1
   

U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 10:52 pm
TO call religion susperstitious is a little ignotent. Billions of people around the world beleive in some sort of religion. Being a non-christian I wouldn't dare call any religion wrong but say they have something interesting going on.

Never underestimate religion and what it can do for some people.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 12:31 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I think those same founding fathers would have heartily approved President Bush's faith based initiatives to help people. For the life of me I can't understand the kind of prejudice that would deny people very real material help because it is dispensed by somebody who openly professes a belief in God.


I didn't know we had any restrictions that prevented folks that openly profess a belief in God from helping others. When did that happen?

Faith based organizations could also receive federal funds before Bush's initiative. They just has to abide by some rules such as non descrimination the same as secular organizations and many did.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 01:06 am
Baldimo wrote:
Never underestimate religion and what it can do for some people.

Right, like causing death.
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:44 am
church/ state
Quote:
dyslexia wrote:
If the government had been as effective in eradicating religion from public life as George W. Bush likes to insist it has,


When did W say this? I don't recall it. I also don't think it is a worthwhile goal.

Quote:
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) would not have been able to turn public park benches into church pews. But that's pretty much what happened in 1998, when LDS leaders secretly persuaded then-Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini to sell a block of Main Street to the church for $8.1 million. The church had been coveting the downtown land for years, as it slowly snatched up all the real estate surrounding the Mormon Tabernacle, its religious capital.



I'm not a Mormon and I disagree strongly with their views. I'm one of those fundamentalist Christians. Yet I can't help but wonder what the history of the land is. Was it ever previously owned by the mormons? Did the Mormons give up land years ago that is now owned by the city? If so it seems a little biased if we only consider the most recent events without taking the past into account.

See fundamentalist Christians can be tolerant of other religions.
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 08:11 am
faith based $$$
mesquite wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Never underestimate religion and what it can do for some people.

Right, like causing death.


Mesquite
I think if you do an HONEST assessment you will notice things like hospitals ,universities and entire communities that were started by religious people. Ever read the mayflower compact?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/MayflowerCompact.html

Like I said, this does require honesty.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 08:32 am
Baldimo wrote
Quote:
Why is it Conservatives who talk religion make people nervous but libs with religion don't?


Simple. Because the "fundies" believe that they have the right and I guess even the obligation to impose their religious "morality" and mores upon everyone else. They do not believe in live and let live. Tolerance is a two way not a one way street as they would have it.

.IMO opinion it was the Fundies and the Ayatollah in the white house that started a religious war in this nation.
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 08:56 am
A while back I opined that atheist were attempting to establish their beliefs as the "official religion" of America. I was of course ridiculed by those saying that atheism is not a religion. Please view the following site.http://www.spiritualhumanism.org/what.htm


Sorry I'm new at posting links. Hope this works
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 09:12 am
seperation of church and state
au1929 wrote:


Quote:
Simple. Because the "fundies" believe that they have the right and I guess even the obligation to impose their religious "morality" and mores upon everyone else.

Could you please provide specific recent examples which were not also an example of non-religious people imposing their views on others?


Quote:
They do not believe in live and let live.


Who is not letting you live?

.
Quote:
IMO opinion it was the Fundies and the Ayatollah in the white house that started a religious war in this nation.



Ayatollah? Yeah that's tolerant. Thanks for the fine display of open mindedness and respectful civility.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 09:29 am
dadothree
Respect must be earned. The only thing that Bush has earned is IMO contempt.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 10:47 am
mesquite wrote
Quote:
Faith based organizations could also receive federal funds before Bush's initiative. They just has to abide by some rules such as non descrimination the same as secular organizations and many did.


Yes, I headed one of those organizations. And no, we were not required to restrict religious activity in order to receive local, state, and federal money. Our organization was not specifically in the business of dispensing religion but we had plenty of Christian 'evidence' scattered around the facility and club meetings, board meetings, etc. generally started with prayer. We had one 'church' that met in our facility.

The Salvation Army was another recipient of that kind of funding doing what it has always done including requiring recipients of benefits to attend a short church service. Soime of the more liberal churches thought that inappropriate, but as the recipients of the benefits didn't mind, who was I to object? Nobody twisted any arms to make people get help there.

Now all this went on during at least the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the 1st, and Clinton years and nobody complained in the least. But now that Bush the 2nd is in office, it is suddenly a problem. And the only reason it is a problem is the administration is open and honest about how the funding is being distributed?

Seems to be there is a lot of disingenuousness here and attitudes worthy of contempt, but the Bush administration isn't part of that as I see it.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 11:25 am
Re: faith based $$$
dadothree wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Never underestimate religion and what it can do for some people.

Right, like causing death.


Mesquite
I think if you do an HONEST assessment you will notice things like hospitals ,universities and entire communities that were started by religious people. Ever read the mayflower compact?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/MayflowerCompact.html

Like I said, this does require honesty.


Dadothree
Do you really honestly think that things like hospitals. and universities were started because of religion?

