> On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: >> > On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: >> >> And my point was and still is that while "longer" is >> proven "better" >> is debatable, and I would argue that it's not better -- I >> would argue >> that religious charity is worse. I don't think government >> charity is >> much better, but I don't have the power to produce the >> better >> alternatives (which no one wants). >> > OK but I didn't see that part. I read Christians have > killed people so we can't trust them.
I don't think we can. :) But not just christians -- any religion really... I happen to be unitarian (funny ain't it?) and so I'm sympathetic with most religions. (I have personal issues with the practices of certain religions like the LDS church, but I acknowledge in most cases that those are personal "moral" objections.) But I wouldn't want to see the money given to UU-managed charities either, even in spite of feeling that the UUA is generally the most sane religious body. Why? Because giving money to the UUA violates the first amendment's statement that "goverment should make no law respecting the institution of religion", which I feel is the best (albeit poor) way to reduce the amount of religious intollerence in our government. When I mention Christianity specifically in a thread like this it's mostly because well, that's primarily what we're talking about when we're talking about Bush's Faith Based Initiative or any other recent attempts to rebuild (as shrub described it) "the important bridge between church and state". You can talk about other religions being involved all you want -- in reality Christianity is the dominant religion and is what would be mixed with government (before or instead-of any other religion). >> Christianity as an example -- I very definately covered >> the subject of >> charity in my _clarification_ (which you ... yes... >> you've definately >> conveniently forgotten, since you're only referencing the >> prior >> email.) The evils of Christianity are I think plenty of >> explanation >> why it is that giving money to religious organizations >> requires _MORE_ >> government oversight, not less. > Yeah, I didn't go reread the other posts. So you hadn't conveniently forgot, you just missed them. Fair enough. >> I'd prefer to discriminate against him. There is a >> significant >> difference between justifiable discrimination (making an >> assessment >> based on an individual's known history) and >> indiscriminate prejudice >> against a group of people. You could say this would be >> discrimination >> of the "group" of murderers I suppose -- but then, >> _murder_ is a >> conscious decision to perform an evil act and not an >> innocuous state >> of being the person can't reasonably control such as >> their gender or >> race. >> > So is NAMBLA manual. Yes -- it's a conscious decision to do something that is not illegal and not evil. While it may describe something that is evil, excercising a right to free speech is not evil. That's part of the point of free speech -- making the distinction between someone performing and act and someone talking about performing an act. The alternative is of course George Orwell's thought police. s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=4806 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:157027 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
