Onward christian soldiers!
- Skogen
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1972
- Joined: November 18, 2002, 6:48 pm
- Location: Claremont, Ca.
- Contact:
Onward christian soldiers!
Bush seeks billions for religious groups
NEW ORLEANS, United States (AFP) - US President George
W. Bush (news - web sites) asked his Justice
Department (news - web sites) to take steps to release
some 3.7 billion dollars in federal monies aimed at
helping religious charities, the White House said.
"At the President's direction, the Department of
Justice (news - web sites) took action to finalize
regulations that implement President Bush's policy of
ending discrimination against faith-based charities in
the Federal grants process," it said in a statement.
The move applies to 3.7 billion dollars, including
programs to support victims of crime, the prevention
of child victimization, and safe schools, the White
House said.
Bush decided one year ago to implement by decree some
elements of his controversial "faith-based
initiative," which aims to steer funds to religious
charities, eroding the traditional separation between
church and state.
The program was part of the president's 2000 campaign
platform, but the divided US Congress has yet to
approve it.
Hoping to win momentum for the initiative, as well as
court black voters who overwhelmingly backed his 2000
rival, Al Gore (news - web sites), Bush visited a New
Orleans church he said would benefit from his plan.
"This country must not fear the influence of faith in
the future of this country. We must welcome faith in
order to make America a better place," said the
president, who is a regular church-goer.
Discuss!!
NEW ORLEANS, United States (AFP) - US President George
W. Bush (news - web sites) asked his Justice
Department (news - web sites) to take steps to release
some 3.7 billion dollars in federal monies aimed at
helping religious charities, the White House said.
"At the President's direction, the Department of
Justice (news - web sites) took action to finalize
regulations that implement President Bush's policy of
ending discrimination against faith-based charities in
the Federal grants process," it said in a statement.
The move applies to 3.7 billion dollars, including
programs to support victims of crime, the prevention
of child victimization, and safe schools, the White
House said.
Bush decided one year ago to implement by decree some
elements of his controversial "faith-based
initiative," which aims to steer funds to religious
charities, eroding the traditional separation between
church and state.
The program was part of the president's 2000 campaign
platform, but the divided US Congress has yet to
approve it.
Hoping to win momentum for the initiative, as well as
court black voters who overwhelmingly backed his 2000
rival, Al Gore (news - web sites), Bush visited a New
Orleans church he said would benefit from his plan.
"This country must not fear the influence of faith in
the future of this country. We must welcome faith in
order to make America a better place," said the
president, who is a regular church-goer.
Discuss!!
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
Okay Kyoukan you are pro-welfare, anti-church, Canadian, of indeterminate sex, and may be dating a black dude.
Glad to have these notes, I will build them as you proclaim them
Glad to have these notes, I will build them as you proclaim them
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
- Keverian FireCry
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2919
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:41 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Hammerstalker PE
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1153
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:22 pm
- Location: Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca. USA
- Keverian FireCry
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2919
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:41 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Krimson Klaw
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm
Who siad it was a negative list, it was a fact list. I was building it so I could be clear the next time Kyoukan changes its views on something.
There is nothing wrong with giving money to charities, I would rather they spend the money at a local level with a greater degree of efficiency than the feds do at a national level.
The black dude thing was because Kyoukan plays as racist as it wants to be then brings up the mythical black boyfriend to cover for it.
All Canadians are not evil, I love Gung, Teurde, etc all the cool Newfs from CT days. Kyoukan on the otherhand thinks it is American, because it thinks it should have a say in American politics.
There is nothing wrong with giving money to charities, I would rather they spend the money at a local level with a greater degree of efficiency than the feds do at a national level.
The black dude thing was because Kyoukan plays as racist as it wants to be then brings up the mythical black boyfriend to cover for it.
All Canadians are not evil, I love Gung, Teurde, etc all the cool Newfs from CT days. Kyoukan on the otherhand thinks it is American, because it thinks it should have a say in American politics.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
Fuck you Krimson, I said not a single thing that was racist, if your oversensitive whiny ass took it that way, then that is your fucking chip on the shoulder not mine.Krimson Klaw wrote:I still can't believe people say shit like this, then have the nerve to try and carry out logical debates here. Prepare for maximum cavitation from his uber backpedal.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
I am grown up, and yes I am classifying Kyoukan, it classifies everyone else, and deserves to be pigeon holed in return. Like for example, I can classify you as a moron.Keverian FireCry wrote:It's the same ignorant thinking that makes me anti-american if I don't agree with something my country is doing. So pathetic. Grow the fuck up Kylere.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
Obviously you have had me on ignore the entire time I have been posting here or you are incapable or not desiring to read my posts, so why read them now.Xouqoa wrote:I bet Kylere thinks it is negative.
