Wong & Owens Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Now this jackass thinks he can just toss aside the principles this country was initially built upon? The Europeans are right--this guy is an idiot. Bush Makes Appeal on Faith-Based Programs NEW ORLEANS -- President Bush said Thursday the "miracle of salvation" is the key to solving some of societies most intractable problems as he sought increased support among black voters with a renewed push for his plan to let religious charities in on more federal spending. Bush used himself as an example of the good that religion can do, referencing his own decision to stop drinking at age 40 "because I changed my heart." "My attitude is, the government should not fear faith-based programs -- we ought to welcome faith-based programs and we ought to fund faith-based programs," he said from the pulpit of the packed Union Bethel A.M.E Church in a run-down, crime-plagued neighborhood near this city's downtown. "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It's important for our government to understand that." On a sweep through the South that had him spending Thursday in Louisiana and Georgia, two states he won handily in 2000, Bush also was marking the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday with a wreath-laying at the late civil rights leader's crypt in Atlanta -- a visit that has drawn protests from local King supporters. In addition, the president appeared at a luncheon at the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans, where protesters shouted outside, and later was headed to an evening reception at an Atlanta hotel for a second fund-raiser that would bring his day's total take to $2.3 million for his already bulging campaign account. In Atlanta, Bush was to be introduced by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, a conservative who was courted by the campaign after he announced his support last year for the president's re-election. At Union Bethel, in a speech laced with religious references -- and at a meeting with community leaders -- Bush promoted his desire to open more federal spending on social programs to religious groups. He said he church's many efforts -- such as feeding the homeless, teaching neighborhood children karate and running a day-care center -- are a perfect example of the kind of programs the federal government should fund. "Problems that face our society are oftentimes problems that, you know, require something greater than just a government program or a government counselor to solve," he said. "Intractable problems, problems that seem impossible to solve, can be solved. There is the miracle of salvation that is real, that is tangible, that is available for all to see." Bush has sought legislation to give religious groups access to federal funds as long as their services are available to anyone, but without requiring them to make fundamental changes. The proposal got a cold reception in Congress, and lawmakers put forward instead a package of tax incentives for charitable giving. While that measure awaits approval, Bush has used executive orders and new regulations to remove many of the barriers -- such as being required to ban all religious activities and adjust hiring practices -- that have kept religious groups from competing for federal grants. Bush announced Thursday that the Justice Department has finalized just such regulations affecting $3.7 billion in funding, primarily for programs that help crime victims, prevent child victimization and promote safe schools. Some opponents of the policy fear the government will wind up paying to support religion. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bush is trying to overturn two centuries of church-state separation required by the Constitution and institute "taxpayer-subsidized job discrimination" by allowing taxpayer-funded groups to hire and fire based on religious belief. For Bush, the issue is aimed at appealing to two important constituencies: religious conservatives, who make up his base of support, and black voters, only 9 percent of whom supported him in 2000. Indeed, Bush almost always chooses black churches in poor neighborhoods as the setting to talk about his initiative. In Atlanta, the president's visit to mark King's 75th birthday, four days before the federal holiday, has upset some civil rights leaders. They say the president's politics and poor scheduling conflict with their plans to honor King. State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, president of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, said Bush's policies on the Iraq war, affirmative action and social service funding have been "in direct contradiction to the King legacy." "It's wonderful to come lay a wreath, but there must be a commitment beyond laying the wreath," Brooks said. Officials at The King Center said they extended no formal invitation to Bush but agreed to the plans when the White House said he was coming. "It's important for our country to honor his life and what he stood for," Bush said at the New Orleans church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I saw that (and read the article) at yahoo. What happened to the separation of Church and State? