Will Obama Continue Bush’s Faith-Based Discrimination?
Will Obama Continue Bush’s Faith-Based Discrimination?
Last July, Barack Obama gave a campaign speech touting “the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups,” and said that “Washington needs to draw on” faith-based organizations to make change happen. Even as he endorsed an expanded faith-based initiatives program, Obama readily acknowledged the constitutional questions and sought to quell concern that he would be blurring the line between church and state:
OBAMA: Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea — so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.
In arguing that faith-based organizations must “retain their civil right to base employment decisions on their ideals and mission,” President Bush in effect allowed religious groups to discriminate against people who didn’t conform to their “ideals” — people like gay men and women. Obama’s July speech made it clear he would change those rules.
Or so it seemed. TAPPED reported last night that, according to Joshua DuBois, Obama’s pick to head the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbhorhood Partnerships, the White House is wavering on overturning the Bush rule. Obama will sign an executive order today directing the Justice Department and White House lawyers to review the program to decide whether or not to continue to allow hiring discrimination. In the meantime, Bush’s discriminatory rule will stand:
On the employment discrimination issue, [Rev. Welton Gaddy] Gaddy said that DuBois told him that the issue has been farmed out to the Justice Department for a recommendation on how to proceed. Every day that passes without changing the Bush policy on employment discrimination, said Gaddy, “we’re implementing the Bush program.”
In the meantime, the White House is likely to suspend the distribution of funds until the question is decided.
As the priorities of this Office are carried out, it will be done in a way that upholds the Constitution -- by ensuring that both existing programs and new proposals are consistent with American laws and values. The separation of church and state is a principle President Obama supports firmly -- not only because it protects our democracy, but also because it protects the plurality of America's religious and civic life. The Executive Order President Obama will sign today strengthens this by adding a new mechanism for the Executive Director of the Office to work through the White House Counsel to seek the advice of the Attorney General on difficult legal and constitutional issues.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.
So…how are you going to enforce this, President Obama? This is simply going to open an endlessly squirmy can of worms.
It’d be better to keep religion TOTALLY out of the picture. Our government is secular – so let’s keep it that way.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:15 amDiscrimination is discrimination. Period. Doesn’t matter who is doing it or the reasoning behind it. It’s wrong, and federal dollars should not be used to further it.
PEACE
February 5th, 2009 at 11:22 amThere should be no distribution of funds to religious organizations of any stripe.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:23 amLet them maintain a total separation from government and politics, and they can keep tax exempt status.
If they can’t keep dogma and proselytizing out of government, then they get nothing.
How about suing the Churches that crossed the line of church and state by endorsing Bush in 04 and supporting Prop 8? The Bush years were a total travesty of blurring the line between religion and state, all while criticizing the Taliban for doing the same thing. I know Obama is walking a thin line as the religous nut-cases out there hold a lot of sway, I think it’s still good news for us rational folk who don’t believe in hellfire and End-of-Times dogma.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:23 amOught to be very simple: if a religious organization wants grant (i.e. taxpayer) money, then they MUST abide by the rules. One is no discrimination in hiring. If they have a problem with that, because it would “taint” their “mission”, then they shouldn’t be SEEKING TAXPAYER MONEY. Period. If they run their religious thing on their own dime, then they can discriminate on ideology (not entirely moral, but makes strategic sense: I can understand it). This is JUST LIKE the wall street barons who want federal money, but no strings attached.
Federal money is taxpayer money. In the case of religious GRANTS, it is no more than WELFARE. You want welfare, you HAVE to play by and follow the rules of the one handing out the welfare.
For 8 years we have heard how strong these religious institutions are, how they are the majority and do so much for so many (etc, etc). In some cases there is truth to that, and in others there is graft. However, if they are so solid, and so supported by believers, then why do they need to beg the federal government for welfare?
ANY money spent by a religious institution is, by its nature, supporting that religion. There is no way for it not to, as it is used for internal needs (thus benefitting ONLY the religion), or if used for community outreach needs (like a food pantry) it is ADVERTISING (and you’ll be hard pressed to find a welfare accepting church that does not view its community-aid programs as attempts to convert more people).
FAct is, really, that the fed should NOT be giving grants to religions since every dollar is used for promoting the religion in question. But, if they are going to, then those accepting the welfare MUST follow the rules of government (which includes NO discrimination based on anything, to include ideology.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:29 amReligious groups do countless things in my town, they operate feeding sites, homeless shelters, food pantries, after school programs, and so forth. They do not promote their religion, and they do so much good for people who need help. As long as they are not demanding that we follow their religion, I have no problem with it. Without them, poor people here would have things even worse. And, believe me, times are tough in Ohio. They provide a safety net for those who need it most.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:30 amIt’d be better to keep religion TOTALLY out of the picture. Our government is secular – so let’s keep it that way.
Not for St. Barry. He sold out to the Faith-Basers way back in July.
According to CNN just now, “In an executive order to be announced on Thursday, Obama does not rescind Bush’s provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring…
Now people who value the separation of church and state, on the count of three, drop trou, lube the tube, and prepare to get it in the ASS again…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:34 amThey provide a safety net for those who need it most.
Which is fine, except that that is the job of the Government…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:35 amNevar Says:
There should be no distribution of funds to religious organizations of any stripe.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
_____________
That’s ludicrous. What you’re talking about is discrimination, and it’s thoroughly unconstitutional for the Federal government to refuse to award grants or contracts to organizations based on their religious affiliation.
There are plenty of religious organizations who do extremely good secular work. Habitat for Humanity, for example, is very good at providing low-cost housing to low-income famiies. Catholic Relief Services is very good at distributing food aid in Africa. Should the government refuse to provide grants or contracts to these organizations to carry out programs rebuilding after hurricane or preventing famine, simply because they have a religious affiliation?
As long as the organizations are not discriminating in their hiring or using this funding to proselytize, I see nothing wrong with it.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:37 amAs long as the organizations are not discriminating in their hiring or using this funding to proselytize, I see nothing wrong with it.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Read it again, or follow the link if you prefer:
“In an executive order to be announced on Thursday, Obama does not rescind Bush’s provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring…”
Now bend over, drop trou, lube up, and prepare for the “love” of Jaysus…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:40 amtokin librul Says:
They provide a safety net for those who need it most.