Yet another dumbass, ye gods you all get Shaerra disease or what?
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
- Krimson Klaw
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm
Kylere, thank you for your meaningful and intelligent contributions to the Current Events Forum. We now all know your "facts" about Kyoukan and will be better equipped to debate this topic. Personally, I am a bit slow and didn't quite get the connection to this topic, but I am sure that you will explain it to me in your consistently mature manner. Please use small (four letter, for example) words because I am slow to make connections from your heavily cereberal posts.
Personally, I don't have any objection to offering money to faith-based charities provided that we are not picking out particular religions and with the understanding that it is the "charity" not the "faith" that is getting the money. Some religious charities do very good work; those charities are as deserving of government money as the good non-religious ones.
I would rather base the money allocation on the merits of the charity work than whether or not there is a religion attached to it. If a Wiccan coven has a charity group that is legitimately helping illiterate people to learn how to read, then give them some cash!
Personally, I don't have any objection to offering money to faith-based charities provided that we are not picking out particular religions and with the understanding that it is the "charity" not the "faith" that is getting the money. Some religious charities do very good work; those charities are as deserving of government money as the good non-religious ones.
I would rather base the money allocation on the merits of the charity work than whether or not there is a religion attached to it. If a Wiccan coven has a charity group that is legitimately helping illiterate people to learn how to read, then give them some cash!
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
I agree. I am worried that the money will end up only going to what Bush thinks are "good" religions. It will be interesting to see if any religions get turned down for contracts. Could be quite a court fight then. I am agnostic and could care less if a religious institution wants to bid to perform services. Long as we get the best bid then America should be fine. At least it may provide a little more competition.archeiron wrote:Personally, I don't have any objection to offering money to faith-based charities provided that we are not picking out particular religions and with the understanding that it is the "charity" not the "faith" that is getting the money. Some religious charities do very good work; those charities are as deserving of government money as the good non-religious ones.
I would rather base the money allocation on the merits of the charity work than whether or not there is a religion attached to it. If a Wiccan coven has a charity group that is legitimately helping illiterate people to learn how to read, then give them some cash!
Deward
Any back peddling you think I may have been making is your own guilty conscious at accusing me of a something that I am not.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
Back on topic...
I'm a Christian but I don't know how I feel about this...
I DO think their are some charaties that are pretty secular now that fall under this "faith based" category and could use the help because they are doing good work.
At the same time, the whole idea to me of "faith-based" charaties is that you give to them because you... HAVE THAT FAITH.
While I'm sure their are arguements both ways I know if I was a senator I could never support this...
Even the Bible tells us to give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and give unto God what is God's. This sounds to me like Bush wants to give Ceaser's to God as well...
Marb
I'm a Christian but I don't know how I feel about this...
I DO think their are some charaties that are pretty secular now that fall under this "faith based" category and could use the help because they are doing good work.
At the same time, the whole idea to me of "faith-based" charaties is that you give to them because you... HAVE THAT FAITH.
While I'm sure their are arguements both ways I know if I was a senator I could never support this...
Even the Bible tells us to give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and give unto God what is God's. This sounds to me like Bush wants to give Ceaser's to God as well...
Marb
Tradionally Churches have applied monies to help the poor, the homeless, orphans, widows etc. How this is a bad thing needs to be explained.
Although I still think Kylere is a clusterfuck his assessment of Kyoukan is indeed an accurate statement of fact.
Although I still think Kylere is a clusterfuck his assessment of Kyoukan is indeed an accurate statement of fact.