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I saw that (and read the article) at yahoo. What happened to the separation of Church and State? obviously they didn't participate in GW's marriage program or they would still be together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 obviously they didn't participate in GW's marriage program or they would still be together. HAHA! Good one! Seriously though, I've never been this riled up over a political figure in my life. He's an arrogant, ignorant moron who has no business running the engine of the free world. He's a goddamned embarrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 obviously they didn't participate in GW's marriage program or they would still be together. Oh, thank you--that's the first thing that made me smile all day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 HAHA! Good one! Seriously though, I've never been this riled up over a political figure in my life. He's an arrogant, ignorant moron who has no business running the engine of the free world. He's a goddamned embarrassment. Understatement of the year on SoxTalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 seperation of church and state means there is no state sponsored religion..an example of that would be sweden..where i believe its the lutheran church thats the state reliegion..people pay taxes to the church and the church takes on some governement responsibilities.. like the church is responsible for taking the country's census... as long as no particular religion is singled out for money while others are denied the is no breaking the seperation of church and state doctrine... my church meets every sunday at a public jr high school...does that mean the local government is sponsoring us as its religion??....if they are we sure dont reap any financial gain from it.. our money has "in god we trust" on it..do any of you refuse to paid for work or use any money because it violates spereration of church and state???...you swear on the bible before you give testimony in a court of law...congress opens up every session with a prayer for wisdom..there are clubs in public schools that are religous in nature where students can join... its seperation of church and state...not seperation from church Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 seperation of church and state means there is no state sponsored religion..an example of that would be sweden..where i believe its the lutheran church thats the state reliegion..people pay taxes to the church and the church takes on some governement responsibilities.. like the church is responsible for taking the country's census... as long as no particular religion is singled out for money while others are denied the is no breaking the seperation of church and state doctrine... my church meets every sunday at a public jr high school...does that mean the local government is sponsoring us as its religion??....if they are we sure dont reap any financial gain from it.. our money has "in god we trust" on it..do any of you refuse to paid for work or use any money because it violates spereration of church and state???...you swear on the bible before you give testimony in a court of law...congress opens up every session with a prayer for wisdom..there are clubs in public schools that are religous in nature where students can join... its seperation of church and state...not seperation from church damn baggio we agree. Is this a first obviously they didn't participate in GW's marriage program or they would still be together. LMAO If ten people get together and start a program that has a positive impact on their community. They have a track record of achievement, fiscal responsibility, etc. Why shouldn't we support their program just because it is housed at a Church and instead create a new one that is secular? Almost everyone here seems to have religious views, either pro or con. Should only the cons be allowed to work in a government program? And finally why should a Church program be treated differently than other community groups? These are, after all, fellow Americans with the same rights and responsibilites as everyone else. Would people also object if a secular community group like NRA, or AARP, of United Way received funding for a program? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 NOTHING FAILS LIKE PRAYER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Great post Baggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 seperation of church and state means there is no state sponsored religion..an example of that would be sweden..where i believe its the lutheran church thats the state reliegion..people pay taxes to the church and the church takes on some governement responsibilities.. like the church is responsible for taking the country's census... as long as no particular religion is singled out for money while others are denied the is no breaking the seperation of church and state doctrine... my church meets every sunday at a public jr high school...does that mean the local government is sponsoring us as its religion??....if they are we sure dont reap any financial gain from it.. our money has "in god we trust" on it..do any of you refuse to paid for work or use any money because it violates spereration of church and state???...you swear on the bible before you give testimony in a court of law...congress opens up every session with a prayer for wisdom..there are clubs in public schools that are religous in nature where students can join... its seperation of church and state...not seperation from church Some interesting points, baggio, for sure. However, I'd like to see if Robert Sherman and his atheists get "equal access" to these funds, along with Buddhists, or Hindus et al. And, I don't see how allowing TAXPAYER-funded groups to hire discrimiately based on religious beliefs is anything other than a violation of what the founding fathers intended. There are some violations of church and state that I certainly don't agree with, i.e. the phrase on our money, the swearing on the bible, etc. But everyone must choose their battles, and I choose the ones that are taking my tax dollars and spending them in a way I greatly disprove of. Money is going to get minted, so what do I care what