Which is fine, except that that is the job of the Government…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am
_________
I’d argue that it’s the job of SOCIETY. Yes, government has a major role in providing the social safety net, but so does the private sector, and so do non-governmental organizations. There are certain things government does well, and certain things it does badly that would be better accomplished in partnership with NGOs and private enterprise.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:40 amI’m trying to keep calm and keep my trust in this guy but it’s getting harder everyday.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:41 amSame money could be used in SECULAR food pantries and shelters, with the same benefits.
Funny thing is that these are, I would bet, all christian organizations whining about wanting the welfare from taxpayers but no strings.
What do the supporters of this blurred line think about taxpayer grants going to American mosques? What about lesser religions, recognized but not out in the public face?
larkohio: I don’t deny the value of well run social programs like those mentioned. (and the whole concept of them is socialism — even when done by a church, you Do know?). The question is pertaining to federal grant money being given to these, yet allowing them to use the money as they please and continue with discriminatory practices. I don’t think you will find too many who say that they can’t have grant money for these programs at all — what most desire is that taxpayer money is NOT used to promote the religion NOR to discriminate in their hiring: not even based on difference of religion (e.g. a church may choose to not hire a qualified person to — be a janitor, teach, run a food pantry, whatever — based simply on the fact that the qualified person does not beileve their religion. If taxpayer money is funding them, even partially, then they should abide by government rules, to include that they canNOT discriminate based solely upon a difference of religion. Divorcees are not allowed to work for the catholic church (I know a teacher who was catholic, was a teacher, but when she got divorced, she was immediately fired because divorce is against church policy: accepting federal grant money should mean that they do NOT have the ability to do something like that).
February 5th, 2009 at 11:43 amtokin librul Says:
Read it again, or follow the link if you prefer:
“In an executive order to be announced on Thursday, Obama does not rescind Bush’s provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring…”
February 5th, 2009 at 11:40 am
________
I read it and disagree with it. I don’t see this, however, as a reason to discriminate against all religious groups.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:43 amhussein toasterhead Says: “Should the government refuse to provide grants or contracts to these organizations to carry out programs rebuilding after hurricane or preventing famine, simply because they have a religious affiliation?”
Yes.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:44 amWhat I find most egregious is that churches like the Salvation Army took money at the holidays in their kettles and used it to lobby the government to allow them to discriminate in their hiring practices. They STOLE my money. They didn’t use it to feed and clothe people. They used it to advance their hateful bigotry. I will never put money in one of those kettles again.
We know Obama is a bigot. The question is whether he will allow his personal bigotry to influence his public policy. I certainly hope not. But, of course it already has as he does refuse to join the modern civil rights movement.
Anyway, I knew I was a voting for a bigot when I voted for Obama just as I knew I was voting for an adulterer when I voted for Clinton. Clinton was still a far better leader for this nation than Bush. Obama will prove to be a better leader as well. But, will he merely be a good leader or will he be a great leader. His stance on civil rights is one of the issues that can make the difference.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:46 amThe3 reason to deny any public funding to any religious group, at all, under any circumstances, is that old cliche: fungibility.
Funny word, important meaning:
That is,. there is no way to ensure that federal/tax moneys given to ‘faith-based’ groups will not be used in unconstitutional ways…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:48 amCageyCretin Says:
Same money could be used in SECULAR food pantries and shelters, with the same benefits.
What do the supporters of this blurred line think about taxpayer grants going to American mosques? What about lesser religions, recognized but not out in the public face?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I agree that the same money could be used on secular organizations. And if a secular organization writes the best proposal for implementing a program in their community, they should receive the award. But if a mosque or a church or a synagogue is doing a really good job of feeding the homeless in their community, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to receive funding to scale up their work.
I think the administration is taking a cautious approach with this. I hope that after they do their legal review, the Bush order will be rescinded.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:49 amNevar Says:
Yes.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
_________
So you don’t like the First Amendment, then?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:49 amI think the administration is taking a cautious approach with this. I hope that after they do their legal review, the Bush order will be rescinded.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Pfffffst…”Hope” in one hand, shit in the other and see which one gets stinky…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:50 amI wish some of the so-called progressives who comment here could stop the homophobic jokes. Isn’t denying gays the right to marry enough to satisfy your bigotry without making them a punchline every day? Told any good “pollack” jokes lately?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:52 amGet the phuquing, sodding, bigoturd churches out of the functions of the State and keep ‘em the phuque out…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:52 amPERIOD.
No Discussion.
So you don’t like the First Amendment, then?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am
incwe when is NOT sending federqal dollars to support churches an “Abridgment” of their freedom to practice their religions?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:53 amSo you don’t like the First Amendment, then?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am
since what date, in what memo, is denying FEDERAL funds to religious groups an abridgment of their freedom of religion?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:53 amFive words that are music to my ears, Separation of Church and State…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:55 amTold any good “pollack” jokes lately?
Okay: Know how to tell the bride at a polish wedding?
She’s the one in the clean bowling shirt and braided arm-pits…
You like that one? On oldie but a goodie…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:56 amReligions by their very nature are discriminatory. They embrace those who follow their strictures, attempt to convert others, and thus failing, shut them out. If they don’t kill them or steal their food and shelter.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:57 amNo religious aid organization is going to hire someone outside of their parameters. This is discrimination.
Government is of the people, by the people, by majority rule, and for the good of all, regardless of religion, philosophy or any other difference.
I am taking a Utopian approach, toasterhead, and I realize this much separation of church and state is not possible in this country, nor in the world as a whole.
I’m just looking back at the long history of many human religions which have been built on the foundations of discrimination, conflict, and the “I’m better than you are” mentality.
Humanity has every bit as much an evolutionary task for spiritual survival as it does for its physical survival.
tokin librul Says:
That is,. there is no way to ensure that federal/tax moneys given to ‘faith-based’ groups will not be used in unconstitutional ways…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:48 am
___________
Sure there is. Proper monitoring and evaluation. Organizations have to provide detailed reports to the funding agency with each disbursement on how the funds were spent and what they were used for. If they use any of that funding for activities that were not in their proposal, it’s a breach of contract.
