is within you." All you have to do is reach out with love and ask God to show you the way.
> detail, links and comments >>
Monday, May 7, 2007
4:08 PM
Their proposed amendment text is difficult to understand: "except in the case where the very existence of an innocent human being is itself an immediate, imminent, and ultimately insoluble barrier to the imminent continued existence of another innocent human being, such that the physical body of the offending innocent human being unwittingly becomes an insolubly lethal parasite." Is that an abortion exception for parasitic twin syndrome? The last thing Americans will be willing to do to the Constitution is to litter it with exceptions to regulations. If it cannot be articulated as a simple principle, it will never pass and is politically unrealistic.
It also offends the character of liberty at the core of the United States by attempting to inscribe a duty in law to "remember the poor" because we are made "in the image of God." An act of faith to help the poor must be of one's own free will, and enough Americans would make those choices if they had the resources that we would still be well off without dictating a religious responsibility to every citizen. They will have to pull the constitution out of my cold dead hands before anyone adds a mandate of religious duty.
J wasn't only about helping the poor, either.
Americans do not want a theocracy of any kind in their country. Such an amendment is politically unrealistic, offends the free character of the United States, and only serves to divide people and occupy their frustration, so they are not effective in solving real-world problems for real people.
Their insistence that actions of government institutions not bring direct or disproportionate harm to the poor is a pretty good idea. However, this is the kind of thing that could be accomplished by a president elected by the people under that policy platform, or by an act of Congress, and does not need to be enthroned in the primary national law to become a reality.
the political reality of the U.S. constitution
A group of people calling themselves the Christian Democratic Union propose a "human dignity amendment" to the U.S. constitution. We must be extremely careful treading these waters because the words used can be construed so broadly. We must not implant a message that would destroy the very principles essential to the United States and her defense of freedom.Their proposed amendment text is difficult to understand: "except in the case where the very existence of an innocent human being is itself an immediate, imminent, and ultimately insoluble barrier to the imminent continued existence of another innocent human being, such that the physical body of the offending innocent human being unwittingly becomes an insolubly lethal parasite." Is that an abortion exception for parasitic twin syndrome? The last thing Americans will be willing to do to the Constitution is to litter it with exceptions to regulations. If it cannot be articulated as a simple principle, it will never pass and is politically unrealistic.
It also offends the character of liberty at the core of the United States by attempting to inscribe a duty in law to "remember the poor" because we are made "in the image of God." An act of faith to help the poor must be of one's own free will, and enough Americans would make those choices if they had the resources that we would still be well off without dictating a religious responsibility to every citizen. They will have to pull the constitution out of my cold dead hands before anyone adds a mandate of religious duty.
J wasn't only about helping the poor, either.
Americans do not want a theocracy of any kind in their country. Such an amendment is politically unrealistic, offends the free character of the United States, and only serves to divide people and occupy their frustration, so they are not effective in solving real-world problems for real people.
Their insistence that actions of government institutions not bring direct or disproportionate harm to the poor is a pretty good idea. However, this is the kind of thing that could be accomplished by a president elected by the people under that policy platform, or by an act of Congress, and does not need to be enthroned in the primary national law to become a reality.
> detail, links and comments >>
Saturday, May 5, 2007
11:55 AM
legacy religious art on public grounds
I also have no problem with religious monuments on public grounds, as long as some kind of sign says that the government does not require people worship them. (Hey, somebody might not know.)> detail, links and comments >>
11:45 AM
So we should welcome any atheist as well as good-hearted people of other religions who want to construct a peaceful, co-existant world. (And otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir anyway, so you're not doing much.)
atheism
Personally, I don't want to kill atheists or try to enforce my beliefs on them. I think atheism is the most rational point of view. (But how could you even explain irrational numbers with such a limited view -- the world clearly is more than rational.) I also believe that we can get ourselves out of most of our trouble if we have the guts to stand up and apply our rationality. President Bush "puts God to the test" with his short-sighted dependence on prayer.So we should welcome any atheist as well as good-hearted people of other religions who want to construct a peaceful, co-existant world. (And otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir anyway, so you're not doing much.)
> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, May 4, 2007
1:45 PM
but don't censor the 10c either
I'm not sure how to say that there should be no opposition to putting the ten commandments up in a courthouse in a non-official display, if the courthouse rotates its artworks and does not discriminate against displays of other religions' takes on basic principles. I'm just saying we should stop wasting our time bickering over such trivial issues while people go hungry and can't read and can't figure out how to feed another kid because no one will help them. -ed.> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
7:35 PM
Church and State
A while back someone put a sculpture of the ten commandments in a courthouse, saying it was the basis for the law conducted in that courthouse. Doesn't one of those commandments prohibit graven images and their worship as holy objects? So why would you make a graven image of the ten commandments and set it in the courthouse as an "official" holy object? At least, this is a perfectly valid Christian interpretation, one of possibly many. Do you see how easy it is to divide you by manipulating your religion? Divide and conquer.
Instead, public government should enable good-spirited people to help each other become better people, regardless of our individual belief. Muddying the waters of law with religious preference quickly leads to a loss of the principles of common welfare that our American law is there to maintain. America was founded on the principles of religious freedom. That freedom defines her character as a nation. Don't sully her reputation by trying to enforce a narrow religious view on everyone. We should try to find common religious ground together in spirit and actions, not in law or symbols.
> detail, links and comments >>
Archives May 2007 / September 2008 / June 2009 /