the wordage is? I don't like it, but it really doesn't affect anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Some interesting points, baggio, for sure. However, I'd like to see if Robert Sherman and his atheists get "equal access" to these funds, along with Buddhists, or Hindus et al. And, I don't see how allowing TAXPAYER-funded groups to hire discrimiately based on religious beliefs is anything other than a violation of what the founding fathers intended. There are some violations of church and state that I certainly don't agree with, i.e. the phrase on our money, the swearing on the bible, etc. But everyone must choose their battles, and I choose the ones that are taking my tax dollars and spending them in a way I greatly disprove of. Money is going to get minted, so what do I care what the wordage is? I don't like it, but it really doesn't affect anything. Are these the same founding fathers that "forgot" to let women have the vote and valued slaves at less than a full person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach61 Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I wonder how many tax dollars Muslims will get? Or would that be considered funding terrorism instead of a religious group? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 The Atheists and Muslims are two of many reasons why faith-based programs can not work fairly in this country. I think a secular government should outlaw religious pandering through incentives that use words like "faith" all over them just to gain support. There are other ways to go about giving money to the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 So reject a well documented program that has been successful for a secular one just starting. Why? We can't judge the effectiveness of programs and decide? I do not want to waste my tax dollars recreating stuff that is already established. THere are so many volunteer agencies that with a few dollars can move mountains. Instead you all will say they are faithed based and we should hire managers, and all these people. What a waste of money. Sign in the government. Atheists only?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 I wonder how many tax dollars Muslims will get? Or would that be considered funding terrorism instead of a religious group? muslim churches as well other non christian religons recieve the same tax exempt status...if anything , if the president really wants this program to work i would think the administration would bend over backwards to make that it wasnt only christian churches getting the money..then im sure that would be used as a pr shot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 If ten people get together and start a program that has a positive impact on their community. They have a track record of achievement, fiscal responsibility, etc. Why shouldn't we support their program just because it is housed at a Church and instead create a new one that is secular? First off, noone has said marriage is a bad institution or that pro-marriage support programs are a bad idea. But when the programs currently in place report a less than 7% (1 couple in 15) success ratio in getting these marriages to work, and the Administration decides THIS is something to spend more than a billion dollars on over the next 5 years, then I see an Administration that knwos nothing about the concept of getting a return on your investment. There are very real problems associated with government funding of faith-based initiatives, regardless fo the good those local programs do (and I do not deny the church run programs largely do benefit local communities). One of the problems that has been regularly pointed out, often by leaders of faith-based groups themselves, is that even if the government funded programs are restricted from trying to preach/convert, etc., these groups are free to hire their employees based on shared religious and social views. This is not in line with the non-descriminatory hiring practices that would be put in place and enforced in an equivalent federal program. Tax dollars would be going to fund organizations that are permitted to discriminate in their hiring. Cogent to the ongoing discussion of gay civil unions, here is another issue. Suppose the proposed (apalling) constututional ban on gay marriages is NOT created, and that a given state decides it will legally recognize gay civil unions and grant the couple the same rights as a straight couple. The gay couple seeking advice on their relationship and possible union should legally have access to these propesed 'marriage programs', including teh faith-based ones. But conservative Christian organizations running the programs are not going to accept them, recognize the validity of their couplehood, disdain them, etc. They cannot help but be discriminatory in this issue because it goes against their beliefs to validate the loving relationship of the gay couple. I see this as an intractable issue. Finally, to think that Muslum groups and other non-Christian faith-based charities are going to get an appropriate cut of government funding is delusional. Conservative Christians are among the most ardent Bush supporters and helped elect him, in no small part by calling into the question the "family values" of anyone associated with Clinton, including Al Gore. He's throwing them a bone. Another bone, I should say, to go along with the continued assault on women's reproductive rights, stem cell research, the proposed gay marriage ban, etc. It's almost like Robertson did get elect after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 HAHA! Good one! Seriously though, I've never been this riled up over a political figure in my life. He's an arrogant, ignorant moron who has