| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ManOMan" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 04:27:01 PM |
| Object: |
Faith-based initiative abuses |
I'm having a bit of an argument with a pastor in charge of a anti-drug
addiction program that receives a portion of George Bush's faith-based
vote bribing fund.
I asked him if he includes spirituality as one element of his cure for
drug addiction. He declined to answer. I then asked him if he would
open his books to an audit. Of course he refused, and said it was
incumbent on me to prove abuses, and not his obligation to defend against
unsubstantiated allegations.
But how can we substantiate anything, unless there's a mandatory audit
component as part of the program? No abusive church is going to
voluntarily subject itself to scrutiny.
Did I mention how much I hate George Bush?
.
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith-based initiative abuses |
26 Jan 2005 01:05:22 AM |
|
|
.... No abusive church is going to
voluntarily subject itself to scrutiny.
Most of those guilty of abuse will not voluntarily subject themselves to
scrutiny. However, those that do are scrutinized by churches and the state.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith-based initiative abuses |
25 Jan 2005 06:37:02 PM |
|
|
ManOMan bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
I'm having a bit of an argument with a pastor in charge of a anti-drug
addiction program that receives a portion of George Bush's faith-based
vote bribing fund.
I asked him if he includes spirituality as one element of his cure for
drug addiction. He declined to answer. I then asked him if he would
open his books to an audit. Of course he refused, and said it was
incumbent on me to prove abuses, and not his obligation to defend against
unsubstantiated allegations.
But how can we substantiate anything, unless there's a mandatory audit
component as part of the program? No abusive church is going to
voluntarily subject itself to scrutiny.
It's called a warrant, and if you think there's impropriety, you should ask
your local authorities to open up an investigation and get one.
I'm assuming, of course, that you're not a member of the law enforcement
community.
Did I mention how much I hate George Bush?
Try not to hate, it leads to the "dark side." ;^)
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith-based initiative abuses |
26 Jan 2005 12:19:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:27:01 GMT, ManOMan <man@man.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Not being able to investigate until you have evidence and not being
allowed to gather the evidence you need to investigate is a hallmark
of a dictatorship. (Like making it illegal to question whether
certain machines are working correctly.)
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith-based initiative abuses |
26 Jan 2005 06:46:47 AM |
|
|
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:27:01 GMT, ManOMan <man@man.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Not being able to investigate until you have evidence
That's called "probable cause," I believe.
and not being
allowed to gather the evidence you need to investigate
No one can do that on his or her own. A judge, however, can grant that
privilege to the proper authorities. It's called, IIRC, the fourth amendment. A
writ of /habeus corpus/.
is a hallmark
of a dictatorship.
Oops. I'm pretty sure all that is in the Constitution of the USA. Are you sure
that we've been a "dictatorship" since the dawn of the Republic? Jefferson
would be P.O.'ed at you for that assessment I think.
(Like making it illegal to question whether
certain machines are working correctly.)
They were working correctly. The only question is who determined what the
"correct" function was. It wasn't illegal to ask for an independent audit, but
the people who did lost. AFAICT, that's also part of democracy. Sometimes
people with good ideas get voted down.
California voted electronic voting machines down as a big joke, despite
Ahhhnold. I think I still have the report on file if you'd like me to post it
in a binaries group.
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
