What one extremist said about another...

[Closet Desire]

I'm sitting back here in the UK and warming my hands on the fires getting started between Bush, the ACLU, Congress, and, it appears, other religious right wingers. Imagine my surprise to read what Pat Robertson, famous for such comments as "it's a pretty dark land" (referring to Scotland as a place where homosexuals run free and multiply) while at the same time trying to negotiate a banking deal for his members with the Royal Bank of Scotland (not a well-thought out plan) said about it.

This was his comment about Bush's plans for government support of "faith-based" community services...

"All of a sudden, some bureaucrat says, 'Well, we're going to give you tons of money, but you can't talk about your faith. You can't teach them the Torah, you can't talk about Jesus' or what have you. At that point they have essentially killed the essence of that organization," Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson said.

This is going to get really interesting...

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Very interesting indeed. As a non-Christion I am always overwhelmed by the use of religion as both weapon and crutch in American politics. Ashcroft is pilloried for being a Christion, but Leiberman is luaded for openingly being Jewish and bringing religion back into politics. Yes, there will be a meltdown over this, it is just too predictable. And I am not taking sides, just pointing out a couple of recent examples.

 

[Thumper]

Religion has no place in politics.

Ever. Government and Religion in bed together breeds disaster.

Religion should be a personal, private thing not carried about like a trophy.

This will blow up in George's face. Noble idea. And the Religious right loves it, that is until Islamic and Jewish and Hindu and every other Tom, Dick and Jim Bakker led groups come with their hands out. Who decides which groups get what without risking mountains of litigation? Let's see Pat Robertson's reaction when Louis Farrakhan gets some of this money. Just like school prayer...christians are all for it, as long as it's their prayer being said.


Then there is the issue of accountability. A whole new bureaucracy will be established to ensure the money isn't going down some preachers deep pocket.

Finally, do the church groups want the Federal government looking into their finances?

I don't recall them trashing Ashcroft's christianity. Just his stance on certain issues and how his fervent beliefs may affect his performance on these issues.

 

[CreamyLady]

It must have looked good on paper, and no doubt someone thought it would appease the religious groups, the bleeding hearts, and everyone who might have some interest in social welfare.

Think, though, of the congresscritter who declared that Wicca wasn't a religion (referring to Wiccans in the military) and that only Congress could declare what was a religion. Somehow, I just know this is going to end badly.

 

[Todd]

The only thing this proves is Bush is not a christian but a member of the new world order. This "religious funding" is very masonic in wording and purpose. Christian groups will not be benefited from this dealing.

 

[Grrrn38]

Ashcroft is pilloried for being a Christion, but Leiberman is luaded for openingly being Jewish and bringing religion back into politics.

Ashcroft, like other Christian conservatives, has a record of wielding his religion to carry out a specific political agenda; HE'S made it an issue. Although Lieberman got his share of press speculation about the effect of his beliefs on his potential position, his record doesn't seem to reveal any particular pro-Israeli bias.

 

[Expertise]

Its always the Masons.... those bastards.

Todd for fucks sake!

Give those poor bastards in the "black helicopters" time to grab a coffee and take a piss would ya!?

They can't hover over your house ALL day EVERY day.LOL

 

[Todd]

Expertise go to the Masonic built Denver international airport and you can see quite clearly what thier plans are.


Picture 1) background looks like a nuclear holicaust. foreground 3 coffins. coffin 1) native american woman 2) south african woman 3) christian/jewish woman. the three groups the masons deem the biggest threat to them. also the less than perfect races

Picture 2) a blond haired blue eyed german child {hitlers and masonics aryan race) taking weapons from the children of the rest of the world disarming them.

theres more look for yourself

also underneath in the underground system there are tunnels which are forbidden with signs that are labeled a chemical biohazard that will attach itself to peoples lungs.

 

[Expertise]

There are groups far more frightening than Free Masons Todd

Todd you have mail. Mail that I think you should share with the board. Just make sure you delete my adress.

 

[Todd]

Re: There are groups far more frightening than Free Masons Todd

Todd you have mail. Mail that I think you should share with the board. Just make sure you delete my adress.

you have mail too. the free masons are not the problem they don't even know what they are part of. its the higer level blood oath masons.

 

[Closet Desire]

Look at those hornets fly...