no business running the engine of the free world. He's a goddamned embarrassment. Lets see. A man who proposes removing restrictions on faith based charities in order to try to help people or a man who has his intern on her knees shining his knob then denying it on national TV. Who was the real embarassment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Another bone, I should say, to go along with the continued assault on women's reproductive rights, stem cell research, the proposed gay marriage ban, etc. It's almost like Robertson did get elect after all. Continued assault on womens reproductive rights? How does that work? All he's done was pass a law banning partial birth abortions. That's a procedure that is no different than taking a new born baby and chucking it off a bridge. How you people can support killing a baby as a means of contraception is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Continued assault on womens reproductive rights? How does that work? All he's done was pass a law banning partial birth abortions. That's a procedure that is no different than taking a new born baby and chucking it off a bridge. How you people can support killing a baby as a means of contraception is beyond me. I would just suggest that you look at the stats on both the lifetime prevelence of abortion in American women as well as the percent of abortions that are done in first trimester. I do not feel that abortions are done as contraceptive measures. Most women I know that have been forced into that situation were there because their primary means of birth control failed. Anyway, here's a link to a good site with lots of hard data. I encourage you to look at it. http://abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 I would just suggest that you look at the stats on both the lifetime prevelence of abortion in American women as well as the percent of abortions that are done in first trimester. I do not feel that abortions are done as contraceptive measures. Most women I know that have been forced into that situation were there because their primary means of birth control failed. Anyway, here's a link to a good site with lots of hard data. I encourage you to look at it. http://abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp Killing a child because the condom broke or or the woman forgot to take the pill or whatever is the cowards way out. If people are not prepared to accept the responsibility for what might happen when they have sex then they shouldnt be having it in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 (edited) Killing a child because the condom broke or or the woman forgot to take the pill or whatever is the cowards way out. If people are not prepared to accept the responsibility for what might happen when they have sex then they shouldnt be having it in the first place. I commend you for taking that responsibility each time you have sex. In all honesty I do. But I think that when birth control says 99.9% effective it can come as a shock when it doesn't work--even to the most mature people... Edited January 16, 2004 by ChiSoxyGirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Killing a child because the condom broke or or the woman forgot to take the pill or whatever is the cowards way out. If people are not prepared to accept the responsibility for what might happen when they have sex then they shouldnt be having it in the first place. great point... i wish somebody would do some follow up studies on teenage girls who have abortions...problem is in your teenage years you havent quite figured what you feel is morally right or wrong...i wonder how many of these girls as they become adults and realize what they have done go on to have mental problems , drug addictions , alcoholism ect because they are now dealing with the fact that they killed thier own child..planned parenthood is no where to be found after she leaves the clinic.. if there is any doubt..please choose adoption over abortion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 great point... i wish somebody would do some follow up studies on teenage girls who have abortions...problem is in your teenage years you havent quite figured what you feel is morally right or wrong...i wonder how many of these girls as they become adults and realize what they have done go on to have mental problems , drug addictions , alcoholism ect because they are now dealing with the fact that they killed thier own child..planned parenthood is no where to be found after she leaves the clinic.. if there is any doubt..please choose adoption over abortion... That's something I never gave much thought to. I'd like to see some studies on the emotional after effects of killing ones own child. Truth of the matter is that abortion clinics are nothing more than modern day death camps where, according to ChiSoxyGirl's abortion stats website, hundreds of thousands of defensless children are killed every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Truth of the matter is that abortion clinics are nothing more than modern day death camps where, according to ChiSoxyGirl's abortion stats website, hundreds of thousands of defensless children are killed every year. Hm, well, I guess we just agree to disagree on that one. There are of course thousands of children available for adoption and needing homes right now. (And I'm just talking about about domestically.) Anyway, I'm really tired, and I understand your concern, so basically I would just say cool. Abstain from sex until you can care for a child. Or adopt some now because there are lots that need home--it seems no one wants older kids. I respect your opinion, and I only ask that you respect mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.