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
- Jice Virago
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: July 4, 2002, 5:47 pm
- Gender: Male
- PSN ID: quyrean
- Location: Orange County
Considering how much bias was involved in the Iraqi reconstruction bidding, I think we know how this one will go.Deward wrote:I agree. I am worried that the money will end up only going to what Bush thinks are "good" religions. It will be interesting to see if any religions get turned down for contracts. Could be quite a court fight then. I am agnostic and could care less if a religious institution wants to bid to perform services. Long as we get the best bid then America should be fine. At least it may provide a little more competition.archeiron wrote:Personally, I don't have any objection to offering money to faith-based charities provided that we are not picking out particular religions and with the understanding that it is the "charity" not the "faith" that is getting the money. Some religious charities do very good work; those charities are as deserving of government money as the good non-religious ones.
I would rather base the money allocation on the merits of the charity work than whether or not there is a religion attached to it. If a Wiccan coven has a charity group that is legitimately helping illiterate people to learn how to read, then give them some cash!
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight Eisenhower
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight Eisenhower
-
- Gets Around
- Posts: 160
- Joined: July 18, 2002, 1:13 am
- Location: Vestavia Hills AL
As long as the Churchs show that they are doing the things mentioned above....
The money used for these things are a hardship on most churchs but they continue to do them untill they have no funds left so it would be a huge plus for the people that are poor, homeless or have just gone through act of natures that destroy their towns.
Then there is nothing wrong with it. They do these things on their own, not because the government formed them up to do them.Atokal Posted: January 16, 2004, 11:52 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradionally Churches have applied monies to help the poor, the homeless, orphans, widows etc. How this is a bad thing needs to be explained
The money used for these things are a hardship on most churchs but they continue to do them untill they have no funds left so it would be a huge plus for the people that are poor, homeless or have just gone through act of natures that destroy their towns.
Safe Travels,
Silvarel Mistmoon
Silvarel Mistmoon
A Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist and Mormon group of charities all provide aid towards homeless people in their respective communities. A new goverment program comes out that offers them money to offer the same functions they currently do with minimal strings attached (preach abstinence, no drug user support, etc). Each group feels their work is worthy within their community, so they all apply for the money.
The Christian group is given an amount equal to $5 for every person they help.
The Jewish group is given an amount equal to $4.75 for every person they help.
The Islamic group is given an amount equal to $1.25 for every person they help.
The Mormon group is given an amount equal to $0.75 for every person they help.
The Buddhist group is denied funds.
It can be argued that the funding levels represent government endorsement of select religions. By providing more money to one religion over another, the government is sending a message that it is a "better" religion.
The founding fathers sought to avoid government endorsement of any religion when they wrote the seperation clause into the first amendment. While this does not blatantly defy that, it provides a precedent that can be used later on to apply to other facets of our life. Would you like knowing that your children's entrance into a public college could be affected by their relgion? It's just a far fetched example, but if you establish a precedent, even a dangerous one, it will be followed for years to come in courts.
The Christian group is given an amount equal to $5 for every person they help.
The Jewish group is given an amount equal to $4.75 for every person they help.
The Islamic group is given an amount equal to $1.25 for every person they help.
The Mormon group is given an amount equal to $0.75 for every person they help.
The Buddhist group is denied funds.
It can be argued that the funding levels represent government endorsement of select religions. By providing more money to one religion over another, the government is sending a message that it is a "better" religion.
The founding fathers sought to avoid government endorsement of any religion when they wrote the seperation clause into the first amendment. While this does not blatantly defy that, it provides a precedent that can be used later on to apply to other facets of our life. Would you like knowing that your children's entrance into a public college could be affected by their relgion? It's just a far fetched example, but if you establish a precedent, even a dangerous one, it will be followed for years to come in courts.
Krurk wrote:A Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist and Mormon group of charities all provide aid towards homeless people in their respective communities. A new goverment program comes out that offers them money to offer the same functions they currently do with minimal strings attached (preach abstinence, no drug user support, etc). Each group feels their work is worthy within their community, so they all apply for the money.
The Christian group is given an amount equal to $5 for every person they help.
The Jewish group is given an amount equal to $4.75 for every person they help.
The Islamic group is given an amount equal to $1.25 for every person they help.
The Mormon group is given an amount equal to $0.75 for every person they help.
The Buddhist group is denied funds.
It can be argued that the funding levels represent government endorsement of select religions. By providing more money to one religion over another, the government is sending a message that it is a "better" religion.
The founding fathers sought to avoid government endorsement of any religion when they wrote the seperation clause into the first amendment. While this does not blatantly defy that, it provides a precedent that can be used later on to apply to other facets of our life. Would you like knowing that your children's entrance into a public college could be affected by their relgion? It's just a far fetched example, but if you establish a precedent, even a dangerous one, it will be followed for years to come in courts.
