Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on January 29, 2001, 03:55:00 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.faithbased.01/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.faithbased.01/index.html)
"Faith based" is the latest political term for "religious". Good move, but not smart enough for even the dumbest of guardians of the wall.
From the article:
"...including his proposals to allow religious groups to receive federal funding
for the provision of vital life and social services to the needy."
"The president also signed an executive order directing five Cabinet-level federal agencies to investigate how faith-based groups could effectively participate in a variety of government aid programs."
""My administration will look first to faith-based and community groups," he said. "We will not fund the religious activities of
any one group, but when people of faith provide services, we will not discriminate against them.""
""For the purpose of the state and the church, and the principle of separating the two with a decent distance, this is a very bad idea," said Barry Lynn of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State."
"Bush aides said safeguards would be in place to make sure the religious groups do not use the money to proselytize. "This will not be funding religion," Fleischer insisted. "It is not the religious aspect of what they that is getting funding, it is the community service aspect. These are not going to be programs
that preach religion, these are faith-based programs that help people improve their lives."
With all this defense, and all the words, for a realist, it is nonsense - how do they stop someone from saying "God is always with you", "Jesus loves you" or something akin to that? They cannot - they can stmop out preaching *if they are intent to do so*, but nothing Bush has done so far (including cutting funds to family and aids planning in Africa, and cancelling Clinton's order to give Africans access to cheaper aids medicine) indicte that the state is willing to do so.
The fact of the matter is that every major religion in the world has as a goal to save as many as possible. Put in less political terms; to expand and assimilate. Mixing bare life NECESSITIES, such as food, with the spreading of the religion is inviting prozelytizing. I've seen them at work, the drug addicts here are Jesus people and it's an extremely effective way of spreading the Word (or words).
It's another controversial move by the man who claimed to be a "uniter, not a divider". It further removes him from his claim. Had he been a democrat, some of you chaps would call him a "f*cking liar". Then again, he might only be following a family tradition (read my lips) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Post is a cheapshot, but even cheapshots are worth taking. You rep dudes have taught me that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
if someone wonders why I appear to favour the democrats more, it's because in the past they've been more reluctant to do stuff like this, they largely support my position on abortion and are closer to waht I see in Europe. OTOH, they have some major screwups. It's just that withn a lot of reps here, *someone* has to play the villain. And, dudes, I am the villain (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Flame away; I am untouchable.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
Other quotes from that same article:
"The legislative portion of the president's plan -- which would allow religious groups to compete with secular organizations for federal dollars to pay for after-school programs, drug treatment counseling, meal assistance and other programs -- will be sent to Capitol Hill Tuesday, Bush said."
"The new White House office will be charged with distributing billions of federal dollars to a variety of religious groups and charities over the next 10 years. In essence, the groups would be competing with a number of established organizations -- including federal agencies -- for a set amount of tax dollars."
"Aides said some faith-based groups already receive federal funding under the 1996 welfare reform law, and that these groups have not violated the constitutional separation of church and state."
======================
I can't attack or defend this one. My gut reaction was the seperation issue, but I'm totally on the fence with this one for now. I really wish the article would have given some concrete examples of which faith-based groups have been receiving Federal funds for 4-5 years already.
Fury
-
Such talk on the part of the Bush administration is in violation of the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..."
It really is nothing but wishful thinking on Bush's part. Such a bill would die in the Supreme Court if it ever got through the Senate. And if it does actually get through everything, then the country of our forefathers will be a thing of the past.
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
(Incidently, in a Gnostic version of the Bible, think the Gospel of John, this quote is "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's, and unto me what is mine." Interesting version. Gnosticism was eventually proclaimed heretical by a small, but powerful sect of Christianity that had the full backing of the Roman Imperial government.)
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 01-29-2001).]
-
"when people of faith provide services, we will not discriminate against them"
What part of that don't you understand?
-
"We gotta keep'um separated..." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I think you all know where I stand on this. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hehe well, we ARE supposed to be a "God-fearing" country, but you guys sure seem more afraid than most... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I would think you'd wait until something more specific is announced before we all start dodging pieces of falling sky...
P.S. I think you need to look up "respecting." It has more than one meaning, and I'm not sure everyone always chooses the right one. Some might interpret that line as "Congress shall make no law pertaining to a religious establishment."
-
Originally posted by jedi:
P.S. I think you need to look up "respecting." It has more than one meaning, and I'm not sure everyone always chooses the right one. Some might interpret that line as "Congress shall make no law pertaining to a religious establishment."
Heh, well, if you try to pass a motion/bill that allows religious-based groups to receive federal funding, then it is 'pertaining to a religious establishment.'
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
funked, it's very hard not to understand the constitution in terms of no government support for religious organisations.
Secular organisations are by definition no in violation with the constitution on this. You're comparing apples and oranges. And you know it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Protect it dudes; you got it; I don't.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
Do we need to do more? Yes, clearly.
Should we try new ideas? Why not? We haven't solved the problem yet.
-- which would allow religious groups to compete with secular organizations for federal dollars to pay for after-school programs, drug treatment counseling, meal assistance and other programs
Keyword in there is "compete". Competition improves the breed. Compassionate caring is what religion touts as "their thing". Let them prove it, if they can.
