taln1rigr 0 #26 January 15, 2004 QuoteQuote"But giving tax dollars to religious organizations, that's unconstitutional. " Please show me where. It's not establishing a religion. Nothing like it. Check out the Bill of Rights here: http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html Hmm, for those to lazy to click: " 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. Note, bold added by me To me Amendment I has nothing to do with Bush's proposal. First, "respecting" can be redifined as "concerning" ... so it may better be understood like this: Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion. This to me means that Congress can't pass a law concerning religion which is exactly why America was founded. The citizens did not want to be told what they could or could not do religiously. Secondly, Bush is giving some money to the churches ... no where is he trying to pass a law about it. Besides, Since the 1930s, the Federal Government has been providing income or services, often called a "safety net," for those in need. Churches do more than teach religion on Sundays. Many of them also educate America's children & some provide a safe harbor & counseling to people in need. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #27 January 15, 2004 Sweet, can I incorporate offshore so I don't have to pay taxes too? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #28 January 15, 2004 I love Bush and am a faithful supporter but this is BULLSHIT. This is the first thing I have disagreed with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #29 January 15, 2004 QuoteI think this is crap too. That's why I voted against him in the first place. I didn't want a bible thumping religious finatic running our contry. Division between church and state, ha! That's why the rest of the world is in turmoil, always fighting over religious beliefs. And I do not want an anti-religion fanatic interfering with my right to allow my faith to determine decisions in my life. Show me where it says "separation between Church and State" in the Constitution. The purpose of the so called "separation between church and state" clause was to prevent the government from forcing church on you and to prevent them from ESTABLISHING a church like the Church of England. Last I checked you were not forced to go to church and you have a right to live without faith. Since the government is not forcing you to go to church the Constitution is working. By your logic a man who practices his faith openly and allows it to influence his decisions would not be allowed to be president and therefore would not be granted the same freedoms as those who do not practice any sort of faith. The words are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which means he has a Constitutional right to practice his faith and allow it to guide any decisions he makes. Would you see that freedom taken away? He is doing nothing unconstitutional here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 January 15, 2004 QuoteSweet, can I incorporate offshore so I don't have to pay taxes too? Well, that's not my department. I can refer you to some cats who probably could. Then again, that buddy of mine did tax work for Global Crossing. They were doing fine until he left... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #31 January 15, 2004 QuoteSecondly, Bush is giving some money to the churches ... no where is he trying to pass a law about it. Well, they're called appropriations bills (aka laws), so yes, giving money to the requires passing a law concerning them. It doesn't matter, to me religion and government are like oil and water, they don't or shouldn't mix. Freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion. Grrr, like I said before, ok, give the churches all the money you want, but everybody keep their traps shut when the Church of Satan, or al-Aqsa Muhhamed mosque, or the Church of Benny get their federal grants. "Son, I'll make sure you get off the dope, but you must bow to Benny!" Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stuffit 0 #32 January 16, 2004 He is definitely a butthead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #33 January 16, 2004 Yeah, so the agenda for the day was... Go to church in New Orleans with black people, go lay a wreath on the grave of a great black man, then go get millions of dollars from old white men who can afford $2000 to eat hot dogs for dinner. Go figure. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZL60 0 #34 January 16, 2004 Quote I can help you incorprate your religion, if you like, What would your % of the $3.7B be? Who said Kiwis can't fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 January 16, 2004 QuoteQuote I can help you incorprate your religion, if you like, What would your % of the $3.7B be? I'l give you a cut rate of 20 percent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crapflinger2000 1 #36 January 16, 2004 Does it say anywhere that he wishes to exclude any religions from receiving federal funds? If not, it don't sound like a problem to me. Remember, this country was founded on a basis of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. As long as the Islamic, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, etc faiths all get a piece of the pie as well, I do not have a problem with it. Why not throw some money at groups who are already set up to do some helping? Better than setting up a new or expanding existing government agencies.... p.s. I am an athiest. I think religion is pretty stupid in general, but it does do SOME good in the world... __________________________________________________ What would Vic Mackey do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #37 January 16, 2004 "I love Bush and am a faithful supporter but this is BULLSHIT. This is the first thing I have disagreed with" Although I am a Bush supporter and intend to vote for him, he has done many things I have not been in agreement with. This, however, doesn't particularly bother me. Although I am not what one would normally consider "religious", I do respect what religion and it's inherent values have done for the country, from a historical perspective. I think we are better off with it than without it, overall. And, I don't think people or groups should be excluded solely due to their religious affiliation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #38 January 16, 2004 If Bush had appropriated money to give to Jesse Jackson to be used to help blacks would any of those who have a problem with him giving it to Christian Charities be upset? Suppose it was to be used only to help blacks? You still OK with it? Suppose he appropriated money for foreign aid to a Christian Charity which helps starving children in 3rd world countries? You have a problem with that? Now show me where this money is being used to "ONLY" help Christians. There are many charities which are run by Christians that help ALL people in need. The infrastructure to get aid to the needy already exists so the aid will get to the needy more quickly and efficiently. Of course, he could just create another government agency run by bureaucrats who would suck off 80% of the funding to furnish their fancy offices and hire limosines. Yeah, that would be better right? Remember The United Way fiasco after Sept 11th? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