What they do with the money they raise on their own is immaterial. Fungibility is not a valid argument. Government is funding them to provide a good or service, and the decision needs to be made on the basis of their ability to provide that good or service. Period.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:58 amI worked for the Young Women’s Christian Association in a shelter for battered and homeless women and children for 10 years. When I was hired, no one asked me what my religion was. I worked with quite a few Jewish people, as well as, other religions including Christian. We did get some federal dollars. I think we did a lot of good. I see no reason why these types of organizations should not continue to be funded, as long as they do not promote religion with their staff or the folks they serve. Without faith based programs poor people are screwed.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Agreed about the discrimination.
I am not one to fight against any help at all going to homeless shelters and food pantries and the like. However, I have to agree somewhat with resident cynic Tokin’ that there is no way at all to verify that any money any of them gets is not used for advancing their religion. And any money spent by a religious organization IS spent to advance the organization (at the least). Those whom I have spoken with involved in christian food pantries and shelters DO view these as instruments of advancing their religion. Most of them are not aggressive evangelical about it, but that IS the angle: yes, they want to help others, but the leadership wants to add to the flock. Some a re subtle, and some are not (one local shelter holds a mass every evening. Those who intend to stay for the night must attend the mass — they need not participate, but they have to be there). Sometimes it is more subtle, like a few words here and there (suggestions) and pamphlets.
I am not SURE that a governmetn run program is better or not — but a non-religious secular program would be something else. Religious and non-religious people could work there, and NO ONE would be allowed to offer any advice of a religious nature.
If the ONLY shelters in an area are faith-based, then the peopple who need those shelters HAVE to go to them if they want the help. In many cities, there are not a lot of shelter choices (most people needing a shelter have no means of going across the city to find a different shelter for the night).
But, I hope Obama does the right thing, which would be to require that these shelters and food pantries and such, IF receiveing federal aid, cannot discriminate at all, and cannot attempt to spread their religion through these government funded vehicles.
That’s my take, anyhow.
Have a cookie. You’ll feel better. :)
February 5th, 2009 at 12:01 pmThere are many of us who are doing just that. You can do your part too. We have had some failures and some good outcomes. We must keep it going:
IRS Complaint Process For Tax Exempt Organizations
tokin liberal, I agree with you but god you are an obnoxious ass.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pmhussein toasterhead Says: “So you don’t like the First Amendment, then?”
LOL
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
It doesn’t guarantee free money. If a religious or advocacy group or press organization accepts money, they are in a sense being bought.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pmAnd if they get money, and someone else doesn’t, that is discrimination.
Obama uses Scare Tactics to Push Spending Bill
President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible, a fresh call to a recalcitrant Congress to move quickly.
Cheney’s Reprised Scare Tactic: Warns Of WMD Attack If Bush Policies Are Reversed»
Former Vice President Cheney sat down with Politico yesterday for his first interview since handing the reigns of power to the Obama administration. During the interview, Cheney wasted no time trying to defend the Bush administration’s unpopular (and perhaps illegal) counterterrorism policies, many of which he created. Cheney warned that if those policies are repealed (as many of them have already) then the U.S. is at greater risk of “a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind” going off in an American city:
Please explain the difference here? And why do Libs and Pro get made when you call them hypocrites?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pmPastor Warren’s Saddleback church refused membership to “practicing” homosexuals. They are welcome to worship there, but cannot join until they renounce their “sin”.
Okay, fine. It’s a religious institution and that’s their rules. I don’t agree with the practice, but whatever.
But if Saddleback, or any other faith-based group, applies for my tax dollars to do anything, a condition of receipt must be that they not discriminate against anyone when hiring people.
It’s really simple. Just as considering political affiliation when hiring at the Justice Dept. was illegal, so should discriminating when using federal dollars.
PEACE
February 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pmJugendbund der Says:
Well, that would make for an interesting discussion. However, it has NOTHING to do with THIS thread. Find an appropriate thread, little fellow. THEN we can talk.
Have a cookie.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:09 pmlarkohio Says:
I worked for the Young Women’s Christian Association in a shelter for battered and homeless women and children for 10 years. When I was hired, no one asked me what my religion was. I worked with quite a few Jewish people, as well as, other religions including Christian. We did get some federal dollars. I think we did a lot of good. I see no reason why these types of organizations should not continue to be funded, as long as they do not promote religion with their staff or the folks they serve. Without faith based programs poor people are screwed.
I absolutely agree. And to suggest that local religious organizations can’t provide needed aid without proselytizing is simply wrong. Here in Portland, for example, we wouldn’t have any hospitals outside Kaiser if not for religious-affiliated Providence. CatholicCharities builds and renovates low-income housing, provides a home for unwed mothers, immigration legal services, refugee settlement services . . . I’ve worked with several of these and never once heard anyone trying to convert one of their clients. Ever.
And to whoever asked the question, of course I would support funding for similar organizations run by Muslims, Jews, of Wiccans. Or atheists.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pmBecause cheny is a proven liar…..what’s so hard to understand about that. He manufactures crisis to further his agenda.
Are you trying to say there were wmd’s? Are you trying to say there is no financial crisis?
You seem like kind of a hypocrite to me.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pmfletc3her Says:
Told any good “pollack” jokes lately?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:52 am
__________
How about a good “pollock” joke instead?
Jackson Pollock walks into a bar and sits down, covered in wet, spattered paint. The bartender walks over to him and says, “hey! We don’t serve abstract expressionists here!”
Pollock gets very angry at this. He stands up and says “this is an outrage! What kind of bar is this, that doesn’t serve artists?”
The bartender responds by muttering nonsense syllables for twenty minutes while bashing a urinal with a hammer.
Pollock then walks out, shaking his head and vowing never return to The Dada Bar.
:D
February 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pmFletc3her wasthis in response to #7?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pmI have news for you, being raped inthe a$$in not exclusive to gay people.
Are you a concern troll? I think so…
larkohio Says: “Without faith based programs poor people are screwed.”
I understand that there are perhaps many exceptions to the rather absolute tone I have taken here this morning.