They've got their baggage, too. There's an awful lot of sticky fingers in that God business. Some of the donated money never makes it out of the preacher's hot little hand. THAT would be the real problem, I think.
As far as "how do they stop someone from saying "God is always with you", "Jesus loves you" or something akin to that"...
how do you stop someone from saying "have a nice day", "may the force be with you" or "You must find the answer within"?
In other words, who gives a rat's butt what they say when they say hello or goodbye? The question is "are they doing any GOOD?" A salutation is just a salutation.
Once upon a time I regularly helped out a Catholic nun who made it her "thing" to feed the needy. I don't ever recall any proselytizing; we just fed the hungry. If they wanted to know more about the religion, they got a pamphlet that pointed them to the neighborhood parish priest and we went on cooking and serving. That woman was as close to a true angel as I have ever known.
Besides, it's open to any outfit that wants to COMPETE to do good, right? No religion is getting "most favored" status like our GOOD FRIENDS the Chinese. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
..and we'll have lots of guys like Leonid and Santa running around to check and make sure no one says "Jesus" out loud! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
"Arrest that man!" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Good ol' Santa, kicking this up again. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Toad brings up a good point. How does someone witness effectively? I know from personal experience (my long years growing up in an atheistic family) is that the harder you push, the harder you get pushed back. Be a good person, let your faith be known, and if anyone has questions, you answer. This is the way my church does it. Others are different.
I think if good is done, good is done. I wouldn't advocate shutting down charities just because they didn't support religion, why should I do the opposite? By the same token, if charities such as the United Way are subsidized, I think that is great. I don't know of any affiliation to religion, though there may be.
I give to the bell ringers at Christmas, you know, the Salvation Army. I don't even know what religion they are affiliated with, and don't care. They do good.
I know the point is to avoid entangling the government with a particular religion, but are we saying that a religious charity deserves no more support than a secular one?
I understand where people can be concerned by this, I suppose. I don't agree with it, but I can see a point.
-
We're talking payback for a *huge* voting block... nothing more.
Within a week (a WEEK!)of taking office we get abortion and religion. Abortion and religion. Like the people wanted someone to finally step up and take charge of these issues. Save us from the infideles!!
"Say Jim, nice new car. But have you really thought about the government's role in abortion and religion lately? I mean, we gotta DO something - and FAST!"
"When people of faith provide services, [he]will not discriminate against them", yet a week prior he moved to bar U.S. funds to international family planning groups involved with abortion. Uhh... OK.
HUGE misstep, politically. At this rate, an announcement will be made, and February will heretofore be known as Automatic Weapons Month.
...And at this rate, the guy will be unelectable by the end of March. I don't think people signed up for quite this.
He's pretty hardcore.
-
Welp, I gotta side with the left on this one, in fact it's quite contrary to many of the reasons I'm a republican. I don't think the government needs to be handing out money any more than it already is, much less to religous institutions.
Indirect aid to these are fine (tax breaks, both to the institution and to contributions), but when a check is cut from the gov't, I'm a bit wary. Yeah, some may say vouchers are the same boat, but it's not. That's a parent's choice on how best to educate their children, if, and only if, the public system has completely failed them for more than 3 years and an alternative public school cannot be found.
Nash is right on the voting block. It's sad though, really. There's a reason Pat Robertson-like candidates get murdered in the primaries. It's because they're not as big a voting block as they appear, they just have a lot of clout. (Can I plug campaign finance reform again here?)
-
Toad:
Keyword in there is "compete". Competition improves the breed. Compassionate caring is what religion touts as "their thing". Let them prove it, if they can.
Your constitution does not allow state sponsored support for spreading the word. THAT is the issue here.
The moment you connect essentials such as bread to an evangelical group, WHAT do you have? Some people that are forced to listen to the word as they get their food.
Even a line such as "Jesus loves you" when combined with state sponsored food program would infringe on the separation of church and state. Think about it - you come for bread, and with it you get gospel. Does not sound good to me.
They've got their baggage, too. There's an awful lot of sticky fingers in that God business. Some of the donated money never makes it out of the preacher's hot little hand. THAT would be the real problem, I think.
Indeed. There are many examples of corrupt church officials. Not that it matter in this particular discussion, but it's very true.
how do you stop someone from saying "have a nice day", "may the force be with you" or "You must find the answer within"?
In other words, who gives a rat's butt what they say when they say hello or goodbye? The question is "are they doing any GOOD?" A salutation is just a salutation.
Who cares if they remove your right to bear arms Toad? We're talking about a violation of your constitution. It seemed guns mattered; this should matter too. All would be fine if they could do the job without any attempts to win a few souls. And with freedom of religion comes *freedom from religion* - how can someone hungry get that when the Jesus Squad is handing out the bread? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Besides, it's open to any outfit that wants to COMPETE to do good, right? No religion is getting "most favored"
status like our GOOD FRIENDS the Chinese.
Your constitution is quite clear on the matter; it mentions religion, in general and not a specific one. I wouldn't mind if all they did was do good, but I somehow doubt they can quell their enthusiasm. Especially the evangelical denominations who're ordered by God to spread the word. And, quite frankly, I am beginning to doubt Bush's reassurances. For some odd reason, I believed people when they said he was good at uniting, not dividing.
If I was the only one who saw a possible violation here, I'd shut up. But Bush has really put a fire under the pants of various freethinker groups (including, interestingly enough, theist freethinkers).