Umm, how does the first ammendment preach "seperation", it says "don't make or disband a religion". What you're saying is if a law says I can neither breed or kill a horse, I can't give it an apple either. Why?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.
- Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia
- Vetiria
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:50 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Decatur, IL
It doesn't specifically, but the Supreme Court has changed the interpretation of the amendment to separation. I think it started with the Reagan era, possibly earlier than that.Umm, how does the first ammendment preach "seperation", it says "don't make or disband a religion". What you're saying is if a law says I can neither breed or kill a horse, I can't give it an apple either. Why?
Of course a conservative will do nothing but argue that the US is a "Christian County", and that "Freedom of Religion" is just there to say that we will "tolerate" other religions, but mold our political system on christian principles and live our lives under christian morals.
Of course the fact that were were "founded" in a manner by pilgrims (bible thumping, pagan hanging, fucking extremist, ignorant, racist individuals who were kicked the fuck out of europe) should still have a large impact on our "christian" country today.
...this is the opinion of the majority of conservatives i have spoken too, who think my agnostic ass is going to the 7th lair of hell
Of course the fact that were were "founded" in a manner by pilgrims (bible thumping, pagan hanging, fucking extremist, ignorant, racist individuals who were kicked the fuck out of europe) should still have a large impact on our "christian" country today.
...this is the opinion of the majority of conservatives i have spoken too, who think my agnostic ass is going to the 7th lair of hell
- Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
And "All men are created equal" means only those with X and Y chromosomes are equal?Zaelath wrote:
Umm, how does the first ammendment preach "seperation", it says "don't make or disband a religion". What you're saying is if a law says I can neither breed or kill a horse, I can't give it an apple either. Why?
The government giving tax based funds to any religion would be considered government endorsement of that sect...which de facto makes that the or one of the governmental approved sects...And inherently excludes none funded sects...which makes the approved/funded sects the de facto state religion...
My lord can you be that naive? about 200 years of legal precedent make this a howlingly obvious violation of constitutional law...
Please read and understand the constitution...is not and was never intended to be a literal document...
I often wonder which is the greater danger the fascists or the ignorant...
Honestly if something like this with such absolutely clear legal precedent were to stand up in any court in the country I would begin thinking about seeking political asylum...
Everyone is aware that we are talking about registered charity groups, right? This is a way of recognizing and support the "charity" part of religious charity. The fact that one group will get more money than another is just par for the course. They don't distribute the money for non-religous charities evenly to begin with. I think that this will do more harm than good, despite the fact that there will be room for improvement and obvious favouratism.
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
- Drolgin Steingrinder
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3510
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 5:28 pm
- Gender: Male
- PSN ID: Drolgin
- Location: Århus, Denmark
-
- Almost 1337
- Posts: 721
- Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
LOL. Yeah, that's what they do with the money they cull from their flock of sheep. It definitely doesn't go to nice Marble buildings and statues, huge expensive wind instruments, silk robes or legal fees to fend off the latest child molestation claim. It goes to "help the poor." Keep preaching what they feed you brother.Tradionally Churches have applied monies to help the poor, the homeless, orphans, widows etc. How this is a bad thing needs to be explained.
Personally, if churchs con christians out of their cash, I could really care less. But no way do I want them using the Government to force me to give those legalized grifters my cash.
- Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
Slavery existed at the time you preached that "all men are created equal" so not only wasn't it gender encompassing, it had exceptions. And yes, given women didn't have the vote and were little better than chattel in the glorious founding fucking fathers day, pretty sure when they said men they didn't mean man. For your reference, the speech was given in 1855, women got the vote in 1920. Blacks didn't get the vote until 1965. See facts, they're really easy.Arborealus wrote:And "All men are created equal" means only those with X and Y chromosomes are equal?Zaelath wrote:
Umm, how does the first ammendment preach "seperation", it says "don't make or disband a religion". What you're saying is if a law says I can neither breed or kill a horse, I can't give it an apple either. Why?
The government giving tax based funds to any religion would be considered government endorsement of that sect...which de facto makes that the or one of the governmental approved sects...And inherently excludes none funded sects...which makes the approved/funded sects the de facto state religion...