I am objecting to the abuses of government by extremist fundamentalist evangelicals, enabled by the past administration who used them to gain power.
I am not in favor of a complete end to government support of social aid programs conducted by faith based organizations.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pmAll I seek is a balance and an accountability, and that any group which uses its federal funding for political purposes, be hauled up short and cut off.
Faith based organizations exist to extend the influence of their faith. They will exert pressure to adopt their faith (if not overt than covertly)regardless of who is giving them money to “do their work.” Attempting to sell this scheme as anything else is living in bush world (denial).
February 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pmThis was all designed as a sop to get the votes of the AmTalibangelicals.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pmReligious organizations have had federal and state contracts to provide social services for years, the big difference now is that they NO longer have to maintain a separate entity to perform the social service functions. This saves them paperwork and some money, which they now can refocus on evangelism. It is also supposed to be a way for smaller “churches” to get into the federal gravy train.
But basically, it’s all about the preachers getting PAID.
wow, my space bar is really sticky, that should have read:
February 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm“…raped in the a$$ is not…”
Jugendbund der Says:
Please explain the difference here? And why do Libs and Pro get made when you call them hypocrites?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
________
The threat of complete economic collapse is very real, with thousands of workers being laid off each week. Obama is not exaggerating this threat in pushing the stimulus bill.
The threat of terrorists coming to kill us all with nuclear weapons is extremely remote, and Cheney is exaggerating this threat astronomically.
See the difference?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pmHow about a few good pollock recipes?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pmBush. Lite.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pmdbadass Says:
How about a few good pollock recipes?
Damn it! Beat me to it, and I KNEW you would be all over that one.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pmgummitch Says:
I asked that question. Wanna make sumpthin’ of it? (oh… sorry… don’t know what got into me….).
Alright, fine. I don’t really have much more than what I already said — I have some limited experiences of mine, and ideology. MY experinces have shown me differently about these organizations, however I have NOT had any dealings with CatholoicCharities or members thereof. Perhaps, though, there is also some regional influence on how these types of pragnizations operate? (to where some are more fair and some are… not). I know for a fact that Catholic schools are HIGHLY discriminatory, and that IS from a lot of direct experience. But they have always been that way.
I would ask, though, how recent these noted experiences are with the non-discriminatory faith-based aid oganizations? The last 8 years were EXTREMELY favorable for them to change their MO’s, ya know?
But, I cannot sustain any arguments in here — i’ve given what I have on this one, and all I’ll end up doing is repeating myself.
(I got lot’s o’ cookies — the wife is on a baking spree — I am in cookie hell…… have a cookie….. please……)
February 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pmA man walks into a seafood bar on the coast, and orders the halibut.
He takes one bite, then says to the waiter, “This doesn’t taste like halibut..”
“Yes, I’m sorry sir, it’s not” says the waiter, “It’s pollock”
“What is this,” says the customer, “A joke?”
February 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pmtokin liberal, I agree with you but god you are an obnoxious ass.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
just doin’ m’job, startling the rubes…
Fungibility means that supervision/accountability are total jokes…
Giving money to a religious organization to do civic work may be admirable, but it frees up an equal amount of money for the organization to pursue its proselytizing activities…
and besides, because it IS ‘fungible’, there’s no way to discern which dollar came from which source…they all go together in the same account…
February 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pmSKdeA Says:
Are you a concern troll? I think so…
Thanks for clarfying that. I REALLY had NO CLUE what that poster was referring to. I assumed it had made it to the wrong thread to respond.
Got it.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pmspencers mom Says:
But if Saddleback, or any other faith-based group, applies for my tax dollars to do anything, a condition of receipt must be that they not discriminate against anyone when hiring people.
It’s really simple. Just as considering political affiliation when hiring at the Justice Dept. was illegal, so should discriminating when using federal dollars.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
__________
Agreed, though I’d say it’s a bit more complex. No organization should be allowed to discriminate, but at the same time, no organization should be forced to hire someone who’s thoroughly opposed to their mission, either.
Would we mandate that environmental organizations hire people who don’t believe in climate science in order to receive federal funding? Would we mandate that the NAACP hire a white supremacist in order to receive a grant? Of course not.
That’s where it gets a little sticky with religious organizations. There has to be a legal distinction between disrimination against an applicant because of their personal religious affiliation, and not hiring an applicant who is personally opposed to doing the job they’d be hired to do.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pmFred Says:
——————————————————————————–
Jugendbund der Says:
Please explain the difference here? And why do Libs and Pro get made when you call them hypocrites?
Because cheny is a proven liar…..what’s so hard to understand about that. He manufactures crisis to further his agenda.
Are you trying to say there were wmd’s? Are you trying to say there is no financial crisis?
You seem like kind of a hypocrite to me
Wasn’t it because of bad intelligence and advise? Could this not be the same thing?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:25 pmJugendbund der Says:
_____________
Is this Dynamo back under a new name?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pmtokin librul Says:
Giving money to a religious organization to do civic work may be admirable, but it frees up an equal amount of money for the organization to pursue its proselytizing activities…
and besides, because it IS ‘fungible’, there’s no way to discern which dollar came from which source…they all go together in the same account…
Ah. I see your point on fungibility. Makes sense.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pmWasn’t it because of bad intelligence and advise? Could this not be the same thing?
Apparently, you haven’t seen the latest job loss reports.
As for poor individuals being “screwed” without religious organizations, I disagree. I am an atheist, but I donate to charity regularly, attend benefit dinners in the community, and do my utmost to encourage others to become involved, as well. I know of MANY secular/atheist organizations that participate in benefit events.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pmCageyCretin Says:
tokin librul Says:
and besides, because it IS ‘fungible’, there’s no way to discern which dollar came from which source…they all go together in the same account…
Ah. I see your point on fungibility. Makes sense.
_____________
Technically, the govt and groups that take govt money are supposed to do fund accounting, which separates those dollars into different pots.
But… if no one is paying attention…
February 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pmaw, a bush/cheney apologist, we don’t see many of your kind anymore. Most of the republicans in my area have scraped off their bush/cheney stickers….I usually provide the scraper and let them do it themselves.