What is also interesting is that there is a coalition here of both theists and non theists - the theists do NOT want the government to start "buying control" so to speak, over the churches. Seems sensible to me for the churches to stay clear of the government when they can.
I just think you need to be careful. In so few days, Bush has made some pretty radical changes and if not thrown a few punches with a sledge hammer at the wall, at least approached it with one in his hand.
..and we'll have lots of guys like Leonid and Santa running around to check and make sure no one says "Jesus" out loud!
"Arrest that man!"
LOL! And I'd get paid by the government too! What a dream. What a job. You're right toad; the US IS the land of opportunities (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Yah, me and leonid will tag team them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
Hey Santa...
You ever watch our Presidential swearings in?
Even Billy Clinton put his hand on a *GASP* BIBLE!!! and swore an oath.
Check our money...it says "In God We Trust".
Our witnesses in court swear to tell "the whole truth..so help me God".
There's more examples. Main point it the Republic hasn't fallen yet given these major (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) violations of our Constitution.
Now if Bush had said that the new national religion was going to be Nifurism that would be a bit of different situation wouldn't it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Now I DO NOT think this thing is going to get through Congress. Don't really care, either.
If it did, I am absolutely SURE that the <cough> loyal public servants there would put in guidelines that prevent "serving the gospel with the bread". "Violate the guidelines, lose your money" type stuff.
I'll tell what I DO like about it:
At least someone is thinking "outside the box" for a change. Nifur knows that social welfare programs from DC seldom ever do what they are supposed to do.
Oh my GAWD!!! Did I say "NIFUR" twice? Does that violate the "separation" clause of the BBS?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-30-2001).]
-
"At least someone is thinking "outside the box" for a change."
Yeah, wow.... A republican is trying to funnel cash to the churches. That's real 'outside the box' stuff, there.
Never in my lifetime would I have thunk it.
-
Oh, yeah...one other thing (well, two).
Nash, you make mention of the abortion funding for overseas clinics.
Where does it say that that is a right and proper use of US taxpayer money? It's sure not Constitutional; it was a legislative or executive branch decision.
Personally, as I've said before, I don't care who gets an abortion. That's between them and their own conscience.
Where did this idea that abortion is a entitlement from the US taxpayer come from?
-
Toad,
Nobody said it was an entitlement. It was just, there...
So Bush comes in and in his first act cuts it. That's all I'm saying.
His first bit of movement is to cut off this program... OF ALL THINGS. Like people were starving in the streets unless (God help us!) Bush saves us from this money pit!
That was never the point, Toad - and you know it. If this happened 2 years into his term, oh well.. But the first thing he did? It's a pretty rad signal. Beyond getting into some incosequencial discussion of the merits of this particular program, the fact that he cut it now is what really matters.
You think Bush was blind to this fact? I sumbit no, he wasn't. It was a message. An extremely dumb one.
-
Nash, maybe it's more than just "funneling cash to churches"? Just maybe? Maybe he's trying to actually DO something GOOD for people that need it? Isn't helping those in need sort of the stock in trade of religion in general? Shouldn't they know how to do that by now? Maybe he's just going where the expertise is?
Just maybe?
Jeez, you're an awful cynic. Worse than me, even and that's bad. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It's not going to happen anyway, so relax. Your hair is going to get all knotted up.
Secondly, so all you're really cranked about is the timing of the announcement on abortion funding?
You don't like the signal he's sending this early in the administration? You're entitled to that view.
I hold an opposing view. I'm glad he did it. Maybe he's announcing he IS different from the <cough> gentleman that recently vacated the "cigar room" on Pennsylvania avenue.
Who's right? I dunno. Who cares?
This is an issue that will offend some and encourage others. Generally, every single decision any President makes does that.
As I once told an anti-Bill Czech lawyer in Prague "The US will survive Bill Clinton."
We'll survive 4 years of Bush II as well. The end is NOT near. No need to repent just yet. I guarantee it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
After every election it's always the same wailing and knashing of teeth. It generally lasts until the next one.
Now I'm going to bed. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Holy toejam LOL
You sound just like I did - oh, about 2 months ago. And I'm starting to sound like <cough> YOU (and the rest of this little gang). I had no idea it would be this funny.
"Maybe he's trying to actually DO something GOOD for people that need it?"
LOL. (not by itself, mind you, but in context that was freaking COMEDIC).
My GOD this is precious. Maybe these 4 years aren't gonna be such a drag afterall (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Maybe if 'W' enforces the International Genocide Treaty we won't have so many liberals running around? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Bare*Metal*Finish
-
As BMF gently pointed out (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif), the abortion issue had to be seen more as religious stuff than political.
And Toad, Mr. president swear on a Christian bible, the God in your money is the Christian one (don't be hypocrite!), as the bible in tribunals...
Guess which religion (and the variations of it) will have the funds?
This is not a step back to the official religion?
And if you read from where I come, I know what I'm saying (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As for the excuses used for these steps, have you our same saying:
"the pavement of hell is made of good intentions" ??
Not simple, not easy, never trust easy things when politics are at work (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Do you have a mild drinking and dope smoking problem ? Like to down few every few days or smoke couple ?
Well, welcome to the church of satan. In anticiaption of federal funds rolling in, we will be starting a social help program for people like you.
