[Grovenet] Genesis 4:9

Mon Sep 8 11:50:00 PDT 2008

I'll attempt to answer the question though you still might not like  
the answer.

As for the prayer in school conundrum, the difference is found in the  
words "establishment' balanced against 'free exercise' as outlined in  
the first amendment.
You can rest assured that children of all faiths pray every day in  
all public schools. (Especially in the minutes right before a math or  
science test believe it or not.)  But when the school officials stand  
up in front of the school or class and declare that the next few  
minutes are for prayer it has the effect of telling all students when  
and for how long to pray (and for many what way to pray).
Children are still allowed to pray to their own deity everyday in our  
schools without top down interference and similarly they are free not  
to pray if they are so moved.
Standard #1 - follow the constitution of our own country not the  
constitution of another country with an official religion.

One reason for socialized medicine is in the history and mechanisms  
of diseases. Why did the shaman of indigenous tribes treat every  
member of the tribe and not just the strongest and best hunters?  
Because diseases tend to be communicable and by protecting as many  
tribe members as possible it had the ultimate effect of protecting  
the strongest and best hunters and thus helped insure the tribe's  
survival.  We can certainly let people rot in their own diseases  
until it starts to cause problems for us all but it is cheaper in the  
long run to try to keep a population healthy as a whole.  Cavemen may  
not have had a written policy on health care but they understood the  
premise just the same. As a society, when we put our heads together I  
hope we are just as smart as cavemen.
Some of us don't think that community health care is a particularly  
religious issue, but it is a secular mutual survival mechanism.  Just  
because somebody else's religion says that we should take care of our  
brethren doesn't mean that it is only a religious concept.

Standard #2 - follow logical public policy and if you don't like it,  
try to elect other representatives that will change it more to your  
liking.

Katie
(I like standards so much that I have lots and lots of them, two of  
mine are above. What are your two?)

On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> David -
>
> Thanks for the warm welcome.  One question (many components):
>
> Why is it ok for liberals to mix religion and politics?  For  
> example, if conservatives try to impose a moment of silence in school,
> lefties protest that is an imposition of religion on our children  
> by the state.
>
> Yet, if liberals demand must raise taxes for socialized medicine  
> (because we must take care of our brethren), that's cool.
>
> Gary "I like standards so much I have two of them" Duncan-Gates
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2008 11:21:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Genesis 4:9
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Welcome to the non-lurking side of Grovenet.
>
> Wealth was discussed at great length in this thread.  Wealth is an
> impediment to obtaining access to the kingdom of God.  That is
> immaterial if religion is kept out of the Economic and Political
> discussion.  But, this is America and we do take our religions
> seriously.  Religion has been part of the dialog about governing
> since the Spanish claimed Hispanola in the name of Christianity, and
> it continues to this day.
>
> The monotheistic religions all have conventions for the care of
> widows and orphans.  They do not prohibit the inclusion of those
> tasks in the operation of government.  Jesus provided many parables
> and comments on money and the position it should pay in the lives of
> his followers.  It is possible to argue that a literal reading of the
> Gospels obligates those who want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven to
> dispose of all that they own. (Matt 10:17-24)  We certainly know that
> at the judgement, those who failed to provide for the "least of
> these" will not enter the kingdom (Matt 25:31-46)  Again, there is
> nothing in the lesson to prohibit using government agencies from
> meeting the needs of "the least" of the brothers.
>
> Since we are a representative democracy there is little to prevent
> the majority of Americans from directing their representatives in
> government from ensuring that the "least of these" receive care and
> their minimum needs. ( Except where the Supreme Court gets involved )
>
> I can accept that the separation of Church and State enshrined in our
> Constitution should limit imposing Christian morals upon the non-
> Christian members of our nation.  If you wish an agnostic reason for
> caring for the young and old in society,  you might review the growth
> of the Prussian state, in that case the reforms that established
> kindergarten, social security, and a general reliance upon the
> government strengthened and enlarged the power of that state.  When
> someone pushes "America first", they may consider how reliance upon
> the government accomplishes that goal.
>
> Of course, it is possible to speak in strictly economic terms about
> taxes and government.  But, that ignores the non-economic issues.
>
> Yes, it is a nasty world out there and it is very difficult to take
> care of ourselves.  There are alternative social organizations
> besides a competitive free for all, where it is everyone for
> themselves, and "the devil take the hind most".   For example, there
> is nothing that prevents like minded people from forming "more
> perfect unions" to make it easier or safer.  There is a school of
> thought that stresses individual action and personal responsibility,
> and I accept that it has a place in our society.  I also recall that
> "divide and conquer" is a very effective method of removing  
> competition.
>
> David
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>> Walt,
>>
>> Do you get paid by the word?  You are right about political
>> parties; they intentionally oversimplify the issues and in so
>> doing, obfuscate them.  It is a shame we all can't just talk to one
>> another as individuals without the labels.
>>
>> However, you also said,
>>
>> ...
>> TAXES, by definition, come from your fellow citizens and the
>> economy that sustains us all.  To take more than is absolutely
>> necessary because you are too cavalier to get your own insurance is
>> offensive.  To suggest that there is no alternative in our society
>> than to live on the governmentally mandated largesse of others is,
>> to say the least, disingenuous.
>>
>> It is a nasty, demanding world out there.  We have enough to worry
>> about taking care of ourselves, without having to fund other
>> people's follies.
>>
>> Gary
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet