Does the Welfare State violate the Establishment Clause? (1 Viewer)

[Goobieman]

Here are some comments from proponents of the Welfare State:

Are you a christian? I know you claim to be, but you seem to ignore the parts about charity being one of the greatest virtues.

I personally don't believe people on welfare are entitled to anything, but I do think that, as people who can afford to do so, it is our responsibility to help them as much as we can. I disagree with welfare, but I don't disagree with the principle, and I personally can't imagine a true christian who does.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/350099-post21.html

What would you like to do with all the poor people [on welfare]? Consult your New Testament and get back to me.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/349803-post18.html

I think that it's a moral issue for our country to assist the poor. I'm always amazed at the theocons who want to throw the poor out onto the street.

If you know your new testament, then you know that helping the poor is a basic tenet of Christ's teachings.

"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."-Proverbs 17:5

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."-Proverbs 21:13

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."-Proverbs 22:16

http://www.debatepolitics.com/350249-post34.html

Given the clearly sectarian nature of welfare, being based clearly on the Christian teaching of Charity, how can any welfare program stand against a challenge that it violates the Establisment clause?

 

[jfuh]

Here are some comments from proponents of the Welfare State:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/350099-post21.html


http://www.debatepolitics.com/349803-post18.html


http://www.debatepolitics.com/350249-post34.html

Given the clearly sectarian nature of welfare, being based clearly on the Christian teaching of Charity, how can any welfare program stand against a challenge that it violates the Establisment clause?

Welfare is sectarian?
You'd first have to prove that aethesits then are not charitable and that only through faith and religion can there be charity.

 

[Kandahar]

Some aspects of the welfare state violate many parts of the Constitution...but the establishment clause is not one of them. You don't have to hold any particular religious belief to support or oppose a welfare state.

 

[Goobieman]

Welfare is sectarian?
You'd first have to prove that aethesits then are not charitable and that only through faith and religion can there be charity.

You mean just like you proved that the opposition to gay marriage, as found the DoMA is necessarily sectarian in nature?

LOL

By that standard of proof, all I have to do is say it.

The welfare state is sectarian in nature.

There. I proved it.

 

[Goobieman]

Some aspects of the welfare state violate many parts of the Constitution...but the establishment clause is not one of them. You don't have to hold any particular religious belief to support or oppose a welfare state.

So... those that argue that we need to have a welfare state because Christian teachings tell us to be charitible are ... wrong?

 

[Kandahar]

So... those that argue that we need to have a welfare state because Christian teachings tell us to be charitible are ... wrong?

I don't see anything in the Bible that indicates the need for a welfare state (but then I'm not Christian). Some Christians do think we need a welfare state...just like some Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists think we need a welfare state. Others don't.

I don't see the subject having anything to do with one's religion.

 

[jfuh]

You mean just like you proved that the opposition to gay marriage, as found the DoMA is necessarily sectarian in nature?

LOL

By that standard of proof, all I have to do is say it.

The welfare state is sectarian in nature.

There. I proved it.

You failed to proove that is was secular. If you are blind to the fact that the only opposition to gay marriage is the religious right just take a moment and google for opposition + Gay marriage and see how many sites you find that are of a secular nature. Yes it's because of non-faith that ppl are against gay marriage.:roll: It's quite obvious all you're doing here is dodging.
BTW, you're bringing into light of the gay marriage thread does nothing to validate your claims here. It's called a red herring.
Now if you want a credible debate, proove that only christians are charitable and that by no means are any other religious faiths, or for that matter aetheists charitable - only then will your question posted here have any validity to it.
Good luck with that.

 

[Goobieman]

You failed to proove that is was secular.

YOU said the DoMA act was unconstitutional because it vioplated the Establishment clause by beinf sectarian in nature.
You failed to prove it was sectarian, as was your claim.
You cited nothing in the text of the act or the debates surrounding it to support your claim. All you did was say it was sectarian because it has to be.