We believe in curing by "slowely" decreasing the dosage, over LONG periods of time. Your drink will be smalled by 0.00001 ml everytime you come in. You won't even notice for the most part, but we are helping you !!
Now, in order to get in, you have to sign over your undying soul to our master, The Satan.. no big deal really
Thanks W (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://www.gwbush.com/chicken/bourbon-free-92.gif)
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Folks calm down.
I've been running a children's community center for the last three years, "Beelzebub's Battered Boys".
We qualify as "faith based" and quite frankly I'm looking forwards to some much needed grant money. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I just want to see one picture of anyone dangling a crust of bread over a homeless person with the caption "What was today's scripture verse?". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Sorry guys, just started another topic on this before reading this one.. being StSanta's thread and all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But as I stated, get over your freaking religious paranoia will ya! If a church, half way house whatever can better utilize the money than some fat arse over staffed government department and can accomplish the goal of helping the poor and hungry more cost effectively .. more power to them. If it means less taxes out of my pocket with better use of all tax money, smaller gov ... I'm all for it.
You guys are paranoid of the wrong things...
Eagler
-
God bless ya eagle, YOUR God, I mean. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Nash:
Holy toejam LOL
You sound just like I did - oh, about 2 months ago. And I'm starting to sound like <cough> YOU (and the rest of this little gang). I had no idea it would be this funny.
"Maybe he's trying to actually DO something GOOD for people that need it?"
LOL. (not by itself, mind you, but in context that was freaking COMEDIC).
My GOD this is precious. Maybe these 4 years aren't gonna be such a drag afterall (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Fella's....if ever there were such a thing as an apocolypic message sent in advance that the world as we know it is coming to an end..this is it!
(J/K Nash!)
-
If two volunteer or charity groups are doing exactly the same work, and one group has in common a faith in God, they should both be treated exactly the same by the government.
If two volunteers do exactly the same work, and one chooses to witness while doing the work, his speech is protected by the constitution.
The person he is talking to also has the right to tell him to shut the @#$% up. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-30-2001).]
-
Naso,
Be afraid...Be VERY afraid!
"When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain. Since that time, the Senate has been served by chaplains of various religious denominations, including Episcopalians (19), Methodists (17), Presbyterians (14), Baptists (6), Unitarians (2), Congregationalists (1), Lutherans (1), and Roman Catholic (1). The Senate has also appointed guest chaplains representative of all the world's major religious faiths.In addition to opening the Senate each day in prayer,"
WAIT! It gets WORSE!!
in the 210-year history of the House, all 58 chaplains have been Protestants; and only one of the Senate's 61 chaplains has been Catholic.
WAIT! It's even WORSE than THAT!
THE US GOVERNMENT actually PAYS these Chaplains a salary!
Noooooooooooooo! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
It's TOO LATE!
We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMM MMED!
This RELIGION business HAS ALREADY TAKEN OVER THE HOUSE AND SENATE!
Santa! I think they have said "JESUS" in the House and Senate! HELP! Send NIFUR!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You guys crack me up!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-30-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Naso:
God bless ya eagle, YOUR God, I mean. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You and yours too, Nasco.
Look past the organization, way or path. There is but one "God", he just has many different names, faces and messengers depending on circumstance and location. My Catholic God is the same as the Buddhist "Enlightened One" is the same as Allah is the same as .... In the end, there is but One and we are all of it.
(whether you realize this or not, does not change it)
Eagler
-
Originally posted by funked:
The person he is talking to also has the right to tell him to shut the @#$% up. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And what if he does and because of this stops recieving support for which we pay with our taxes ?
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Well, FD, I'd suppose any organization that did that would be violating the guidelines that will be implemented and they would be out of the program.
-
Yep no money for them.
-
Yeah, like some homeless dude is gonna be able to muster the resources to mount some legal battle against the government funded churches (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
and who will objectivelly check those claims - to make sure they are true or false ?
Who will decide how "well" the church performs and on what merits ?
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Toad, you know yer gun rights better than ya now yer suppparrethun of church un state (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
I will also start a faith based company if I get to the US - Church Of Nirfur. Not only will I be getting tax cuts - I'll be getting part of the Bush billions.
Fairness.
Imagine the discussion I'll have with the officials:
StSanta: "I'd like to be tax exempt and have some of your billions, please"
Official: "'kay, are you Jewish, Hindu, buddhist, Christian or Moslem?"
StSanta: "Those are all false religions. I'm Nirfur's #1 prophet, dude."
Official: "Uh, that's not a religion."
StSanta: "I have a God, Nirfur, and a holy book. My God created all the other gods. of course I can't prove it , you'll ahve to take it on as a matter of faith"
Official: "That's bullsh|t".
StSanta: "So how do the Vhristians and Moslem explain it."
Official: "Uhm, they, uhm...<looks at picture of Bush hanging on the wall> THEY'RE DIFFERENT!"
StSanta: "How so?"
Official: "Dudde, we're talking about a religion where people instantaenously produce babies after a shag with god, where people live, die and then live, not some shodddy old absurd religion"
StSanta: "That doesn't happen in my religion. It's more rational. Now gimme money. You have no choice. Resistance is futile"
Official: "Damned. OK."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I shall become RICH. And, my friends, it's your tax money I get (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
Nope StSanta
Now you have to build soup kitchens or drug rehabs or whatever you claim to be helping .. I am sure there will be a check and balance. Even with your bogus org, there would be less waste than if the fed gov ran the show....
Eagler
-
Fd same can be asked for any other charitable or volunteer organization.
-
Santa shows again that he just don't get it...
-
I detect a problem here. I think some of you think that any aid from a faith-based charity has "strings attached". This is absolutely false. For a lot of us, it is enough to give or help, with the only "string" being that the recipients be aware that the help came from people whose goal is to glorify God.
I was part of a church that chartered a 737 full of supplies to fly to the Dominican Republic after hurricane Georges left 100,000 homeless there. Nobody had to "sign over his soul" for us to do this. To say that a group like that is less worthy to be a partner of the government than a secular charity is a crying shame.
It seems some of you don't want freedom OF religion, you want freedom FROM religion - a government that actively discriminates against believers. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-30-2001).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
I was part of a church that chartered a 737 full of supplies to fly to the Dominican Republic after hurricane Georges left 100,000 homeless there. Nobody had to "sign over his soul" for us to do this. To say that a group like that is less worthy to be a partner of the government than a secular charity is a crying shame.
And right now all such a group has to do is set up "out little church inc" and it becomes fully authorized for federal help - but now it's also expected with non prejudice laws that exist.
Anotherwords - what we already have (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Salvation army is a organization of catholic church - isn't it ?
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Again, the way I understand it, the new policy is not going to treat faith-based organizations any different from secular organizations who do the same work. It's just going to end the discrimination against faith-based organizations that was a part of previous administrations.
If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be cooperating with charities and volunteer organizations of any stripe, that is a seperate discussion. (See Fatty's post)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-30-2001).]
-
Read it all before you hit the Reply key. Especially the last line. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Nash, I think all the "homeless dude" would have to do is report the incident to whatever oversight agency in placed in charge of an operation like this by Congress.
The government itself would do the investigating and prosecution. That's sure what I would want and expect.
FD, you don't trust the government to objectively check the claims and evalutate the programs? LOL. Who does that remind you of? Don't you trust your government? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Santa, I'll wager I'm more familar with the US separation clause AND the 2nd Amendment than you are.
You oppose the mere mention of "God" in any US government venue as a breach of separation. That is simply incorrect.
Proof? Why was one of the first acts of the US Senate in April 6, 1789 to appoint a Senate Chaplain? Why the very "old white dudes" that FOUNDED this country and WROTE this Constitution were apparently violating the separation clause, weren't they?
Well, certainly by YOUR standards they were. Yet they were obviously not violating THEIR OWN standards and they were the FOUNDERS. Go figure! What was their intent then? Hmm.. Santa's version or the Framer's version. Tough decision. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
20 Years ago, when I volunteered in a Catholic soup kitchen, we were handing out DONATED US Government foodstuffs. Like cheese, butter, powdered milk, flour, etc. The US Government GAVE that stuff to us to hand out...they gave it to MANY charitable organizations, both religiously affiliated and non-religiously affiliated.
Violation of separation? If it was, then this sure wouldn't be a "new" thing then, would it? The Constitution and the Republic survived anyway. There wasn't any big outcry then...what changed?
You continually seek to link this with 2nd Amendment rights.
Those who would strip 2nd Amendment rights from law-abiding citizens (remember, felons lose their 2nd rights)are removing a clearly delineated Constitutional right from people who have done no wrong. The writings of the Founders leave no doubt as to the intent of the 2nd.
In the separation clause, what right is being removed in this instance?
The government is NOT sponsoring an "official" religion (like Denmark). The government is NOT favoring one religion over another (they've made this clear in the preliminaries). The government will prohibit proselytizing while performing the aid functions (they've also made this clear in the preliminaries).
The money is theoretically going to those in need, NOT the "faith based orgs". Those that violate the guidelines get axed from the program.
So where is the government sponsoring a religion? What citizen is having his right of "separation" violated?
While the very mention of "God" in a government related venue seems to be a violation of separation to YOU, that is not what the founders intended.
If you look at present everyday life in the US, you see it everywhere and no one freaks like you do. Happens everyday in trial court for example.
The big reason is because we KNOW there isn't going to BE a "government religion" here. Ever.
We don't kill people in millions because they follow the "wrong" religion.
Never have, never will. Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of this Republic and is one of the reasons folks left Europe to come here in the first place. That isn't going to change because of this program or any other.
No one here is forced to "believe". They never will be.
....and I still don't believe this program will pass Congress, so unknot all of your shorts.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
"Nash, I think all the "homeless dude" would have to do is report the incident to whatever oversight agency in placed in charge of an operation like this by Congress."
You're....serious? You do realize that in most instances, homeless people are in the position they are in not merely because someone walked up one day and stole their house.... right?
"I demand to report this incident to whatever oversight agency Congress placed in charge of this operation!!!"
Sorry Toad, but that one was good for a chuckle. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Heh... Republicans/conservatives basically put in a position whereby they are passionately defending a Federally funded social program - repleat with a Congressionally placed oversight commitee and the whole nine yards. That's gotta smart. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Well, Nash, with all the folks that are worried about this, don't you think the wise old Liberal defenders of the Constitution (jeez, sometimes I crack myself up!) would include an office people could go to to complain? Or a 1-800 number?
I think what I really realize is that folks that NEED help are just glad to get it...no matter who brings it. That's been my experience.
Everybody that wandered into that Catholic soup kitchen I volunteered at just sat down and ate. Never had one ask "Do I have to pray to get fed?" (No, they didn't have to.)
But no... screw those folks. Let's be more concerned with the delivery vehicle rather than helping people. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
...and nobody is too interested in asking the needy folks that are the point of this exercise what they think, are they?
Afraid of the answer, you think?
Heh... Democrats/liberals basically put in a position whereby they are passionately opposing a Federally funded social program - repleat with a Congressionally placed oversight commitee and the whole nine yards. That's gotta smart.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
its not a federaly funded social program its a payback in cash to a suport group . a lie dressed up in pretty cloths that defies the constitution . why do you bend words so ? the damb churches create nothing but problems in my experience and want nothing but power in my opinion and alot of the funding fathers. if you like um great give you money to um not mine.
-
So by calling this 1-800 number, a representitive will rush down to hear the homeless man essentially calling a priest either a law breaker or a liar?
Toad, I think yer missing the point. These people already *do* receive assistance. Soup kitchens already *exist*. What Bush is proposing is, like I said, funneling tax dollars now to churches to perform this function. Where is this money likely to come from? Surely not yer vaunted $300 dollar a year (YES I'm in FAT CITY NOW!) tax break. Also gotta keep a few bucks for Star Wars part II... No sir... it will come from the existing programs.
No matter how ya slice it, it's basically funding what amounts to a private interst group nowadays.
"Thanks fer the votes, here's some cash, see ya in 4! (with possibly many more 'enlightened' voters next time around, *wink wink*"
-
We're going to ensure that everyone has health care (provided by the government), free lunches in school, and after school daycare mandated by the government.
See you in four.
But wait, we know the other side only does these things out of the goodness of their hearts, not because it builds a larger welfare state and therefore more voters. Nah, no way.
-
Perhaps. Can't deny that possibility.
So your point then is that the other Party NEVER did anything like this? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Big Deal. It's going nowhere in Congress.
Toad is hoppin' on out of this circular argument. Enjoy.
Maybe now you guys could start a thread on how bad Bush's new "Prescriptions For Seniors" Program is.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
You're....serious? You do realize that in most instances, homeless people are in the position they are in not merely because someone walked up one day and stole their house.... right?
I don't think anyone suggested that was the case. I do wonder what you think the reason is, in most cases. I also wonder why that is germaine to the point.
If faith-based organizations do it better (charity) than government agencies you have to consider the possiblity it cuts down on waste. That means more people helped. That is good, right?
Towd, the dogma stuff is classic. Where did you go to church? Not being sarcastic, just curious about where that viewpoint developed.
-
Kieren, the homeless bit stemmed from the fact that Toad and Funked et al suggested that if these churches encroached on the seperation of church and state stipulation, then this homeless person could launch some kind of action by dialling a 1-800 number to have some Congressionally appointed oversight comitee representetive to step in and remove the the church's funds.
I'm suggesting that this person probably doesn't have the will, energy or resources to do anything remotely like this. In fact, he'd probably sit through an hour of "Jesus Saves" being screached to him over a bullhorn if it meant he could just get his damn soup.
But lets assume he gets fed up with this, and calls this Congressionally appointed oversite committee representative. He's now lookin' at playing he said she said with a Priest. Long odds there, no?
This is just an absolutely rediculous proposition. And that's exactly why it will never get off the ground.
I gotta wonder if Bush didn't already realize this, yet went ahead with it just so he could say to the religious right "Look, I tried".
Abortion, religion and Ashcroft. If Bush continues bending over to the right to such an extreme, he's gonna be out of a job. And all this from a "uniter". That's got the same catchy ring to it as "faith-based" and "compassionate conservative", actually.
Hardly suprising though. I can't wait to see what the NEXT seven days are gonna be like from this gifted leader of the free world.
-
"So your point then is that the other Party NEVER did anything like this?" - Toad
Heh, this thing really *has* come full circle, hasn't it? I remember making much the same claim when Clinton was being attacked. Though I'm finding it so much easier being on this side now, actually. Perhaps that's why the Republicans seemed to relish in it for the last 8 years.
Of course, guys like Limbaugh will always find things to gripe at... but hearing guys like you with common sense defending the nonsensical will be midly entertaining, to say the least. (If I told you back in September that you would be defending a new 10 billion dollar federal social program, what would you have said?).
Enjoy yer new defensive roles, gents. Bush will keep you very busy, indeed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I don't want to be offensive, but I am curious about something here. I see that we are yet again polarized, yet I am beginning to wonder specifically the reason.
Santa is at fault, really. We had this nice long discussion on religion, which I thought was great. The issue pops up here again, and I am wondering if it really is the issue.
For those against faith-based charity; are you religious? (Santa need not answer. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) Is this the main gripe with the idea?
Are you constitutionalists? Is it that you see a vital part of the constitution being destroyed?
Are you anti-Bush at all costs? Would it matter if he had the cure for cancer, you wouldn't take it if it came from him?
Me?
Religious.
I see a conflict of interest.
I wish McCain had run, but I felt Bush was the best 2nd choice.
