-Caveat Lector-
Total rubbish.
--------------------------
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:22:24 EST William Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> A FRONTAL ASSAULT ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT
> Ashcroft and Charitable Choice -- A Personal Reflection James Dunn
> is a
> visiting professor of Christianity and Public Policy at Wake Forest
> University Divinity School.
>
> John Ashcroft is touted for his intelligence and integrity. We will
> all have
> the chance to judge that for ourselves at his upcoming confirmation
> hearing
> for the position of U.S. Attorney General.
>
> When government advances religion in any way, it inevitably becomes
> involved
> in religious practice. It seems that "charitable choice" is a
> frontal assault
> on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause that forbids
> government from
> advancing or becoming entangled in religious affairs. Yet
> "charitable choice"
> allows and perhaps compels state governments to provide
> taxpayer-funded
> social services through pervasively sectarian institutions. I've
> spent my
> life protecting the separation of church and state, and the
> "charitable
> choice" concept sets my alarm bells ringing.
>
> So, I have some questions, particularly about so-called "charitable
> choice,"
> one of Ashcroft's favorite policies.
>
> Do people know that he was the principal architect of "charitable
> choice"
> legislation tacked on to welfare reform in a last-minute midnight
> vote in
> August 1996? Would this legislation be constitutional simply because
> it
> allows churches to use federal tax dollars for social programs that
> would
> otherwise be funded by government? Does anyone really understand how
> dangerous this dumping of tax dollars on "faith-based" programs can
> be?
>
> How can one reconcile Ashcroft's role as reckless innovator with his
> history
> as a rigid ideologue? Why has one of his most irresponsible
> initiatives been
> almost ignored by media critics?
>
> Are we willing as a people to abandon the separation of church and
> state, the
> greatest contribution of the United States to the science of
> government? Who
> can deny that the American way in church-state relations has been
> good for
> the church and good for the state?
>
> Is it not clear that religious liberty's essential corollary is
> separation of
> the structures of state from the institutions of religion? Who does
> not see
> that when anyone's religious freedom is denied everyone's religious
> freedom
> is endangered?
>
> Can anyone deny that having one's tax dollars taken by government
> coercion
> and turned over to pervasively sectarian outfits to do good
> threatens, at
> least a little bit, everyone's civil and religious liberties? And
> yet, don't
> we know that some truisms are true, like "he who pays the fiddler
> calls the
> tune?" What religion-related regime wants the rules and regulations,
> even the
> reporting, that goes with government-handled money? Is it not clear
> to most
> ministries that they sell their souls for a mess of politics-tainted
> pottage
> the very day they embark on the course of government gimmes?
>
> Who is there who believes that taking tax dollars will not change
> the nature,
> even the freedom and effectiveness, of faith-based programs? Is it
> not a leap
> of faith too great for even Kierkegaard to think that the source of
> funds
> will not shape to some degree the programs paid for?
>
> Isn't it ironic that a face card for faith like Senator Ashcroft is
> so
> willing to ignore the first freedom: "Congress shall make no law
> respecting
> an establishment of religion"? Is it too much to call him a reckless
> innovator?
>
> But then there's the rigid ideologue side of the Senator. When it
> comes to
> civil rights, civil liberties, concealed weapons, and abortion
> issues, he is
> clearly a right-wing extremist.
>
> He opposes therapeutic abortions even in instances of rape and
> incest. He
> lied about the record of Justice Ronnie White. He distorted the
> purpose and
> nature of United Nations protections for children.
>
> Any reasonably objective observer of his style would have to flinch
> at what
> seems to be self-righteous religiosity and spiteful moralisms. How
> painful
> for me, a Baptist preacher for 50 years, one thoroughly immersed in
> the
> "language of Zion," one who has sung at least as many gospel songs
> (necktie
> tenor) as Ashcroft has, to suffer his pieties. His reported
> self-anointing
> with Crisco oil when he became governor of Missouri is in the view
> of serious
> scholars: weird. Hebrew bible scholars cite only three instances of
> self-administered anointing in the Old Testament. All three episodes
> were
> either cultic or cosmetic. If for Mr. Ashcroft it were a cultic
> exercise, at
> least he should have used olive oil. If, rather, it were a cosmetic
> splash,
> Old Spice shaving lotion would have worked. Ludicrous, brother!
>
> I wonder if the club-headed Senate will sacrifice civil rights and
> civil
> liberties for a tradition of civility? Oh God, (that's a prayer not
> an
> expletive) I pray that they will not. Should they do so it will be
> bad for
> the church, bad for the state, bad for freedom, and bad for folks.
> We do not
> need such a pious polarizer.
>
> President Bush's nominee for Attorney General should not be
> confirmed.
> http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/01/09/index.html
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
