Executive Order 13397 - Is this for real?
- Thread starter Tenchiro
- Start date
If you don't believe in Jesus, (or at the very least Jahweh) you don't deserve any sort of help. If you do, you are merely reaping the benefits of living in a nation blessed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who says in Luke 29:5 that "Thou shalt be showered with deficit spending by my servants on this earth."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060307-5.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060307-5.html
I believe it is real. The WaPo had an article on it over the weekend, which I can't seem to find.
Hopefully Congress has the good sense to withold funding.
Good sense.
Looks real enough, but I fail to see reason for complaint.
Homeless people shouldn't need to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior before they get fed soup...JRogers said:
Well they wouldn't need soup if they'd already done that.Silver said:
duh
Who give a ****, theyre homeless.Silver said:
Ill trade you for photos of your wife in the middle of a train with 2 large maori men.Changleen said:
Fuzzy porn is better than no porn to Burly.Changleen said:
I can see some Amendment getting slightly trampled on if this is real and it passes....but I share your sentiment on good sense...Tenchiro said:
JRogers said:
Me neither, that constitution is so damn inconvenient
But hey, it's just paper.
What orgainization mandates that one has to become a follower of Jesus before one can recieve help???Silver said:
I can walk into a church tomorrow, proclaim I'm an atheist, and get help?Andyman_1970 said:What orgainization mandates that one has to become a follower of Jesus before one can recieve help???
Now, the answer should be yes...but you and I both know that in 90% (and probably higher if you don't count Unitarians) of churches in this country I'd be laughed at.
Exactly. Let me stress again that the Constitution functions as a barrier against the establishment of a state religion and the suppression of minority religions, not the mere conversation between religion and the government. It would be just plain stupid and counterproductive to stop that.Andyman_1970 said:What orgainization mandates that one has to become a follower of Jesus before one can recieve help???
Since when do soup kitchens require a test of faith for someone to get a hot meal? There are many aid agencies and charity organizations with a religious backing that do good works for anyone who wants help irrespective of personal beliefs. If an organization is using federal dollars as a means simply to increase their numbers, that is wrong. If they are to provide services exclusively to members then, yes, I may have a problem with that (but even at that point, there might be something to it). However, I believe that the reality is more complex and more, say, charitable than that. This act is designed to increase the effectiveness of social services to people who need them.
I am not religious in the traditional sense myself, but some of you people are just so hostile to the concept of religion in general. Looking down on religion and being suspicious of religious organizations' intents at every turn is not only wrong and unfair, it does not get anyone anywhere.
Face it, religion is here to stay, guys. Sorry, but it's true. If the government wants to use this to benefit a bunch of people, do you really want to say no to that?
I'll say no if it is detrimental to others. Religion in Government leads to things like no abortion rights, no gay marriage rights, Sharia etc depending on the religion. Would you like your mom/sister/wife to have to wear a burqua? How about being stoned to death because they had premarital sex? How about having to bear a child after they were raped?JRogers said:
So yes, I'd say no to religion in government.
Religion is useful for those who seek it's shelter, or wish to believe in something greater then themselves and the world around them. Some of these organizations are truly beneficial to manking, there is no question there. All of these beneficial organizations are non governmental, and that is how it should stay.
I'm about as unsure about this order as the next person, but the fact is I've never seen or heard of any homeless person being denied service because they won't profess a faith in Jesus Christ. On one hand it is connecting church and state, but on the other hand there is no specification as to what church, and I see it as merely a call to get churches involved in volunteer work.kidwoo said:
This is nothing more than pandering to the religious right who only want to entangle government and religion (their religion) as much as possible. It's a blatant violation of the first amendment.
And, for those who are asking about it, there are programs that the current admin has pushed where people are required to attend Bible studies in order to receive help. There was a case about that in Texas that was initiated by Bush himself. There have also been cases where groups have been caught using their gov. money in non-secular ways (and I'm sure it happens quite a bit.)
Why should we fund religious groups when secular ones go underfunded all the time?
And, for those who are asking about it, there are programs that the current admin has pushed where people are required to attend Bible studies in order to receive help. There was a case about that in Texas that was initiated by Bush himself. There have also been cases where groups have been caught using their gov. money in non-secular ways (and I'm sure it happens quite a bit.)
Why should we fund religious groups when secular ones go underfunded all the time?
I am pretty sure the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't receive any federal money.
Hello Mr. Cynic...................of all the churches in this area I'm familiar with yes you could do just what you said and get help. You could do that same thing at our local rescue mission (Christian based) and get help.Silver said:
Now maybe Westboro Baptist would laugh at you.............but you're exagerating a bit........
Actually, his question should have been whether he could walk in, proclaim his atheism, and not be preached at by federal dollars.Andyman_1970 said:
If I was the pastor of a church and he did that (and we were getting federal funds) I wouldn't..........I wouldn't regardless of where the funding came from.Old Man G Funk said:
But, can you see how others might? Can you see how this funding represents an unnecessary (and illegal) entanglement of church and state?Andyman_1970 said:
So the homeless people should get less food because a bunch of god hating liberals are afraid they'll be preached at? Way to prioritize!
No. We should fund the secular programs that distribute food to the homeless so that they can get food and not have their rights violated.BurlyShirley said:
Plus, if religious organizations are really serious about their missions, they will continue to provide help (even without gov. funding) and it will actually open up more avenues for homeless to get help.
So you'd rather waste the money on setting up entire new programs, building new buildings, hiring workers who wont preach, insuring them, prosecuting them if they do preach and all the rest of the crap that would go along with it instead of making good use of an effective program already in place? That money could better be used simply feeding the homeless instead of wasted. Sometimes I think everyone's blind hate for religion gets in the way of their better judgement. If Im a starving homeless retard/alchoholic/drug addict, I could probably give a **** what people are preaching at me so long as I get food.
You don't think secular programs already exist?BurlyShirley said:
Sure. But every church in nashville has lines out the door when they open up the soup kitchen. Obviously they arent as effective as they need to be. Why would you want to pay people to do a job that theyd gladly do for free?Old Man G Funk said:
So, if secular programs exist, why don't we fund them? Why should we violate the Constitution for no reason, other than the President wants to pander to the religious right?BurlyShirley said:
Edit: And, as I said before, the church groups will probably still do the work, so it would result in more opportunities for help for the needy.
Again, why expand the government even more when you dont have to? What is the difference in funding the church to do it and calling it something else and the same people doing it? Nothing in terms of production, but ALOT in terms of taxpayer cost.Old Man G Funk said:
How is it violationg the constitution? I didnt see anything in there about Christian only, or Jewish only or Muslim only churches getting the funding, did you? So how the **** is that establishing a state religion? I'll help you out. It's not. Its using the best mean possible to distribute funds to starving people. Lay off your hate and use some common sense for once.
How is it costing us more? The money that would go to a church would now go to a secular program. It's the same.BurlyShirley said:
And, it IS a violation of the first amendment. It fails the Lemon test. It does not have to be for a specific sect or faith in order to be unconstitutional.
Let me explain it AGAIN.Old Man G Funk said:
Churches and other community orgs. ALREADY have good programs in place. The govt. orgs do not. (Or else churches wouldnt need soup kitchens) It would cost much more to bolster the govt programs which I already explained, than to simply help out those who are already helping out. They are volunteers. Govt. workers must be paid.
Also, I hate to resort to namecalling, but if you cant see how something inclusive of all religions is NOT a violation of the constitution, you might be legally retarded.
And, let me explain again that secular institutions already exist and would simply receive more funding.BurlyShirley said:
I doubt that you hate to resort to namecalling, since it is your favorite weapon most of the time, but you are flat out wrong here. Something inclusive of all religions must also be inclusive of 'no religion' or else it is exclusive and therefore in violation of the first amendment. Freedom of religion is not freedom unless one has the ability to choose not religion, not simply which religion one will be.
If a program must neither advance nor prohibit religion, which is not the case here. The government is clearly paying church organizations to advance their religion (and it doesn't matter which church it is). Also, this creates an entanglement between church and state when the state is funding the churches to proselytize.
Again, why would you want to expand govt when private entities could do a fine job? Typical socialist crap here.Old Man G Funk said:
Go re-read the thing. It clearly says "faith-based and OTHER" community organizations. You are simply incorrect. It's just offering funding to anyone willing to feed homeless people. INCLUDING non-religious groups. I have clearly broken it down for you, and you've chosen not to accept . Pathetic, as usual.
Gee, I don't know...maybe because they are violating the law in the process? Also, it's not an expansion of government so much as a re-allocation of funds.BurlyShirley said:
Also, what makes you think the church groups are always doing a "fine job?" When the money is spent on proselytizing, is that really helping the poor, or is it misappropriation of funds?
So, now you are backpedaling and trying to say that it's not so much about the faith-based orgs. but the OTHER orgs as well? Nice try. The fact that they fund faith-based orgs. is still problematic, especially when the secular orgs (some of which ARE private even though you seem to think they aren't) are usually begging for more funding so that they can do a better job. You can equivocate all you want, but the fact remains that it is government entanglement with religion, and government funded endorsement of religion, both of which are illegal.