Jeez guys...I go away for a bit and you're squabblin' and bickerin' just like...just like...well Lutherans and Baptists! (no insult intended).

To Pat Robertson's credit he appears to be OPPOSED to the idea because he doesn't want government telling HIM how to run his charity. Of course, then again, he has enough money to build his own navy.

Now I'm gonna go away now...ya'll play nice now ya' hear?

 

[Guest]

Todd.. I'm watching you Todd.

 

[Todd]

Todd.. I'm watching you Todd.

I know you are but I am watching you as well, and all your schemes hatched from the depths of hades to roll back the global population to 1/2 million people.

 

[Siren]

Welcome to the Faith Based Organization of Siren Refief.

 

[naudiz]

Re: There are groups far more frightening than Free Masons Todd

Todd you have mail. Mail that I think you should share with the board. Just make sure you delete my adress.

I want mail! Someone mail me about the scary groups!

I'm researching these things for a story I'm writing, so I wanna see!

 

[Closet Desire]

Scary groups?

Perhaps not quite what you're thinking of, but ALF and some of the other animal rights groups are some of the most frightening groups around. Before I left the US I read a report by the FBI stating that they were one of the most dangerous terrorist groups operating in the US and that have already caused billions in damage to property. Here in the UK they send bombs to people involved in research, pest exterminators, genetic researchers, crop testers, and anyone else they think harms animals. Firebombs, guns, harrassment...they know now limits or boundaries. One of their own fled the ranks and gave evidence about their activities. He was kidnapped and the letters ALF were carved into his back with a large knife. Scary.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

That's funny,

The left has terrorists in the forests and going after scientists and I'm a right-wing gun-toting redneck nut who is feared for my violent potential, which I've yet to engage in. Why are the peace-lovers so damn violent?

 

[Ambrosious]

Maybe I'm wrong here, I usually am. I just reread the Bill of Rights, along with the Constitution and I don't see ANYWHERE the words "seperation of church and state". What I do see, is this:

Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't that mean that the congress is not allowed to create a "State Religion" and in no way tell us how, who, what, or when to worship? Seperation of church and state? In God We Trust. On Nation, Under God. They are not seperated, never have been.


So now the Government wants to give money to religion based relief organizations. What is a better solution? We tried Government based, it was called welfare.

Somebody help me out, I'm being sincere here, which is pretty unlike me, you know?

 

[Closet Desire]

A bold personal statement...

Personally I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-religion. I recognise religion as an integral part of a people's culture and respect it for that. However, after living in many different cultures throughout the world I have to make this bold statement: America is the least tolerant of other religions and religious beliefs. As an American myself this doesn't make me proud.

White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant religious belief and ritual literally oozes from the pores of American culture and biases the views of otherwise rational, caring people to the views of others. People, myself included, are influenced day by day by their own personal bias and prejudice. They try to interpret the world around them in terms of their own beliefs and experiences. The controversy over school prayer is one example. Proponents of school prayer don't understand why you can't just substitute another religious diety in place of "God" or "Jesus" in a prayer. It's because they can't comprehend the magnitude of the differences in belief. In the case of school prayer, public prayer, whatever you want to call it, how can someone of a different belief not feel persecuted when they are literally forced to endure worship of Christianity in order to attend a school graduation or a football game?

My point is this. Those who decide who will get money and who will not will be guided by the fundamental principles they personally hold. Few if any of us could claim to be above this. Further, those who dole out the support or aid will likewise be guided by their own personal fundamental principles even if this is not fair in terms of humanity. Perhaps this organisation will choose not to provide aid to couples who happen to be gay...or to young women who decide to have an abortion instead of put a child up for adoption. The obstacles are wide and numerous to fairly administering such a plan.

The people who founded America held these Christian beliefs closely, but the country was founded on a higher ideal which was equality for all and freedom for all, hence the simple words restricting laws endorsing a religion. If the government begins doling out money to faith-based interests, it is going to be impossible not to endorse one set of values and interests over another. At least when it is administered by an agency there are guidelines founded in law and not in something as ethereal as religious belief.