In other words, I am trying to avoid the temple-pounding this time around. Most everyone has made sensible points, just wonder if we are listening to each other.
-
Not religious.
Constitution being destroyed is a little strong, but I am worried it is blurring the seperation of church and state. I am equally opposed to this on the grounds that grandiose government programs rarely if ever work and always cost more than originally thought.
I voted for Bush, though McCain in the primaries (see above. My reasons for being republican have nothing to do with the moral majority, but are more along the lines of fiscal responsibility). At this point I would still vote for him again, but these kinds of platforms are the things I vote against religously (no pun) in primaries.
I don't think it'll pass, so I'm not particularly worried, but I have this disturbing vision of a gigantic agency dedicated to the study, evalutation, and certification of approved faith institutions.
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
You and yours too, Nasco.
Look past the organization, way or path. There is but one "God", he just has many different names, faces and messengers depending on circumstance and location. My Catholic God is the same as the Buddhist "Enlightened One" is the same as Allah is the same as .... In the end, there is but One and we are all of it.
(whether you realize this or not, does not change it)
Eagler
I like this concept, well said.
BTW, actually I have no God, maybe in the future I will take Nifur, dunno, but StSanta still have to convert me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Naso,
Be afraid...Be VERY afraid!
<CUT>
THE US GOVERNMENT actually PAYS these Chaplains a salary!
Noooooooooooooo! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
It's TOO LATE!
We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMM MMED!
This RELIGION business HAS ALREADY TAKEN OVER THE HOUSE AND SENATE!
Santa! I think they have said "JESUS" in the House and Senate! HELP! Send NIFUR!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You guys crack me up!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-30-2001).]
Man, I live in a country where there are catholic schools (with goverment money), catholic hospitals (with government money), and a huge mass of catholic churchs (Idem).
For me is already worse.
And the church have a big control of the votes, like mafia (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But you are right, you have nothing to learn from other cultures, yeah?
No exchange, only bashing here, uh?
-
Kieren, I respect your views and you put them eloquently.
But, I am an ardent supporter of separation of church and state. Perhaps I come across as very confrontational; on this issue I am.
I will not budge.
State and religion should *never* be mixed.
Personal faith I can respect. Government sponsored religion I cannot. It's ugly, disrupting, damaging and overall bad. Even evil.
And that's the issue; the separation. it's not about a war on Christianity; I wage that on my own time by myself through Evil Atheist Conspiracy and Knights Of BAAWAA /Bad Assed Atheists With An Attitude, internal alt.atheism joke (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)).
That war is for fun, and both sides take and give punches, 90% in jest, which is fun.
-
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010131faith2.asp (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010131faith2.asp)
I thought this article today from my hometown newspaper fit in this thread.
BTW, if your a hockey fan, it is the home newspaper for #66 & Co. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
www.352ndFighterGroup.com (http://www.352ndFighterGroup.com)
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney
[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
great article sky, wonder why the media hasn't picked up on it... oh yea, it doesn't fit their anti-god agenda.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with this, StSanta. There is no way that this could lead to a "national" religion, which is what our fore fathers feared. It's just good people doing good, passing on love and compassion.
"Go towards the light..."
Eagler
-
Eagler, we're talking about a blurring of the separation, and possibly a violation.
Your argument could be used on the 2nd amendment. Not to keen on it, eh? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Love etc and whatnot; it's the constitution we're talking about.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
I guess what worries me most about the 'faith-based' proposal put forth by Bush has to do with a certain aspect of certain religions. Namely, proselytizing.
The main religions of the world could be summed up as: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. Of these five religions only 2 practice proselytizing, Islam, and Christianity. Of these two, Christianity has the much more aggressive approach(at least in modern times). Proselytizing is a part of the core teachings in both Christianity and Islam.
What is to stop Christian 'faith-based' organizations from following their religious beliefs, and beginning the process of active conversion of their clients? And how will the Bush administration respond to any such violation of the 1st Amendment, especially when considering that many of these violators might very well plead they were answering the call of a 'higher authority'?
-
Leonid please explain to me how it violates the constitution for volunteers to exercise their free speech rights while helping people?
-
funked, it's part of the "freedom of religion" concept. This includes "freedom from religion".
Take a man that must get his food from a Christian charity. Pretty hard for him to avoid religion.
Christianity historically is built on gaining devotees from the poor, the less fortunate, the uneducated. This strategy is as old as Christianity itself and, coupled with armed aggression and a very aggressive and brutal expansionism, has resulted in the large religion we see today.
Readers of the history of religion immediately will recognize the potential problem here.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
Christianity historically is built on gaining devotees from the poor, the less fortunate, the uneducated. This strategy is as old as Christianity itself and, coupled with armed aggression and a very aggressive and brutal expansionism, has resulted in the large religion we see today.
On the other hand it is ok to gain political power from the poor and unfortunate by giving away free everything, then sticking a ballot in their hands? As for the armed aggression business, we have never in the history of our country (since the revolution) forced anyone into church through aggression.
Santa, try to see something here- you don't like religion because you don't want to see it forced upon you, yet you are suggesting any mention of religion should be stricken from public activities. If you feel persecuted, how do you think that viewpoint makes the religious feel? If this truly is the way you feel about it you are acting exactly in the same manner as the institution you despise.