Have you ever heard of the Salem witch trials? Now there is an accomplishment done solely in the name of religion.
Quote:
Hanged on June 10, 1692
Bridget Bishop, Salem

Hanged on July 19, 1692
Sarah Good, Salem Village
Rebecca Nurse, Salem Village
Susannah Martin, Amesbury
Elizabeth How, Ipswich
Sarah Wilds, Topsfield

Hanged on August 19, 1692
George Burroughs, Wells, Maine
John Proctor, Salem Village
John Willard, Salem Village
George Jacobs, Sr., Salem Town
Martha Carrier, Andover

September 19, 1692
Giles Corey, Salem Farms, pressed to death

Hanged on September 22, 1692
Martha Corey, Salem Farms
Mary Eastey, Topsfield
Alice Parker, Salem Town
Ann Pudeater, Salem Town
Margaret Scott, Rowley
Wilmott Reed, Marblehead
Samuel Wardwell, Andover
Mary Parker, Andover

Other accused witches that were not hanged, but died in prison:

Sarah Osborne, Salem Village
Roger Toothaker, Billerica
Lyndia Dustin, Reading
Ann Foster, Andover

Thirteen others may have also died in prison, but sources conflict on the exact number.
Salem Witch Trials FAQs

Something to note here, although most rational people no longer believe in witches, the passages which prescribed the above atrocities are still in the Bible. As a fundamentalist, do you believe in witches and the prescribed punishments??
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 11:28 am
Mesquite writes
Quote:
Have you ever heard of the Salem witch trials? Now there is an accomplishment done solely in the name of religion.


Have you read up lately on the ad hominem argument and straw man?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 12:39 pm
I don't see a strawman or ad hominem in the above post. Do you mean such as this?
Foxfyre wrote:
Then why don't you guys elect a president of your liking who will cut out all faith based groups and do it exactly like you want it done? Good luck in getting the help to the people who need it though because it is those terrible, icky people with a particular religious world view who are doing most of the work in that area. And you better dig deeper into your pockets too because it's going to cost you a lot more money to get the same results.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 04:15 pm
It is a pure fact that most of the hands on work to people in need are being done by the religious. And it is a pure fact that there are no Christians anywhere in modern times who are still persecuting witches. And for you to imply that the Christians receiving government grants to help people would burn witches at the stake is simple beneath contempt, Mesquite. And yes, it is an adhominem attack and straw man.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 04:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It is a pure fact that most of the hands on work to people in need are being done by the religious.


Source ?

One might argue that most of the destruction inflicted upon people historically has been done by "the religious".

Personally, I have no doubt that much good work is done for those in need by people of faith, but for all the reasons stated above, I believe strongly that such work ought not be government funded.

It is becoming increasingly important to differentiate between subgroups of Christians (or any other group of religious people); specifically what some people find offensive is the belief by extremist Christians, not by ALL Christians, that government policy ought to be dictated according to their prescribed standards.

Morality is not owned by any one "religion". We can all agree that our society ought to reflect certain moral standards without agreeing that any one religion ought to dictate to everyone what those standards should be.

Certain moral precepts cross the boundaries of all religions (e.g. murder), but others clearly do not. Which is why, especially in a country like America which is a country of differences and diversity, it is so important to keep "church" (i.e. organized religion) and state separate.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 04:52 pm
"pure fact" an interesting choice of words (but that's just my opinion)
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 05:05 pm
Angie, your post was not only beautifully written, but leaves no room for (rational) argument.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:29 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It is a pure fact that most of the hands on work to people in need are being done by the religious. And it is a pure fact that there are no Christians anywhere in modern times who are still persecuting witches. And for you to imply that the Christians receiving government grants to help people would burn witches at the stake is simple beneath contempt, Mesquite. And yes, it is an adhominem attack and straw man.


Foxfyre, I made no such implication. Dadothree took exception to my statement that religion had been a cause of deaths and replied with this.
dadothree wrote:
Mesquite
I think if you do an HONEST assessment you will notice things like hospitals ,universities and entire communities that were started by religious people. Ever read the mayflower compact?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/MayflowerCompact.html

Like I said, this does require honesty.


My reply about the Salem witch trials was in direct response to that post (I had it quoted).

Dodothree is a self described fundamentalist Christian, which implies a literal interpretation of the Bible.
dadothree wrote:
I'm one of those fundamentalist Christians.


Therefore my question to him, which in no way implied that a broad spectrum of Christians believed in burning witches. The burning of witches by the way was a European custom. The more refined colonists merely hanged or pressed them to death.
Mesquite wrote:
Something to note here, although most rational people no longer believe in witches, the passages which prescribed the above atrocities are still in the Bible. As a fundamentalist, do you believe in witches and the prescribed punishments??

The point I was making is that the text of the Bible has not changed, and it seems to me that those that tend to read it literally have a problem.

Fortunately our separation of church and state has allowed our laws to move beyond such superstition.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:33 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Now all this went on during at least the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the 1st, and Clinton years and nobody complained in the least. But now that Bush the 2nd is in office, it is suddenly a problem. And the only reason it is a problem is the administration is open and honest about how the funding is being distributed?

Seems to be there is a lot of disingenuousness here and attitudes worthy of contempt, but the Bush administration isn't part of that as I see it.


Where you see honesty I see arrogance.

Quote:
Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: I asked Congress to join me and pass what I called the faith-based initiative, which would help change the culture of Washington and the behavior of bureaucracies. They've stalled. So I just signed an executive order.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 10:27 pm
That seems to be your opinion no matter what the president does, Mesquite, so what else is new?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 11:44:46