haleluya!
-
This just ticks me off. :mad: Why is it bad to have a religious president? And why must we always say he's using religion for political advantage? The guy is human, he has a heart! Cut him some slack, then get on your own knees and call on the name of the Lord. Trust me, alot of people would be better off.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: The guy is human The jury is still thinking about that one. ;P -- Booohoo!
-
mystro_AKA_kokie wrote: loosing battle The battle gets looser all the time ? I am trying to keep quiet on this, but I just don't get why someone who reads a programming website would aspire to stupidity. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Wouldn't that be a loosening battle? Like the ones we have with jars of PB.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
This just ticks me off. :mad: Why is it bad to have a religious president? And why must we always say he's using religion for political advantage? The guy is human, he has a heart! Cut him some slack, then get on your own knees and call on the name of the Lord. Trust me, alot of people would be better off.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogThere is nothing wrong with having a religious president. However, what I find to be wrong is W's desire force that religion, its morals, and its beliefs on everyone around him... both in this country and around the world. If those that disagree with his beliefs are to be tolerant of them, shouldn't the same courtesy be expected in return? If we had a muslim president with the same degree of zeal as W, I wonder if those who believe as W does would be nearly so accepting. [disclaimer: muslim is being used as a random example religion... no implications were intended] --Jesse
-
There is nothing wrong with having a religious president. However, what I find to be wrong is W's desire force that religion, its morals, and its beliefs on everyone around him... both in this country and around the world. If those that disagree with his beliefs are to be tolerant of them, shouldn't the same courtesy be expected in return? If we had a muslim president with the same degree of zeal as W, I wonder if those who believe as W does would be nearly so accepting. [disclaimer: muslim is being used as a random example religion... no implications were intended] --Jesse
Please give me an example of his desire to force his religion on anyone else.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
Please give me an example of his desire to force his religion on anyone else.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Please give me an example of his desire to force his religion on anyone else. How about his modification of policies regarding the funding of charitable associations from taxation - more commonly known as Faith-Based Initiatives? That is indicative (but not conclusive) of such a desire.
Ian Darling "If we've learned anything from history, it's that those who feed trolls are condemned to repetitive conversations. Or something like that." - Eric Lippert
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Please give me an example of his desire to force his religion on anyone else. How about his modification of policies regarding the funding of charitable associations from taxation - more commonly known as Faith-Based Initiatives? That is indicative (but not conclusive) of such a desire.
Ian Darling "If we've learned anything from history, it's that those who feed trolls are condemned to repetitive conversations. Or something like that." - Eric Lippert
Ian Darling wrote: How about his modification of policies regarding the funding of charitable associations from taxation - more commonly known as Faith-Based Initiatives? That is indicative (but not conclusive) of such a desire. No, I don't think this counts. I think this comes from the realization that local organizations (mainly curches) handle charity much more efficiently than the federal government.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
Ian Darling wrote: How about his modification of policies regarding the funding of charitable associations from taxation - more commonly known as Faith-Based Initiatives? That is indicative (but not conclusive) of such a desire. No, I don't think this counts. I think this comes from the realization that local organizations (mainly curches) handle charity much more efficiently than the federal government.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: No, I don't think this counts. I think this comes from the realization that local organizations (mainly curches) handle charity much more efficiently than the federal government. Churches in the US could get tax funds for charitable work anyway, providing they conformed to state regulations for that work (like having licensed and trained counsellors, for example) - regulations that non-religious charities are still expected to keep to. Bush removed that regulatory requirement for religious groups. And going by this report, charitable work under Faith-Based Initiatives look far less efficient, safe, and helpful: http://tfn.org/issues/charitablechoice/report02.html Ultimately, Bushes initiative reduces the religious liberty of the helpless, by making it effectively legal for religous charities to force their beliefs in exchange for help, on US tax payers money.
Ian Darling "If we've learned anything from history, it's that those who feed trolls are condemned to repetitive conversations. Or something like that." - Eric Lippert
-
Jason Henderson wrote: No, I don't think this counts. I think this comes from the realization that local organizations (mainly curches) handle charity much more efficiently than the federal government. Churches in the US could get tax funds for charitable work anyway, providing they conformed to state regulations for that work (like having licensed and trained counsellors, for example) - regulations that non-religious charities are still expected to keep to. Bush removed that regulatory requirement for religious groups. And going by this report, charitable work under Faith-Based Initiatives look far less efficient, safe, and helpful: http://tfn.org/issues/charitablechoice/report02.html Ultimately, Bushes initiative reduces the religious liberty of the helpless, by making it effectively legal for religous charities to force their beliefs in exchange for help, on US tax payers money.
