Religious Accommodation or Neutrality?

Theory and practice tend to differ whether we are looking at the forest or our own tree. I think we naturally want our own tree to be seen as something special that requires accomodation, but then are content to see all of the other trees treated as neutrally as possible.

Another "tree du jour" from Mar 2006: Catholic Cahrities in Boston shutting its doors because "the state" insisted that this religion permit gays to adopt children. That is an example of the state perceiving religious freedom via neutrality rather than accomodation.

As for the faith-based initiatives tree du jour, it is a two-edged sword. I think that churches are a better administrator for welfare, but any church that accepts state monies becomes beholden to the state. The state will use the threat of cessation of those funds to coerce desired behaviors.

BGone's reply to Cal Thomas might enlighten you but then I doubt it.

Cal sez, "...and individual Christians do that would reduce the need, cost and power of government?"

Faith based initiatives are "hell bent" to do all three.

1. Reduced the need of government. In eastern Europe the church became the government thus "the revolution" to overthrow the Czar and "establish democracy" could not be a success without eliminating the existing government, the church. We're headed in that direction empowering the church making it the real government which "reduces the need of government."

2. Reduce the cost of government. We must ignore the cost of religion and focus our attention on the cost of government. "Gifts" to God are not costs even if those gifts are taxes collected at gun point by the government. Both candidates agreed to continue "Faith based initiatives" that are taxes turned over to your collective "the church" which may not be counted when deciding "the cost of government." This was the scheme employed by Constantine the great to, cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget" just like our greatest ever president Ronald Regan both said and did with "faith based initiatives" that "reduce the cost of government."

3. Reduce the power of government. Pastor Rick gives us a graphic example of how the power of government has been reduced by your collective, "the church." His power is greater than that of both candidates "collectively." He wields the "power of faith" and demonstrates/ed how weak government is in the face of religion, "reducing even more the power of government."

The country is bankrupt, literally. Pundits on Wall Street, when asked about "the other shoe falling" have called our present condition a centipede. Many shoes have fallen and there are still many more to fall. Religion caused the collapse of the Roman empire and Czarist Russia. Is the next step for America Godless Communism?

Real conservatives know that the public treasury may not be controlled by anyone with the power to vote themselves money from it without the destruction of the government for they will always vote themselves more money than there is altogether. The key word is not debt but "monetize." Faith based initiatives are funded by monetized money that is not just a tax on all Americans but a tax on all who hold dollars world wide. How long before that shoe falls, the rest of the world decides they've funded American religions enough and "dump their dollars." Who is under that shoe and sure to be crushed?

Every monetized dollar reduces the value of the dollar, a fair because no one is left out tax on all who have dollars. They don't do that in Godless China. What is their currency called again?

JJ, stop, you got my attention and everyone elses.

I do't want you to have to stop posting here. I like reading your post, they are full of historical information and informative.

Okay... what about religious liberty for minority religions? When your religion has to fight for 10 years to get their symbol to be approved for military graves, or don't have a chaplain in the US armed forces - even though you have more members of your religious group than some who do - that's not "religious liberty". That's discrimination.

Kathleen:

If I understand your point correctly, our electorate today definitely leans towards neutrality, not accomodation. All candidates who are identified as being religious are grilled to ascertain whether their religious beliefs will influence their decisions, as if it is required of presidents to be publicly non-religious.

On 17 September 2002, columnist Maggie Gallagher published the following in arguing the difference between religious tolerance and religious liberty:

"Religious tolerance ... is rooted in the idea that religion is essentially a private matter that should not be allowed to disrupt public affairs. Intellectually it tends toward indifferentism, the idea that all religions are basically the same anyway (one God, many paths), and so there is no legitimate reason to disturb the peace by criticizing -- or converting -- one another. The good citizen must respect all religions. In exchange for this tolerance, religions promise not to create discomfort or interfere in the public square."

"Religious liberty, which is largely an American gift to the world, is based on the opposite premise. Religious expression is a basic human right, which includes the right not only to worship privately, but publicly to preach, to criticize and to seek to influence or convert. Church and state are separated, but primarily to protect religious individuals from coercion."

".... Let us reflect for a minute on what it means to suggest that attempts to preach and convert in a free country are somehow illegitimate, hostile acts, akin to bigotry. Carried to logical conclusions, it would mean, among other things, the overthrow of religious liberty and the enshrinement of religious tolerance in its stead. ... The price of admission to good citizenship would become the surrender of religious convictions. Only certain, adequately subservient religions need apply."