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 >>
Archives May 2007 / September 2008 / June 2009 /