No, the intelligence was accurate as you well know, bush/cheney ignored it and used what they wanted to wage war. It is a well known fact, accepted by 90% of all human beings worldwide. Been proven. You are just wierd dude.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:31 pmJugendbund der Says:
Wasn’t it because of bad intelligence and advise? Could this not be the same thing?
______________
In the Botch Admin’s case, it would seem to have been a complete lack of intelligence, period. Snark aside, PUL-LLLLLEASE… we’ve been over this ground so many times.
The fact that the WH cherry-picked the info they wanted to present, and then even deliberately distorted THAT has been pretty well documented. To somehow give Cheney the benefit of the doubt… ain’t gonna happen.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pmFirst, grant programs for religious organizations are specific to their secular operations. There are lots of hoops and provisos that are aimed at insuring the grant is used for secular programs only. Is it fail safe? No, but its close.
Second, if a group accepts federal money the use of that money has to include agreement to abide by federal law. They are using taxpayer money, not donations. Our government had better not be providing funding for any religion.
Third, while I am somewhat disappointed in this response I am also heartened that it is being handed over for review. While I would like to see a pen stroke cancellation, I can accept a President who is trying to do things by the letter of the law rather than personal belief or whim.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pmWell dang, Fred… ya got me again.
Just don’t let the Llama Boy know.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pmI’m fascinated by all of you progressives. Since Obama was sworn in, I’ve been reading up and it really is sad how mean so many of you can be. Bipartisanship? How about plain bile? I’m so glad you all exist only in the blogosphere and not as my neighbors. Blech!
February 5th, 2009 at 12:47 pmI’m keepin score now that I’m ahead…..heh. It’s much easier than it used to be with the quality of trolls dropping to such a low level. bush apologists are so last decade.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pmDid you miss the election, we are your neighbors. Need to borrow my scraper to get rid of that bush/cheney sticker?
mean and partisan, check your shorts little fella, the right make the political enviornment poison. You shit in the nest, now sleep in it.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pmThink Truth Says: “I’m so glad you all exist only in the blogosphere and not as my neighbors.”
Could you do something about your dog? It’s been keeping the kids up at night. And, if it’s not too much to ask, pull your curtains at night…..
February 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pmWhy do trolls seem to like the high minded handles?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pmbush apologists are so last decade.
but they’re rapidly being replaced by Obama-flavor Kool-Aid drinkers…so we’ll carry on…
February 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pmThink Truth Says:
Since Obama was sworn in, I’ve been reading up and it really is sad how mean so many of you can be.
___________
Y a mean, like telling folks on a nationally syndicated radio talk show that we’re all just supposed to drop trou, bend over, and grab our ankles for the POTUS?
No… wait… that was Rush… okay, bad example.
Ooooooo… here’s a good one. Telling people on a nationally syndicated radio show that maybe we should start stringing up reporters from light poles.
No… no… bad example… that was Malkin… okay, one more try.
Suggesting we poison judges by slipping something into their creme brulee?
No… that was Coulter.
Okay,,, somebody else give it a try.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pmHoodathunk Says:
Why do trolls seem to like the high minded handles?
In their mind, it makes them look intelligent… But in reality, they’re just morons…
February 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pmtokin librul Says:
… but they’re rapidly being replaced by Obama-flavor Kool-Aid drinkers…
__________
Could have sworn I read quite a few ‘I’m disappointed’ comments here of late, but since you think you’re ALWAYS right about everything… carry on, Li’l Feller.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmNevar Says:
LOL
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
It doesn’t guarantee free money. If a religious or advocacy group or press organization accepts money, they are in a sense being bought.
And if they get money, and someone else doesn’t, that is discrimination.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I believe that there is a First Amendment argument here. It’s not about free money, but free expression.
Just two weeks ago, President Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy – the “global gag rule” on organizations that practiced or promoted abortion. The effect of this rule was that it prevented organizations from communicating certain messages to the public, for fear of losing needed funding and stranding millions of women around the world without access to their services.
We all hailed this executive action as a victory for free expression. The only reason the Mexico City Policy was not unconstitutional was that its scope was limited to the international arena. It would not be possible to enact such a policy for domestic organizations.
The policy you’re advocating – a total ban on government funding for religious organizations – is no different. It’s a domestic gag rule, instead of a global one.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pmFred Says:
I’m keepin score now that I’m ahead…..heh.
____________
Oh… a Challenge Match… heh… prepare to eat yer lunch, which of course, will be Cold Crow…
February 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pmI heard Obama speak at the pray breakfast this morning and what he said he wants to change the faith based office into a secular and faith based charitable office. There are more people every day who need help and in some areas where nobody is progressive the only way to get people to help is through their churches.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:04 pmI strongly support separation of church and state. I have had serious misgivings about faith-based grants as “overseen” by the Bush Administration (like that really happened). However, I also know that my own church has gotten grants to run its very busy food and clothing pantries (buying refrigerators, shelving, etc.). I also know that the only people working these programs who are paid are our two ministers and they don’t get paid from those grants and, really, the salaries they get are so low that in essence they, like everyone else, are volunteering in these programs. I don’t want government telling churches who they can hire generally, although if it is to hire someone for a federally funded program, then the church cannot discriminate. I also don’t want the churches to be able to directly solicit church membership.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pmThat door swings both ways bubba.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pmRuth Bader Ginsburg is having surgery for pancreatic cancer.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
But… if no one is paying attention…
February 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
____________
And there’s the rub. Fungibility is less of a concern if the government regulators are actually doing their jobs.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
And there’s the rub. Fungibility is less of a concern if the government regulators are actually doing their jobs.
___________
Hmmm… are you inferring govt regulators were less than diligent under BotchCo?
And if not, I will…. Ooops… heh… already did. Dang… I’m fast.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pmi agree that religion shouldn’t be subsidized by the government…at the same time, why would say, a gay, lesbian, or transgender person want to go to work for the CLDS?
February 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
Hmmm… are you inferring govt regulators were less than diligent under BotchCo?
And if not, I will…. Ooops… heh… already did. Dang… I’m fast.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
_______________
Oh, hell no. I’m not inferring that at all, nor am I implying it.