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
<snip>
As for the armed aggression business, we have never in the history of our country (since the revolution) forced anyone into church through aggression.
<snip>
First we force them into reservations at gunpoint.
Then we send in the missionaries!
http://www.aicm.org/aicm.htm (http://www.aicm.org/aicm.htm)
Praize Jaysus! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Won't wash. There is still choice present wrt church. No doubt many crimes were laid against native americans, but you cannot say that forcing them into religion was one of them.
That link you posted is nothing more than a website for a boarding school. Their purpose is laid out clearly:
Our Mission
The purpose of AICM is to first make disciples of the Native American people and then to raise up leaders among these people for Christ. ("Evangelizing and equipping Native Americans for Christ.") It is our belief that by beginning early in the life of a child, a much greater chance of achieving our goals will be realized. Thus a boarding school environment has been chosen as a basis for this ministry.
No hidden agenda, anyone can see it before they enter or send their kids.
-
Why does a n y t h i n g remotely related to making people actually t h i n k about religion of any denomintion or faith always cause such a commotion? Could it be most of us are afraid to have our feet held to the fire?
-
Originally posted by Naso:
Man, I live in a country where there are catholic schools (with goverment money), catholic hospitals (with government money), and a huge mass of catholic churchs (Idem).
But you are right, you have nothing to learn from other cultures, yeah?
No exchange, only bashing here, uh?
Well, Naso, FIRST I see NO "bashing" in my thread. I think all this is a "tempest in a teapot". I think it's funny.
Second, all I can tell you is they've been praying in the US House and Senate for over 200 years. According to Santa that's a CLEAR violation of our Constitutional separation between church and state.
But we don't seem to have the problem you folks do, now do we? Why is that? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Maybe it's YOU who have "nothing to learn from other cultures"?
Oops...sorry. How silly of me! What could Europe POSSIBLY learn from the crude, ignorant colonials?
Meanwhile, we just keep rolling along.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Kieren let me address your points. You must be frustrated with me, but here goes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
On the other hand it is ok to gain political power from the poor and unfortunate by giving away free everything, then sticking a ballot in their hands?
Your consitution expressely forbids the government to make laws or support religion. My statement had more to do with how Christianity historically spread, and I believe it is accurate. Where earlier religions had a little tendency to disregard the weak, Christianity instead *focused on* them; indeed, being humble is a virtue.
As for the armed aggression business, we have never in the history of our country
(since the revolution) forced anyone into church through aggression.
Absolutely right. I was referring to how Christianity spread. My own nation is a good example of it; turn Christian ot have yer head chopped off. Christianity finished off the Vikings through a combination of winning over strong leaders and then have them institute some pretty tough laws.
Santa, try to see something here- you don't like religion because you don't want to see it forced upon you, yet you are suggesting any mention of religion should be stricken from public activities. If you feel persecuted, how do you think that viewpoint makes the religious feel? If this truly is the way you feel about it you are acting exactly in the same manner as the institution you despise.
Kieren, you must realize that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Right now, I am arguing that state based organisations supporting with funds evangelical religous organisations in the US blurs the line/violates the separation of church and state. I ain't forcing a religion on anyone; I want the right of freedom from religion and constitution to be respected.
As for persecuted; my kind of people were persecuted right up through the ceuntiries; the word atheist first appeared during the Greek era and was meant as an insult.
I need not tell you what people did to atheist then and throughout history (and even today, if you're unlucky enough to live in a theocracy).
Religion is an inherently PRIVATE thing - it's about a relationship with something much higher than ourselves. Why not KEEP it private? In a way, this spreading of something private like that is similar toone's sex life, and you don't see too many of us going into detail about that in public.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 02-03-2001).]
-
We are playing opposite sides of the coin, and I know you don't intend to insult.
I wouldn't want anyone to be forced into religion, not because I am against religion, but because that isn't why anyone should be in it.
I don't disagree that we need to keep separation of church and state.
The problem seems to be that our system isn't what you imagine it to be. We are a country that has a religious foundation older than the country itself. The references to separation of church and state mean specific religions. This is a country where it is perfectly acceptable to practice whatever religion you choose.
Sponsorship of faith-based charities doesn't necessarily violate this precept. You need to prove a bias to one religion over another before that can be established. If you see sponsorship of say, Catholicism, out of proportion to the percentage of Catholics in our country then you may have a point. To say that no governmental money can ever be given to any faith-based charity I believe is wrong.
Anyone know if the Salvation Army receives any government money?
-
"Where earlier religions had a little tendency to disregard the weak, Christianity instead *focused on* them; indeed, being humble is a virtue."
You're saying humility is a sign of weakness? LOL!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-03-2001).]
-
funked, humble and weaknesses being great virtues in the christian religion. Also compassion etc; a strong break from the bRomans, who considered compassion a weakness.
I am speaking in historical terms
Kieren, the government is not supposed to fund religion, period. It's not just me barking, but a lot of Americans who know the issue much better than me.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
I won't tout myself as a constitutional expert; likewise I am just as willing to bet that most people who post here aren't either. It is a difference of interpretation and opinion. Just as when we were children and heard our parents say what we wanted to hear, we read these documents and glean from them what we wish to read all too often.
That is pretty much a non-response I grant you, but nonetheless it is logical. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)