My lord can you be that naive? about 200 years of legal precedent make this a howlingly obvious violation of constitutional law...
Please read and understand the constitution...is not and was never intended to be a literal document...
I often wonder which is the greater danger the fascists or the ignorant...
Honestly if something like this with such absolutely clear legal precedent were to stand up in any court in the country I would begin thinking about seeking political asylum...
As to the legal precedent of the way the supreme court has decided to interpret the constitution, well and good. For a start, cite some cases. You rant and rave about 200 years of precedent, based on what? A "feeling" you have from what you've heard gushed from the media and politicians? I have no idea, perhaps you are a constitutional lawyer and have some basis for your ranting.
All that said however, fuckstain, all I objected to was the implication that the first amendment preached seperation. You know full well it doesn't. It may well have been "interpretted" as such, that is not my argument. The constitution is not meant to be taken literally? Are you fucking high? It's supposed to be a document of law, not the other fucking allegorical tome you probably also cling to; the bible.
- Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
Here are a couple little ditties from the Warren Court...Zaelath wrote:Slavery existed at the time you preached that "all men are created equal" so not only wasn't it gender encompassing, it had exceptions. And yes, given women didn't have the vote and were little better than chattel in the glorious founding fucking fathers day, pretty sure when they said men they didn't mean man. For your reference, the speech was given in 1855, women got the vote in 1920. Blacks didn't get the vote until 1965. See facts, they're really easy.Arborealus wrote:And "All men are created equal" means only those with X and Y chromosomes are equal?Zaelath wrote:
Umm, how does the first ammendment preach "seperation", it says "don't make or disband a religion". What you're saying is if a law says I can neither breed or kill a horse, I can't give it an apple either. Why?
The government giving tax based funds to any religion would be considered government endorsement of that sect...which de facto makes that the or one of the governmental approved sects...And inherently excludes none funded sects...which makes the approved/funded sects the de facto state religion...
My lord can you be that naive? about 200 years of legal precedent make this a howlingly obvious violation of constitutional law...
Please read and understand the constitution...is not and was never intended to be a literal document...
I often wonder which is the greater danger the fascists or the ignorant...
Honestly if something like this with such absolutely clear legal precedent were to stand up in any court in the country I would begin thinking about seeking political asylum...
As to the legal precedent of the way the supreme court has decided to interpret the constitution, well and good. For a start, cite some cases. You rant and rave about 200 years of precedent, based on what? A "feeling" you have from what you've heard gushed from the media and politicians? I have no idea, perhaps you are a constitutional lawyer and have some basis for your ranting.
All that said however, fuckstain, all I objected to was the implication that the first amendment preached seperation. You know full well it doesn't. It may well have been "interpretted" as such, that is not my argument. The constitution is not meant to be taken literally? Are you fucking high? It's supposed to be a document of law, not the other fucking allegorical tome you probably also cling to; the bible.
Engle v Vitale - 1962 - Seperation of Church and State
Abbington v Schempp - 1963 - Seperation of Church and State
Speech? 1855?...What is it that you think I was quoting there?......This argument is clearly over...
Oh and amendments don't preach by the way...Dictionary...it's a big book with words...look into it...See also Jefferson, Constitution, Spirit of the Laws...
Haven't been high in about 20 years and I'm an atheist...
Try reading things before you argue them...It really helps...
And the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1865ish?...I think the actual declaration of ratification was 1870...bit before 1965 yes?...What was that you mentioned about facts?...
Your opinion on this matter would carry a little weight if it wasn't so slanted because the church refuses to recognize your gay lifestyle as a viable sanctioned relationship. You sir are biggotted in the worst way against the church for no other reason than what I stated above.Aaeamdar wrote:LOL. Yeah, that's what they do with the money they cull from their flock of sheep. It definitely doesn't go to nice Marble buildings and statues, huge expensive wind instruments, silk robes or legal fees to fend off the latest child molestation claim. It goes to "help the poor." Keep preaching what they feed you brother.Tradionally Churches have applied monies to help the poor, the homeless, orphans, widows etc. How this is a bad thing needs to be explained.
Personally, if churchs con christians out of their cash, I could really care less. But no way do I want them using the Government to force me to give those legalized grifters my cash.