That's what passes for 'debate' in your world - you make a statement and pronounce it sound because it has to be. :roll:

I, at least, cited people who DO think that the welfare state is sectarian in nature, and you have done nothing to discredit that.

And so, clearly, the welfare state, being csectarian in nature, violates the Establishment clause and is therewfore Unconstitutional.

 

[jfuh]

YOU said the DoMA act was unconstitutional because it vioplated the Establishment clause by beinf sectarian in nature.
You failed to prove it was sectarian, as was your claim.
You cited nothing in the text of the act or the debates surrounding it to support your claim. All you did was say it was sectarian because it has to be.

That's what passes for 'debate' in your world - you make a statement and pronounce it sound because it has to be. :roll:

I, at least, cited people who DO think that the welfare state is sectarian in nature, and you have done nothing to discredit that.

And so, clearly, the welfare state, being csectarian in nature, violates the Establishment clause and is therewfore Unconstitutional.

If you want to argue about gay marriage, there's already another thread for that.
Otherwise, tu quo quoi. Your argument here is invalid and moot.
So again, show that only christians are charitable and that by no means are any other religious faiths, or for that matter aetheists, charitable.

 

[Goobieman]

If you want to argue about gay marriage, there's already another thread for that.

Yes. And I'm still waiting for you to support the idea that the DoMA is sectarian in nature using someting other than "because it has to be".

I dont expect to see that anytime soon.

Otherwise, tu quo quoi. Your argument here is invalid and moot.

It is?
Odd -- the people I quoted don't think so.
Tell me how they are wrong.

 

[taxedout]

If you want to argue about gay marriage, there's already another thread for that.
Otherwise, tu quo quoi. Your argument here is invalid and moot.
So again, show that only christians are charitable and that by no means are any other religious faiths, or for that matter aetheists, charitable.

Yes, but when talking about "god" in school, you would claim it is the "christian" god being refered to. Other religions have gods too.

I guess arguements for the establishmnet clause should be moot there too ?

 

[Kandahar]

Yes, but when talking about "god" in school, you would claim it is the "christian" god being refered to. Other religions have gods too.

I guess arguements for the establishmnet clause should be moot there too ?

No. You DO have to hold certain religious beliefs to favor school-led prayer, or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That is, you have to believe in God. Notice how you never see atheists lobbying for school-led prayer?

You don't have to hold any particular religious belief to support or oppose a welfare state.

 

[jfuh]

Yes, but when talking about "god" in school, you would claim it is the "christian" god being refered to. Other religions have gods too.

I guess arguements for the establishmnet clause should be moot there too ?

Two things to point out.
1) the very ppl that want school led prayer are dominently Christian. When was the last time you saw a buddhist yelling in the capital for school led prayer? So to ignore that fact is flat out dishonesty.

2) What does school led prayer or teaching of god in school have anything whatsoever to do with the argument that welfare being a solely christian value?

 

[taxedout]

No. You DO have to hold certain religious beliefs to favor school-led prayer, or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That is, you have to believe in God. Notice how you never see atheists lobbying for school-led prayer?

You don't have to hold any particular religious belief to support or oppose a welfare state.

Didn't a recent decision concerning apply the establishment clause because they felt a "christian" god was being "implied" by the concept of a "creator" ?

I think the concept of the specific christian God was used to satisfy their interpretation of the clause.
A generic god did not cut it.


In addition I was not argueing for the application of the establishmnet clause to the arguement for a welfare state. Only against its use for certain other purposes.

 

[Indy]

Here is where I think you made a very poor leep in logic, called funny enough, a logical falacy [check spelling ]

1. A wellfare state acts as a charity for the less fortunate.
2. Chritian beliefs believe in charity.
3. Wellfare is christian.
4. A person believes in Charity.
5. A person is christian.

Okay,

If 5 = true -> 4 = true
If 4 = true DOES NOT mean 5 = true

By the same means:

If 1 = True and 2 = True DOES NOT mean 3 = True.