I’m unequivocally stating it, in thirty-foot high letters of white-hot fire that can only be viewed through UV-protective sunglasses.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
I’m unequivocally stating it, in thirty-foot high letters of white-hot fire that can only be viewed through UV-protective sunglasses.
___________
Hehee… I was wondering why I suddenly got so much glare off my computer screen…
Dang… I can’t see anything now… wha just hoppened?
I’m blind… I’m blind…
February 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pmI beat you again on think truth…when I get done you will be saying that you think the taste of crow is a delicacy.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pmFred Says:
I beat you again on think truth…when I get done you will be saying that you think the taste of crow is a delicacy.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
__________
I’d guess crow tastes similar to pidgeon, which is considered a delicacy in much of the world, as a matter of fact.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pmGrrrr…. fightin’ words, Freddy, me boyo… fightin’ words…
February 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pmI would issue a challenge to anyone who lives in an area that has a soup kitchen or food pantry or homeless shelter to go down and volunteer for a bit and find out just how much proselytizing goes on there.
There is no profit in these operations and most who run them are more concerned about the people they help. There might be a few who push the envelope but I think they are the exception rather than the rule.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pmWe may all be eating crow if the republicans get their way. Eating crow was a leftover from the hoover depression when all living things became food…..crow was one of the last to be exploited.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pmI was at Katrina and I can tell you that the first and best people on the ground were the churches. I never saw ACT UP, I never saw NOW, in fact I never saw any of these groups that pretend to care about America. Preident Obama obviously has a good spiritual adviser. He seems to understand that faith based organizations are the backbone of philanthropy in this country. You can hate Christians all you want, they are the ones who put their faith on the line while loony lefties are talking about how great they are.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pmdrew3rd, I’d also be willing to bet that those church based groups were predominantly groups like St. Vincent de Paul, more traditionally based than fundamental. And that a great deal of their support comes from the loonie lefties who actually give a crap about people, not just their true believers.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:45 pmdrew3rd,
February 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pmYou do realize that there are many “loony leftie” Christians here blogging, don’t ya?
hussein toasterhead Says: “The policy you’re advocating – a total ban on government funding for religious organizations – is no different. It’s a domestic gag rule, instead of a global one.”
I beg to differ. It’s not a gag rule in the sense that one can’t speak or express. My point is that government should not fund your particular view.
Realize that I am admittedly taking the extreme view, as I stated earlier. I realize it is not going to happen, a total separation of government/aid organizations/religious entities.
I simply wish for an evolution of human spirituality and consciousness beyond the “my god is better than your god” immaturity of the present.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pmHey, one can dream, eh?
drew3rd Says:
I was at Katrina and I can tell you that the first and best people on the ground were the churches. I never saw ACT UP, I never saw NOW…
_______________
ACT UP and NOW aren’t disaster relief organizations, dim watt. Apparently neither were FEMA, the Botch Admin, or the GOOP, because they sure were slow to show up too.
Saaay… aren’t you same fool who embarrassed himself over on the Wall Street Insiders thread, some nonsense about making $500K/yr as a jack off insurance salesman?
Well, you were half right about one thing… you’re clearly a jack off.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pmdrew3rd Says:
I was at Katrina and I can tell you that the first and best people on the ground were the churches.
.
.
.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
You got that right, drew3rd. The gulf coast was (is being) rebuilt by Christians.
A couple of guys at the church where bit attends made about thirteen trips each. bit made two trips.
On one street where we worked had four work crews from four different Christian denominations from four different parts of the country.
The Southern Baptist Churches seem to be the best organized. Their degree of organization probably comes from their experiences with hurricanes in FL. bit saw one location with three services run by SBCs including food and laundry services and chain saw shop. Their volunteers had committed to two weeks and after two weeks, new volunteers rotated in.
bit is not a Southern Baptist, but he believes he accurately represents SBC thought when he says the first amendment was not intended to keep God out of the public square – the current interpretation of the amendment. Rather, it was intended to keep government from influencing religion by picking a particular Christian denomination as a state church.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pmDid you get bit?
February 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
I’d guess crow tastes similar to pidgeon, which is considered a delicacy in much of the world, as a matter of fact.
Walter? I thought he was dead.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pmRather, it was intended to keep government from influencing religion by picking a particular Christian denomination as a state church.
_________
‘Course, one could also say it was intended to keep religion from influencing government by stopping any particular Christian denomination from picking itself as the State Church… just a thought.
Or any religious denomination, period, for that matter.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pmbit is not a Southern Baptist, but he believes he accurately represents SBC thought when he says the first amendment was not intended to keep God out of the public square – the current interpretation of the amendment. Rather, it was intended to keep government from influencing religion by picking a particular Christian denomination as a state church.
Except Thomas Jefferson was actually around for those discussions and made it pretty clear there should be a WALL between church and state. Since he was there and neither you nor the Southern Baptist Church was, we should perhaps defer to the expert.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pmIf you want to see what damage accomodation (non-separation) of church and state can do to the church, just look at Hitler, King Henry VIII, Iran.
If you want to see what damage accomodation can do to the state, just look at the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, The United Kingdom’s conflict between Catholics and Protestants, the “blue” laws of the U.S.
I submit that the Founding Fathers intended to protect both church and state by their separation and they were significantly more intelligent and prescient than most of us alive today. We should protect the concept they established.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pmSeriously, bitblt, I applaud the efforts and the work of faith based organizations in rebuilding hurricane devastated communities, realizing it would not be happening otherwise.
Why? Because George W. Bush cared not for assuming the responsibility. The very president who rode into office on the backs of religious fundamentalists lifted nary a finger in support.
The failure of the Army Corps of Engineers, the oil companies and the corporo-militarists to heed the deterioration of the levees, and the concerns regarding the destruction of coastal wetlands provided the recipe for the disaster of Katrina.
And when you have christo-extremists who claim it was God punishing New Orleans for it’s wickedness, it’s time to cut the purse strings to what are little more than racist and bigoted mega-clubs.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:24 pmGee, bit… what you say?
February 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pmThe faith-based program can never be Constitutional because he is taking taxpayer dollars and giving them to religious organizations. Even if it is Constitutional, I for one do not want my tax dollars going to churches so they can proselytize people.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm“Will Obama Continue Bush’s Faith-Based Discrimination?”