Ian Darling "If we've learned anything from history, it's that those who feed trolls are condemned to repetitive conversations. Or something like that." - Eric Lippert
Ian Darling wrote: providing they conformed to state regulations for that work Thats the rub. If they conform to regulations there goes the first amendment. Ian Darling wrote: Ultimately, Bushes initiative reduces the religious liberty of the helpless, by making it effectively legal for religous charities to force their beliefs in exchange for help, on US tax payers money. This is one of the biggest beefs of mine. You use the word "force", but you can't force someone to believe in God. It doesn't work that way, at least not for christianity. I just don't see a gun being pointed at anyone's head, forcing them to go to church. If a chuch wants to hand out brochures or give a message to someone in need, then I see no problem with it.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
Ian Darling wrote: providing they conformed to state regulations for that work Thats the rub. If they conform to regulations there goes the first amendment. Ian Darling wrote: Ultimately, Bushes initiative reduces the religious liberty of the helpless, by making it effectively legal for religous charities to force their beliefs in exchange for help, on US tax payers money. This is one of the biggest beefs of mine. You use the word "force", but you can't force someone to believe in God. It doesn't work that way, at least not for christianity. I just don't see a gun being pointed at anyone's head, forcing them to go to church. If a chuch wants to hand out brochures or give a message to someone in need, then I see no problem with it.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Thats the rub. If they conform to regulations there goes the first amendment. How? The regulations are there to ensure health and safety and appropriate training for the work being done. If you look back at the link I posted, one of Bushes favoured religious charities had a considerable level of criticism previously for operating in unsafe conditions with unqualified people. Regulation of that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment in the slightest, as far as I can tell. If it does, maybe you could point out the subtlety being missed? Jason Henderson wrote: This is one of the biggest beefs of mine. You use the word "force", but you can't force someone to believe in God. It doesn't work that way, at least not for christianity. I just don't see a gun being pointed at anyone's head, forcing them to go to church. If a chuch wants to hand out brochures or give a message to someone in need, then I see no problem with it. On tax-payers money? That's the real rub. Should a government fund the prosletysations of a religious group? If it was entirely funded from the members of the group in question, then I have no argument with that. And yes, force is an appropriate word. I'm not saying all religious charities would do such a thing, just that it would become effectively legal for them to do so. And given that any religious group can start such a faith based initiative with no regulatory oversight - do you honestly think that it won't happen? http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/The_Faith_Based_Initiative.pdf?docID=111[^] This document makes the good point that if you start to fund groups in this manner from taxation, you ultimately have to make them accountable to the state for it (and this will happen). Do you want your churches finances inspected by the state? Or would you rather have a distinct charity closely affiliated with your church, but financially independent? This means if the charity funds are misused and subsequently audited by the state, your church doesn't get shafted in the process (and vice versa - if "Pastor Fred" has sticky fingers, the people running the charity aren't put into a position where they might not be able to help anymore).
Ian Dar
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Thats the rub. If they conform to regulations there goes the first amendment. How? The regulations are there to ensure health and safety and appropriate training for the work being done. If you look back at the link I posted, one of Bushes favoured religious charities had a considerable level of criticism previously for operating in unsafe conditions with unqualified people. Regulation of that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment in the slightest, as far as I can tell. If it does, maybe you could point out the subtlety being missed? Jason Henderson wrote: This is one of the biggest beefs of mine. You use the word "force", but you can't force someone to believe in God. It doesn't work that way, at least not for christianity. I just don't see a gun being pointed at anyone's head, forcing them to go to church. If a chuch wants to hand out brochures or give a message to someone in need, then I see no problem with it. On tax-payers money? That's the real rub. Should a government fund the prosletysations of a religious group? If it was entirely funded from the members of the group in question, then I have no argument with that. And yes, force is an appropriate word. I'm not saying all religious charities would do such a thing, just that it would become effectively legal for them to do so. And given that any religious group can start such a faith based initiative with no regulatory oversight - do you honestly think that it won't happen? http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/The_Faith_Based_Initiative.pdf?docID=111[^] This document makes the good point that if you start to fund groups in this manner from taxation, you ultimately have to make them accountable to the state for it (and this will happen). Do you want your churches finances inspected by the state? Or would you rather have a distinct charity closely affiliated with your church, but financially independent? This means if the charity funds are misused and subsequently audited by the state, your church doesn't get shafted in the process (and vice versa - if "Pastor Fred" has sticky fingers, the people running the charity aren't put into a position where they might not be able to help anymore).
Ian Dar
Ian Darling wrote: This document makes the good point that if you start to fund groups in this manner from taxation, you ultimately have to make them accountable to the state for it (and this will happen). Do you want your churches finances inspected by the state? Or would you rather have a distinct charity closely affiliated with your church, but financially independent? This means if the charity funds are misused and subsequently audited by the state, your church doesn't get shafted in the process (and vice versa - if "Pastor Fred" has sticky fingers, the people running the charity aren't put into a position where they might not be able to help anymore). This was "the rub" I was talking about. And I'm not for the Faith Based Initiatives either. I just don't think you can claim that Bush wants to shove religion down peoples' throats by trying to come up with a better solution than government welfare programs. A more worthy argument is the one you just mentioned, not that Bush is prosletysing to the nation through his faith based intitiatives.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog