The gov't can endorse religion, it can't force religion. You say, well if its tax payer dollars buying the bibles, then the gov't is endorsing the religion, true, but perfectly ok. Think of this.
A. If a gov't builds, or repairs a road that leads to a church, did they endorse the church? The church did benefit from the gov't funding that was used on the road. How is that different then buying bibles?
B. If a church uses the post office to send letters to people, is our post office, which is a gov't service endorsing them? You could say no, they are paying to send their own letters. The truth however is that the post office if funded by tax dollars, even if you pay for your stamp, you are really just paying a tax based on consumption. Not that terribly different then a sales tax.
Most people would think those above examples are perfectly fine. They really aren't any different. The road doesn't make anyone go to the church, but it might improve turnout nontheless. Handing out bibles doesn't make anyone a christian, or make them go to church either.
43 comments
These are not the same. The road is not there solely for the access to the church. Besides, the church was built where the road was already, not the road built to gain access to the church. Same with the post office. The church pays for the privilege of using the postal service the same as any other organization or individual. There is not endorsement of any kind involved.is unconstitutional for the government to hand out any religious book, text, and/or guidebook. That is for your protection as well as those that don't agree with your form of fantasy.
That road that the government repaired does not just grant access to the church, but also to the mosque two doors down, the temple next door, and the GLBT headquarters on the next block. The road is impartial. It even leads to the goth coven that meets in the back room at the Beef-A-Roo.
"A. If a gov't builds, or repairs a road that leads to a church, did they endorse the church? The church did benefit from the gov't funding that was used on the road. How is that different then buying bibles?
That is utterly incorrect, Incorect. There is a whopping big difference between government paying for Bibles and churches having roads built and sending mail.per se , but by private contractors, and a church pays the same rates as anyone else who employs them.
Buying stamps isn't paying a tax; it is paying for a service, the service of delivery, and churches do not get any break on that service that other bulk mailers do not get -- and frequently, they do not even get those.
Next time you try to make comparisons, learn a little bit about the topic so you don't have so many wildly unfounded assumptions as the foundation of your argument.
~David D.G.
I don't have time to dispute every damn thing you got wrong. Let's just leave it with "You don't know what you're talking about. Instead of worrying about bibles, you should make a serious effort to get ahold of a dictionary and someone who can show you how to us it. Also, see if your local school district offers a government class in adult school.
Now we need a whole new award category. Something to befit the seeming typical and willful misunderstanding of the First Amendment.
Simple test: if the government would do it for an individual or non-religious organization, it's OK to do it for a church.
1. No
"The gov't can endorse religion, it can't force religion."
Wow. Somebody really needs to get a sense of European, American colonial, and American religious history. This is ridiculous.
The difference is just that if the government builds a road to a church, it will most likely buid a road to a factory or an office building or a number of homes too. When it comes to books, the government has a long tradition of lending books in libraries, not giving them away. If they hand out bibles, please also hand out some free science books or some copies of books from stephen king. Maybe they should cut back on the chase against p2p networks, since basically you can get books over them. Even the bible...
Call me stupid, but this guy doesn't seem to be saying much bad. The government certainly doesn't endorse anything religous - they just take care of the infrastructure and some common services like the post office.
Am I missing something here?
Okay Incorect, read the post you have written out loud, but replace the word "bible" with "The Koran," "Christian" with "Muslim" and the word, "church" with "mosque."
NOW do you see the problem?
Here's the thing: If your myth had any validity you wouldn't need a manual or vauge gameplan that you sell as THE most important thing from here to eternity.
Christians often push this idea that churchs deserve more respect than homes or schools. They're wrong.
When these were the same buildings, multi-purpose, Official, Education and religious. You have a point from 200 years ago. They were also community centres used for any common purpose like dances,clubs or trading. The White House was once all of these.
And the fact that the constitution demands no promotion of religion means nothing
A.) The road that leads to your Church leads to the store, the residential area, and the strip club down the street. And the driveway that leads into the church? The property owner pays for that.
B.) The church is not exempt from paying for stamps. They pay the same fee we do to use the mail system.
The above are universal applications that benefit the church in the same way as it does everyone else. Handing out Bibles benefits your religion. Period.
I can't believe no one got to this before me but what if the government paid for other books to hand out including but not limited to; the Torah, the Quaran, Dianetics, etc?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