It is quite possible for somebody or something to want to be kind to another without them being christian. Believe it or not Chritians don't hold the patent on morality and kindness. In fact in this day and age they often fall short of the average... which is sad.

 

[Goobieman]

Here is where I think you made a very poor leep in logic, called funny enough, a logical falacy [check spelling ]

1. A wellfare state acts as a charity for the less fortunate.
2. Chritian beliefs believe in charity.
3. Wellfare is christian.
4. A person believes in Charity.
5. A person is christian.

Okay,

If 5 = true -> 4 = true
If 4 = true DOES NOT mean 5 = true

By the same means:

If 1 = True and 2 = True DOES NOT mean 3 = True.

It is quite possible for somebody or something to want to be kind to another without them being christian. Believe it or not Chritians don't hold the patent on morality and kindness. In fact in this day and age they often fall short of the average... which is sad.

You will note, specifically, that I posted quotes from people that argue, specifically, that the welfare state is based on Christian teachings of Charity.

So, while your little deomostration, above, is correct, it doesnt really have anything to do with anything.

 

[Indy]

You will note, specifically, that I posted quotes from people that argue, specifically, that the welfare state is based on Christian teachings of Charity.

So, while your little deomostration, above, is correct, it doesnt really have anything to do with anything.

And when exactly did ANY of them say that wellfare is based on the CHRISTIAN belief of charity? Since when is Charity a Christian only belief? True, christians believe in charity, but also in honesty. That's hardly to say that somebody who doesn't lie practices christianity.

So, if I may ask, how does it violate the establishment clause? Or for that matter, how does it have ANYTHING to do with the establishment clause? Just because christians participate in something doesn't mean that it belongs to them.

If you ask me I think your quotes don't have anything to do with this thread. That is since none of them mentioned that a wellfare state supports christianity. They just stated that christians should agree with a wellfare state since its the right thing to do and it helps people.

 

[Goobieman]

If you ask me I think your quotes don't have anything to do with this thread.

Good news! I supplied the links to the threads they were taken from.
Go ahead and read them.

 

[jfuh]

Good news! I supplied the links to the threads they were taken from.
Go ahead and read them.

Good news, you still haven't shown Charity to be exclusively christian.
Also, just because so and so said so, doesn't make it so. nice try.

 

[Goobieman]

Good news, you still haven't shown Charity to be exclusively christian.

I see your reading comprehensin is no better on this board than it is anywhere else.

Also, just because so and so said so, doesn't make it so. nice try.

The you need to vote for "these people are wrong".

 

[Indy]

Good news! I supplied the links to the threads they were taken from.
Go ahead and read them.

Wait, first you say that the quote themselves show that it is based on christian beliefs. Then when that is shown to be bunk you act like I am an idiot for not shifting through an entire thread? You gotta be kidding me. Why not bring your own arguments to the table rather than having your oponents go fetch them for you. Talk about lazy.

 

[jfuh]

I see your reading comprehensin is no better on this board than it is anywhere else.


The you need to vote for "these people are wrong".

Please quote them where they say charity is exclusively christian. Or that in order to be charitable you'd have to be christian
Or finally, that welfare is soley christian value.
Good luck with that.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch but it's definately a violation of the 5th amendment:



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[ashurbanipal]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It could (and will directly by me) be argued that, clearly, if we were to take this literally, we'd have to abolish the income tax. I believe that the constitution grants congress the power to levy taxes--so it's obvious that the founding fathers didn't mean that people should not be made to pay taxes.

But should we support others who are in need? Well, that depends, and I would say that almost everyone will agree with one central ideal: we should help someone out who is normally productive and self-supporting, but who, through no fault of their own, is temporarily unable to do so. It seems like a pretty core idea of having a society that the members each are mutually supportive. This doesn't entail supporting a deadbeat, which is what everyone seems to be concerned about whenever welfare is mentioned.

However, welfare statistics show that the majority of recipients are off welfare within 2 years. A very small percent stay on it longer than 5 years.

 

[Deegan]

Let us discuss this in the chat area?

I need human contact!