Welfare hasn't worked? Depends how you define it. Economists and social scientists have long recognised that the cost of a society is carrying the weight of those who cannot or will not contribute to it, whatever the reason. I don't think anybody would argue that the benefits of living within a society dramatically outweight the benefits of returning to hunter/gather clans in the forest. Does it piss me off to see a neer-do-well get money for nothing or other benefits that I must work for? Sure it does. But it's sort of like litter on the road. It's there, you can't stop it, and if you try you'll just go crazy. Better to focus on the good you can do. I do know that the people I've seen on the dole here certainly aren't living better than me. They don't have a Mercedes in the drive or take holidays in the Med or wear nice clothes. True, you could say they get part of the 40% we pay in taxes, but they have a pretty tough life in spite of the "free ride" they are getting.

The Supreme Court has been rather consistent over the past 200 years about its intepretation of the Church vs State issue even if it has wavered on other issues in changing times. I think we owe it to ourselves to have confidence in their wisdom on this one. What's happening now is madness and the ending is predictable.

 

[Thumper]

Well said CD

That depends on just what accomplishment you are expecting from welfare.

I have heard the "5 trillion dollars for what" argument around...oh ...say 5 trillion times now. I do not dispute it but what is the point? Did you expect poverty and hunger to go away? Not likely. People would fall through the cracks of our system even if you threw ten times that amount at the problem. And yes they would be there if we didn't have any welfare programs at all. They always will be there. Always have been. Serfs, peasants, beggars and in our own colonial times "indentured servants". The only societal model I can think of that didn't have this problem would be a tribal system. The tribal system is classless.

It has been stated that welfare is a way to take the "blame" for being poor away from those who are poor and put it on the wealthy. I, nor any Democrat/liberal that I know has ever stated that the wealthy are to blame. Why do we need a scapegoat? If you want to affix blame then lay it at humanity's feet. Shit happens so they say...Poverty and need have been with us since we crawled out of the sea and it always will be.

People aren't just on welfare because they are lazy. It suits your arguments to believe they are but there are many many reasons for poverty. A young father dies leaving a wife and 2 or 3 children alone. Just enough insurance to bury him. Father abandons family and won't pay child support. Sure you can put him in jail but that still doesn't take care of the kids. Factory in small town closes and lays off all the workers, all of a sudden 30 or 40 percent of a towns population are out of work and nowhere else in the area to get work. Not to mention the ripple effect. Young woman has a child and no family to help her, living in a depressed area, no child care or transportation, no jobs within walking distance. Two or three kids being raised by grandparents who are to ill or old to work. Not to mention those who are unable to work due to physical or mental impairments.(Quite often the mentally disabled end up incarcerated where the problem is not addressed, thereby tying up valuable law enforcement time and money)

The face of welfare isn't "Just a bunch of freeloading leeches" as so often stated. Those are few and far between.
Over 98% of families receiving aid consist of two children or less so the argument that there are women out there having kids to inflate their assistance checks doesn't wash. It costs a lot more to feed and clothe a child than the increase would cover.

More money could be saved by just eliminating waste in the military and ending "corporate welfare" than would be saved with the elimination of welfare.

The churches do not have the logistics to tackle this problem effectively on a day to day basis. They may be able to do something nice on the holidays and for a few families they know of. Separation of church and state may not be stated explicitly in the Constitution but that doesn't make it a bad idea. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not the alpha and omega of wisdom. Giving public money to the churches creates an unholy alliance. Who is going to ensure that the Christians distribute the funds fairly? Or the Muslims? or the Hindus? Will a Muslim be refused treatment because he is not a christian? And vice versa? Do we need a whole new agency to oversee this aspect?

We shall see...

Poverty and need will always be with us....that is, as CD said, a cost of living in our society.

AJ.....I see ya behind that tree. Hands Up! Or I'll blast ya, and purple paint is just not your color...

 

[Laurel]

Doesn't that mean that the congress is not allowed to create a "State Religion" and in no way tell us how, who, what, or when to worship? Seperation of church and state? In God We Trust. On Nation, Under God. They are not seperated, never have been.


So now the Government wants to give money to religion based relief organizations. What is a better solution? We tried Government based, it was called welfare.

So you don't mind your tax dollars funding the Black Muslims and the Church of Satan, but you do mind if it goes to feed and clothe a poor child? That's an odd stance.

 

[Siren]

I still got my Faith Based Church of Siren and Poverty Relief.