A thought before election day(long)

Nowhere in the constitution does it declare that citizen's whose beliefs are rooted in their faith shall be excluded from participation in government. The "separation of church and state" provision is highly over-interpreted, usually by special interests whose views are opposed by citizens who belong to certain religions. It's a quick way to deny them their voice in the political process.

 

how is that skippy, pretty clearly written in the constitution? If it was such a popular view, why did our Prez circumvent congress and use an "executive order" (or something like that) to allow faith based charities.

 

if we have a state religion soon we will be on the slippery slope down to third world status like Norway.

 

Actually, you won't find the words "religion, church or faith" in the Constitution of the United States of America.

What you all appear to be referring to is the First Amendment (the first of ten amendments commonly known as The Bill of Rights) which reads:

"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."

Since that point in time, a variety of conservative and liberal Justices have "clarified" what the original words actually meant.

 

so did i

 

they all thought Webster was a dummy

 

which means: buddhists, and islamists beware!!!

 

I have to say, I've read this a dozen times and have no idea what you're saying or asking here. Let me take a guess that you are declaring the separation of church and state is clearly stated in the Constitution. Unfortunately, it says no such thing.

The First Amendment:
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.

Where is the phrase "separation of church and state" contained in the above language?

For a nice, concise explanation of how the faith-based charities initiative jibes with the constitution, try reading this

 

Don't bother Mike, he'll just say your source is biased.

 

I have yet to see one that isn't.

 

Yeah, but the bias of his sources ain't the same as the bias of your sources!

 

Hey, I never said charities are a bad thing, just don't like our government giving money to church run charities. There are loopholes which Churches could divert funds for other things, such as new construction.

We aren't talking about the Red Cross, or United Way.

But we are talking about Billy Bob's Backwater Bapist Church soup kitchen / Tuesday Bingo Night.

 

You speak as if there is no way one of your revered two would ever do that.

do more research and see how they got that big budget to work with

you give me a dollar and I will be charitable with 11 cents while pocketing 89 cents

but if a faith-based organization says give me a dollar and 11 cents will pay the overhead of being charitable with 89 cents, people scream

 

"Faith-based organization".

So that includes your Salvation Army, your churches, your synagogues and mosques, right.

Also includes your Mormons, your Jehovah's Witnesses, check.

...And your Wiccans and Asatru and Thelemites, even maybe a handful of real live Satanists. Check. Oh, and don't forget the Scientologists...

The problem with funding faith-based charities with government money is that once you go down that road, you have to go ALL THE WAY down that road. Is that really where we want to go? And is it really wise to go there?

=c.

 

The ability of faith-based charities to compete for the right to provide services does not translate to an obligation to fund all faith-based charities. If anything, it injects some competition into an industry dominated by bloated bureaucracies which turn into career-machines for more over-paid civil servants.
Why would you assume a group made-up of people with common religious beliefs would be less trustworthy or capable than a government agency or private company hired to provide services?

Keep in mind these groups consist of taxpayers whose tax money is being spent by those same government agencies and private companies.

 

I think the move was toward those with proven track records like the Salvation Army