What a silly question.
Obama’s father was an atheist
Obama’s mother was spiritual
Obama’s step father was a nominal muslim
Obama’s maternal sister is a Buddhist
Obama’s grandparents were Unitarians
He’s a Protestant
And only God knows what all his paternal siblings religions are.
Hope off the paranoia wagon and realize that Obama isn’t going to hate any faith.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pmJugendbund der Says:
Because we are NOT hypocrites and we get tired of stupid people saying we are. There are TWO huge differences between the two. First is that Obama has some evidence what he says is true. Many top notch economists including recent Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman have made the same point. Darth Cheney has NO such evidence and pulls this BS right out of his ass. Second saying the economy is in dire straights and we better do something is obvious and is about the ECONOMY. It may be scary but what it isnt is YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE which is what Darth did. Telling someone prices are going up and his job is in jeapordy is not in the same world of fearmongering than telling someone they are about to die. They are different in BOTH those ways
February 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pmJugendbund der Says:
Wasn’t it because of bad intelligence and advise? Could this not be the same thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No bad intelligence isnt what made them talk about mushroom clouds since NO ONE ANYWHERE whose job it was to know thought Iraq had a nuclear program. The administration just lied about that. It wasnt bad intelligence that had Darth Cheney say the Atta meeting in Prague was pretty well established when in fact it had been pretty much COMPLETLY debunked. So no, they LIED. They lied a lot. Cheney in particular.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pmI dont have a problem with faith based interprises getting into the social services game but they have to follow all the rules ALL agencies follow. They CANNNOT DISCRIMINATE. Period.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pmWell bit would be wrong. The founding father specifically wrote the first amendment to keep religion out of the public square and many of the founding fathers have left letters and diaries that clearly state this!\
This is a lie.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/ellen-palin/
bit quotes himself:
bitblt Says:
Democrat Soldier Says:
#69 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————
“There’s nothing in the First Amendment that suggests all faiths or all religions are equal.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Just as there is nothing in the First Amendment that suggests that Christianity is in any way BETTER than any other faith or religion! Your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 p
bit agrees that this is what one would conclude from a plain reading of the First Amendment.
Forturnately, much of the context of the First Amendment has been preserved as below.
It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity. As an example of this expectation of a predominant religion consider what
George Mason, often called the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” proposed as the wording for the First Amendment.
Quoted from
Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
If anyone has any reference to any document written in the U.S. from about 1776 to present time, which suggests that a Mohammedan could, would, or should be President of the U.S., bit would appreciate seeing it?
February 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pmOctober 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Think Truth Says:
Yours is the side of Micheal Weinerdog Savage, Ann Gangleskank Coulter and the Oxymoron. You guys OWN hate and bile. My GOD you are ignorant. I am glad morons like YOU are out of power. The STUPID was killing our country. Now go pour yourself a nice steaming hot cup of STFU you hypocritical punk
February 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pmbitblt Says:
Bit you are a moron. Many of the founding fathers were Deists and the fact you have been brainwashed to believe what you WISH were true will not change reality. The first amendment is CLEAR about no establishment of religion. Your lies, distortions and plain idiocy will not change that.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pmBitostupid
I missed the last bit of extreme stupidity. How about the clause that said there would be NO religious test for office? The Treaty of Tripoli which said DIRECTLY that “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen”
Why even bring that up unless you are trying to weasel in the really stupid claim Obama is a Muslim. You really are an ignorant piece of work bit
February 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” – Patrick Henry
This, in essences, is what bit has posted numerous times. The US is nation for a Christian people. This US is not a Christian nation, especially since Christian is a characteristic of people. However, many people believe the US is a Christian nation, and not all of the people live in the US.
Morality and religion are mentioned by several of the founders as being necessary for the success of the nation.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pmbitblt Says:
Morality is not exclusive to religion much less Christianity neither is religion exclusive to Christianity and everyone is entitled to THEIR OPINION but it is NOT constitutionally correct to say religion is necessary for government. It is CLEAR that the founding fathers didnt want religion within a country mile of government. They KNEW the history of Europe and how religious wars washed the continent in blood. I am all for religion. Have one of my own. I am all for free expression thereof. Just keep it out of government like the first amendment says DIRECTLY and the Constitution makes clear with the no religious test for office clause.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pmPatrick Henry isn’t the most stable or clear headed proponent you could claim, bitblt…. he was known for his radicalism and not altogether truthful fear mongering…
February 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAnd the United States was not founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ, it was founded on the Constitution. Which Patrick Henry fought vigorously against.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pmHow about the clause that said there would be NO religious test for office?
It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity. The lack of religious test makes sense because there was no expectation that anyone but a Christian would hold office.
Not convinced? Check many of the early state constitutions – MA would be a good example, note the purpose of HarvardU – or other state government documents that required the office holders to affirm that they were Christian.
The Treaty of Tripoli which said DIRECTLY that “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,
JAdams, who signed this treaty, said a year later in a speech, ”
Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).
That morality and religion are necessary to the success of the nation is a common theme among the founders.
Several early state supreme courts made rulings on the idea that the US is a Christian nation.
People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290 (N.Y. 1811).
So did the SCOTUS.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457; 12 S. Ct. 511; 36 L. Ed. 226; 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2036.
“These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation” (Church of the…,
United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605; 51 S. Ct. 570; 75 L. Ed. 1302; 1931 U.S. LEXIS 170.
“We are a Christian people…according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God”.
From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians…. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct (1821, p. 28, emp. added).
One really has to want not to see the obvious in order overlook Christianity in the history of the US.
The sixth president of US, John Quincy Adams(son of John Adams second president), made the following quotes:
Adams, John Quincy (1821), Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821, Upon the Occasion of the Reading the Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf).
Adams, John Quincy (1837), An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple).
The Jefferson Memorial contains engravings from some of Jefferson’s works, including numerous references to the God of the Bible:
Wow. From the TJ memorial…
Holy Author of our religion Do you wonder who TJ is talking about? bit doesn’t.