Further to make a blanket statement regarding ALL churches and religions is indeed far beneath your level of intelligence. I suppose the Salvation Army just as an example does nothing to help the more unfortunate in society.
You would trust the government to allocate these funds in a more meaningful and useful manner?
Please, I also assume that we in Canada or any other northern climate should attend church on the side of a hill in sub zero weather. The catholic church does have its excesses and disgusting deplorable habit of hiding its sins, but that does not mean other religious groups are as culpable.
Let us also remember that you are a lawyer (blanket statement incoming) and therefore are at the bottom of the rung where it comes to culling funds from your clients whether they can afford your representation or not. Its all about Billable hours and fuck the client. Pot Kettle and fucking going on somewhere.
Cheers
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
My bad, I was thinking of Lincoln's letter (not speech), referring back to the Declaration of Independance and referring to what a falsehood it was.Arborealus wrote:Here are a couple little ditties from the Warren Court...Zaelath wrote:Slavery existed at the time you preached that "all men are created equal" so not only wasn't it gender encompassing, it had exceptions. And yes, given women didn't have the vote and were little better than chattel in the glorious founding fucking fathers day, pretty sure when they said men they didn't mean man. For your reference, the speech was given in 1855, women got the vote in 1920. Blacks didn't get the vote until 1965. See facts, they're really easy.Arborealus wrote:And "All men are created equal" means only those with X and Y chromosomes are equal?Zaelath wrote:
Umm, how does the first ammendment preach "seperation", it says "don't make or disband a religion". What you're saying is if a law says I can neither breed or kill a horse, I can't give it an apple either. Why?
The government giving tax based funds to any religion would be considered government endorsement of that sect...which de facto makes that the or one of the governmental approved sects...And inherently excludes none funded sects...which makes the approved/funded sects the de facto state religion...
My lord can you be that naive? about 200 years of legal precedent make this a howlingly obvious violation of constitutional law...
Please read and understand the constitution...is not and was never intended to be a literal document...
I often wonder which is the greater danger the fascists or the ignorant...
Honestly if something like this with such absolutely clear legal precedent were to stand up in any court in the country I would begin thinking about seeking political asylum...
As to the legal precedent of the way the supreme court has decided to interpret the constitution, well and good. For a start, cite some cases. You rant and rave about 200 years of precedent, based on what? A "feeling" you have from what you've heard gushed from the media and politicians? I have no idea, perhaps you are a constitutional lawyer and have some basis for your ranting.
All that said however, fuckstain, all I objected to was the implication that the first amendment preached seperation. You know full well it doesn't. It may well have been "interpretted" as such, that is not my argument. The constitution is not meant to be taken literally? Are you fucking high? It's supposed to be a document of law, not the other fucking allegorical tome you probably also cling to; the bible.
Engle v Vitale - 1962 - Seperation of Church and State
Abbington v Schempp - 1963 - Seperation of Church and State
Speech? 1855?...What is it that you think I was quoting there?......This argument is clearly over...
Preach: admonish, advocate, blow, exhort, harangue, moralize, preachify, sermonize, talk big, talk tall, urgeOh and amendments don't preach by the way...Dictionary...it's a big book with words...look into it...See also Jefferson, Constitution, Spirit of the Laws...
The thesaurus is another big book, perhaps advocate would be a word you'd be more comfortable with in this context.
The 15th amendment, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude' in theory gave black men the right to vote, some 50 years before women on a national basis, realistically though it took the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to grant the right nationally to blacks.Haven't been high in about 20 years and I'm an atheist...
Try reading things before you argue them...It really helps...
And the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1865ish?...I think the actual declaration of ratification was 1870...bit before 1965 yes?...What was that you mentioned about facts?...
Regardless, your contention that "all men are created equal" should be real "all men and women of all races are created equal" is the stuff of fairytales. Even Lincoln said it could be read, "all men are created equal except negroes", and (purposefully?) didn't extend that to those with two X chromosomes.
Edit: Oh, yes, and in what counting system does 2004 -1962 = 200?
- Vetiria
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:50 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Decatur, IL
You just brought up another reason why faith based organizations shouldn't get public funding.Atokal wrote:Your opinion on this matter would carry a little weight if it wasn't so slanted because the church refuses to recognize your gay lifestyle as a viable sanctioned relationship. You sir are biggotted in the worst way against the church for no other reason than what I stated above.
- Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact: