Separation of Church and State

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Seeker
You do realise where the Pope lives; don't you?

And we haven't had one arrested for quite a while........

I don't think they'd arrest the Pope.

The idea that speaking or reading scripture could even be considered a hate crime is alarming.

One of my best friends ( a theologian) is the Reverend in a church in Canada. He also had a radio show. He was canned by the  radio station for airing a show recenty in which he gave examples from other religions and contrasted them with the bible's teachings.

I guess the radio station said that they didn't want to be legally liable for his show , because it could be considered a hate crime. This was about four weeks ago, and he was blown away by the whole thing and very upset.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Link that please. I'll answer.

I said something about it on page 2. Anyway here is some data

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/GrantCatalog2004.pdf

The White House Office and the Agency Centers are charged with ensuring that local faith-based and community groups have a fair chance to compete for Federal dollars without facing barriers.

So they get a special office to help them compete? Do other groups get this help or just faith based? Answer just faith-based.

Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/index.html

 This one made me laugh though...I love how he calls the no establishment clause a roadblock. lmao---

Unfortunately, there are some roadblocks -- such as the culture inside government at the federal, state and local level that is unfriendly to faith-based organizations.

Today, 10 federal agencies have got faith-based offices, three of them set up last year. In other words, a lot of money comes out of these different bureaucracies, and in order to make sure people feel comfortable accessing the grant-making process, and/or that the bureaucracy itself is fair in enabling faith-based organizations to apply, there's an office in these different bureaucracies -- you know, Housing and Urban Development has got one; Margaret has got one; McAllum's organization, the Justice Department, has got one.

Special offices set up to help "faith based" organizations. Do other "organizations" get "special offices" to help them get more grant money? Nope. lmao I am not saying faithbased anymore from now on I am gonna call it like it is. RELIGOUS ORGANIZATIONS!

Statistics...

Since 2003, the administration has increased grants to faith-based organizations by 20 percent.

Last year, 10.3 percent of all federal grants -- those are grants coming out of Washington, those are not formula-based grants to states -- 10 percent of those grants went to faith-based organizations. That's up from 8.1 percent.

 That means about $2 billion in grants were awarded last year to religious charities. That's a start.
-BUSH


2 billion in taxpayer money to religious organizations. I don't care if they spread it around or gave it all to catholics. Any taxpayer backing of "churches" goes against establishment. I would like to see if the Religous organizations that received these grants increased their "social help" programs by the same amount of money or whether they were able to use it so that they could divert money into that new gym I see at every church.

I had another post somewhere with a lot more data and numbers but one of the most striking things was that even though the "Religious Organizations" receive federal money and are therefore required to comply with federal hiring/employment practices, they have been exempted and are allowed to discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, and any other factors that they deem will interfere with their "religion". What a crock.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But if the church is already an established and has yet to receive any governmental funding, who unestablishes them so that they can be re-established by receiving government funding?  Is unestablishing a church an expressed constitutional function of government?

stupid.

[Holden McGroin]

Yes it is.  Funding a program whereby some church group goes around delivering meals to elderly shut-ins by no means establishes that church.

I'm glad you agree.

[Torque]

Originally posted by bustr

The fear Frist is communicating to the congregations is, in the face of an extreemly left leaning judiciary, christianity could go the way it has in Canada, Australia and the EU where speaking scripture in public can get you jailed for hate speech if a gay, lesbian, muslim, or secularist is offended.  

hate literature is just that, regardless of what an invisible friend whispers in your ear.

christians had a hardtime getting over slavery and interracial marriage, they just lag behind the times. time to rewrite the novel again.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yes it is.  Funding a program whereby some church group goes around delivering meals to elderly shut-ins by no means establishes that church.

I'm glad you agree.

You need to read up on what that money is going for.

[bustr]

Originally posted by Seeker
You do realise where the Pope lives; don't you?

And we haven't had one arrested for quite a while........

Is the Vatacin a signed member of the EU Charter?

I can see what NASH is upset about. He should stay in Canada where Christianity is considered an institution of hate and sexual discrimination with laws in place to allow the persecution of Christians for practicing their beleif in the name of human rights, dignity and multiculteralism.

If our judiciary gets stacked with Liberal one world multiculteralists, you will see the First Amendment thrown out the window and 1000 extra lines of hidden text and meaning suddenly found in the constitution to justify condeming the practice of the Judeochristian religion in the U.S. as a religion of hate, intolerance and sexual discrimination.

The constitution currently protects the right to freely practice religion and the right to speak that religion freely in the public square. If NASH don't get that, NASH should leave the U.S. alone........................ ............

[Raider179]

Originally posted by bustr
As long as the Faith Based Initiatives are open to all Religions and not just Bush's denomination, it walks a slippery slope, but it does not preference one beleif over another. Unless you are throwing "All" religions into one hat and are arguing for a totaly secular government.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I could see throwing all interactions with all religions into a hat so to say if you want to loosely read this. But the Faith Based Initiative is not a law establishing a Religion. It's just another scam to get governments hand deeper into our pockets.

So as long as Frist or Billary Clinton are shouting hozanna in public to the masses as a practice of their faith or whatever and not submitting a bill up for law establishing a national religion, there is no violation of the constitution.

Unless you like judicial presidence which usually finds hidden lines in the constitution, like a mothers right to kill her baby, or mens right to bugger each other, Congress is only prohibited from creating a religion by enacting a law. You see a couple a thousand more lines in the first amendment I don't?

Like I said Financial backing of Religion is IMO establishing those Religions as the "Preferred" religions of the state. Someone's religion or lack there-of is gonna get left out and that will give the impression that their religion is not as accepted as the others that get 10's of millions of dollars.

It is a simple matter or choosing religion over lack there-of. Government should stay neutral and not have anything to do with any religion.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Raider179
You need to read up on what that money is going for.

I know of a program which was doing just that but was denied due to it's relationship with a church.

The New York chapter of the Salvation Army recently got into hot water due to its reception of government funding for soup kitchens etc. because it required employees to speak the "company doctrine".

[bustr]

Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said Financial backing of Religion is IMO establishing those Religions as the "Preferred" religions of the state. Someone's religion or lack there-of is gonna get left out and that will give the impression that their religion is not as accepted as the others that get 10's of millions of dollars.

It is a simple matter or choosing religion over lack there-of. Government should stay neutral and not have anything to do with any religion.

See I knew you could find the extra hidden text in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or Financial backing of Religion ; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I guess the version I grew up with was a PC revisionist version and not the original one.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now if this is a discussion on how YOU would rewrite the Constitution, well by all means. Otherwise all of these threads on the board about the constitution come down to:  one group dosent like the rules and wants to change them, the other group is happy with them.

The concept of "Funding" being an establishment is as bogus as the SCOTUS using judicial precidence for discovering 1000 hidden lines of text and meaning in the Frist Amendment. Creating a funding agency that provides funding for religions through a qualifying process is not a law establishing a religion. It's just another government hand out. I'm more concerned about the DING DONGS running the program and how badly they will screw the whole process before "Wikkens for Pedophilia" sue for their freebe and the SCOTUS gets to find a right to Pedophilia in the constitution................. .

[Raider179]

Originally posted by bustr
Creating a funding agency that provides funding for religions through a qualifying process is not a law establishing a religion. It's just another government hand out.

Maybe you are just not bright enough to grasp the concept. Funding of religion = part of the establishment of religion. Does that help ya? Clear it up?

That quote of yours is exactly what I see as establishing religion. I don't even care which one or all of them. Government has no business sending dollars their way when they turn around and use it to promote their own agenda's.

[Holden McGroin]

So let's see if I have this right...

So if there is a competition between two groups for providing a service to the community, say a meals on wheels program, and Joe's Catering bids against St. Josephs Kitchen.

Joe's comes in at 1% more than St. Joseph's for comparable service.

In order to be fair, the government is required to discriminate, on account of religion, against St. Josephs due to its church tie.

This is fair and equitable treatment... to discriminate against a group based upon their religious beliefs.

[bustr]

Originally posted by Raider179
Maybe you are just not bright enough to grasp the concept. Funding of religion = part of the establishment of religion. Does that help ya? Clear it up?

The Religion is already established. First redefine: Congress shall make (no law) respecting an establishment of religion.

"No Law" is explicite. The Church of England was created by a "Law".

You are finding hidden meaning again in the first line. It is your opinion that funding is establishment of the religions that qualify under the initiative. Faith based initiatives are an alternative to government based welfare and social services. The Faith and Community based private groups are better at helping the misfortunate because they are not government buracracies.

You are defining establishment, or recognition of a group by the transaction of funds. The constitution only prohibits the creation of a U.S. federal religion by passage of a "Law" to create it.

Telling me I'm not bright enough is an interesting way to accuse me of not reading between the lines and seeing the permiutations that for you seem to be obvious and almost evil in your view of the possible out come...............

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So let's see if I have this right...

So if there is a competition between two groups for providing a service to the community, say a meals on wheels program, and Joe's Catering bids against St. Josephs Kitchen.

Joe's comes in at 1% more than St. Joseph's for comparable service.

In order to be fair, the government is required to discriminate, on account of religion, against St. Josephs due to its church tie.

This is fair and equitable treatment... to discriminate against a group based upon their religious beliefs.

The way the law stands they only discriminate against them if they try to spout religious views while they give the food. You know "here's your lunch, got a few minutes to learn about the bible" They don't do that then no there is no discrimination. But like I said in an earlier part, their seems to be no oversight so exactly what gets spent where by what church is anybody's guess. I still say all it did was allow churches to withdrawn their own money from these programs and use it elsewhere meanwhile the government picks up the tab.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by bustr
The Religion is already established. First redefine: Congress shall make (no law) respecting an establishment of religion.


You are defining establishment, or recognition of a group by the transaction of funds. The constitution only prohibits the creation of a U.S. federal religion by passage of a "Law" to create it.

Telling me I'm not bright enough is an interesting way to accuse me of not reading between the lines and seeing the permiutations that for you seem to be obvious and almost evil in your view of the possible out come...............

LoL

You say I am reading between the lines but then you go read between the lines yourself. Does the constitution, actually the bill of rights, say it only prohibits creation of a "U.S. federal religion by passage of a "law" to create it?" Seems like that is reading between the lines on your part. IMO The clause is vauge on purpose so it could be wide-ranging. Not Narrow into only 1 specific act.