The gay people, minorities and women of this country can all tell bit about the oppression of religion on them.
The Constitution of the U.S. was not written to support, endorse, or encourage immorality, especially licentiousness(.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pmWow. From the TJ memorial…
In your zealousness to pick out and highlight every time the word “God” is uttered, you have not comprehended what Jefferson is actually saying.
Let me highlight those words for you…
Freedom Liberty Justice Free Mind
These are not concepts espoused by modern christianity.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pmNevar Says:
Wow. From the TJ memorial…
In your zealousness to pick out and highlight every time the word “God” is uttered, you have not comprehended what Jefferson is actually saying.
Let me highlight those words for you…
Freedom Liberty Justice Free Mind
These are not concepts espoused by modern christianity.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Allow bit to summarize even more succinctly with a common Evangelical adage.
No God. No Justice.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:44 pmbitblt Says:
You are just brainwashed and see what you WANT to see. John Qunicy Adams also REFUSED to take his oath on the bible because he was comitted to the seperation of Church and state. So you keep SAYING that they just assumed Christianity would be THE religion to you its dogma but I see no evidence this is true and since MANY of the founding fathers were Deists and NOT Christians per say then it doesnt really make sense.
I love the way you CROPPED the Jefferson quote you left out the first part where he prefaces that by saying he assumes the clerics think he is hostile to them and they should. Now either you are ignorant or dishonest. Either works for the rest of the stupid bilge you posted here
Your Supreme Court Trinity quote is WRONG. This is another inaccurate statement from David Barton, and he has admitted that this quote appears nowhere in the TRINITY v. UNITED STATES case.
http://www.atheists.org/Inaccurate_Founding_Father_Quotes
I am guessing a whole bunch of your quotes come from that hack Barton who just flat lies to make his point the people who said THESE things were all about seperating Churh and State
“…Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas derived from the canon law; which has thrown a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest such that no mortal could deserve.”…John Adams
Benjamin Franklin
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England.”— Benjamin Franklin
Lighthouses are more useful than Churches
John Adams
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” — John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved–the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
“The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.” — John Adams, letter to John Taylor
HERE by the way is the FULL Jefferson quote you dishonestly tried to make into an argument that Jefferson would be against a seperation of church and state.
“The clergy…believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot … they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.” — Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
“Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” — Thomas Jefferson, from “Notes on Virginia”
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
“It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests.” — Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803
“But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.” — Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.” — Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816
James Madison
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” — James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” — James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
Give it up your dishonest quotes the ones that dont exist you claim like the Trinity claim that Barton ADMITTED didnt exist. Your having to CROP quotes to make your point. Ya got nothin. I have shredded you on this subject before. You either dont know what you are talking about or are a flat out liar.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:55 pmbitblt Says:
What you mean is let Bit just spew out his delusional fantasies because he is brainwashed and not too bright
February 5th, 2009 at 6:57 pmWhen bit gets information from http://www.wallbuilders.com, he usually references the website pages because they are so well documented. Most of bit’s quotes came from other sites.
Nonetheless, David Barton’s http://www.wallbuilders.com is excellent.
bit especially likes these two web pages.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126
On this page Barton explains the extreme efforts he makes to insure the accuracy of quotes.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible
Since Jefferson, who was not a signer of the U.S. Constitution, was neither the most important founder nor the only one, there are numerous quotes from founders who may be new to you.
For example,
Benjamin Rush
bit counts 52 names of founders and other influential men on this webpage Including TJ…
These men were real, conflicted individuals who had seen the greatest story ever told – Christianity – abused by power seekers. (Sounds like bit to bit.) What they had to say about the abuse of faith has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity will be important in the continuance of the USA. bit believes this faith is critical to the survival of th US.
All quotes have references.
David Barton cares about the future of the U.S.
February 5th, 2009 at 7:47 pmSorry to leave you hanging here at the alter, bit.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:02 pmI don’t think we are right for each other.
Good luck…
David Barton is dishonest and so are you. You cropped the Jefferson quote which in its entirity shows the exact OPPOSITE of what you were trying to claim. Barton ADMITTED the quote he cited for Trinity was NOWHERE in the decision so either you just dont know what you are talking about or you are dishonest. I dont care which you are flat out wrong. You AND Barton use quote out of context or made up and pretend that the very people ADAMANT about a seperation between church and state werent really against it. You are wrong. Wallbuilders is propaganda and so are you. You believe them because they reinforce your delusions they are NOT a credible group. They are one sided and not above making things up. Barton is a fraud. The quotes I cited show CLEARLY that whatever their personal religion the huge majority of founding fathers were COMMITTED to the seperation.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:07 pmWallbuilders
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/issue/003/Wallbuilders%20or%20Mythbuilders%20By%20Nicholas%20P%20Miller_003_17_.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm
Try REAL history not revisionist history
February 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pmHi bit:
Did you forget to mention that pretend fixed gay that got killed by his evil not fixed gay former gay lover. You used to really dig that story. It was sort of gay the way you hawked it so.
Either way nice to see you. Hope you/s are well…
February 5th, 2009 at 11:50 pmSo many paranoid hate filled people.
You know you’re right.
Obama is just like Pat Robertson.
By the end of the year you can expect evolution to be outlawed, abortion punished by public hangings, witchs to be thrown into lakes, gays to be deported to mexico, mass burning of atheists, posoining of jews, a bounty put out on harry potter, legal requirement of your attending whatever church you hate the most, and the illegalization of dance.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:19 amrepublicans hate facts–Fascinating and most informative post on the separation of church and state that I’ve ever read.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:29 am“…a bounty put out on harry potter,…”
how much?
February 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am;)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
More than the humorless tool bags who love to hate on faith can imagine.
(a ruple per microcubit) ;)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pmWill Obama fail to reverse Bush’s racial discrimination against black people, and thus, in a way, disgracefully “continue” Bush’s racial discrimination against black people?
Bush doesn’t care about black people (indicated at http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/andrew-yu-jen-wang-responds-to-stokely.html — check this out).
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
ONLINE ANTI-BUSH SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH: LISTING OF MAJOR ISSUES
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/10/bush-is-worst-president-in-american.html
February 8th, 2009 at 12:51 am