Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

How does Bush even pretend to justify this...Follow

#1 Feb 25 2004 at 11:39 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,563 posts
This is sort of a question, and sort of a rant.

How does Bush try to feed it to the masses that he is doing what he pleases when it is in DIRECT violation to the Bill of rights?

So we have the first ammendmen of the united states:

"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."

And for you people who are a little slow to the uptake in 1947 the supreme court spelled out what this means in detail, thier is no other way to look at it, the meaning of this is:

Neither the state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.”

Wow I think, the goverment is doing a pretty damn good job of keeping those damn Catholics in check. I sleep a sound sleep, dreams of burning Bishops and colapsing churches dancing in my head.

But then I wake up and I read THIS!!

http://www.au.org/press/pr040129.htm

Now I know that this amendment was rightly quashed, but not long after that Bush does this:

http://www.au.org/press/pr040117a.htm

Chuches have enough ******** members to hand over money to them, I don't think are very government has to FORCE US to give them money. I guess Bush woke up one day and said, **** the schools, **** social security, **** THE HUGE ******* DEFICET! I think I will give billions of dollars so the Catholic church can be .01% richer!!



Edited, Wed Feb 25 12:53:20 2004 by Mrens
#2 Feb 25 2004 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
This is nothing new. He put preference points in for faith-based initiatives on several federal grants, not even a year into his term. This, like NCLB, is one of his pets.
#3 Feb 25 2004 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
All i can say Mren is, here in the UK our govenment actively supports the Church of England, is actively supported by the the Church of England and is sworn in by the Leader of the Church of England and even with all these facts we are not stupid enough to let the beliefs of the Church of England to dictate policy.

I see a very dark and painfull few years for the states coming up, your increasingly inward looking and have less and less respect for other countries and cultures. In the end it will blow up in your face if Bush stays in power since the man is a complete xenophobe.

I also fear that we are going to be dragged into it because where America steps Britian is usually one step behind and we have problems enough of our own thanks very much.
#4 Feb 25 2004 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
I don't agree with the bill, and I pretty much see it the same way as you do Mrens, but I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate for a minute.

True, the federal government is not supposed to be involved with religion. True, they are "favoring" one religion over another. But that doesn't mean that religion doesn't play a HUGE roll in our society today. Just as an example, say that they have the same laws in Italy. If the Sisteen Chapel was falling into disrepair and needed a $10 million dollar government grant to fix it up, you'd probably support that, right?

I'm not saying that they are the same on any level, it's just an example. Before you hack away at Bush, try to remember that every single President with the exception of JFK was a Protestant. This definately has an impact on their decision-making when it comes to an executive order like this.

Now, why Bush would wait until NOW to do this when November is so close at hand is beyond me. This is pretty much the equivilent of political suicide. Bush has definately goofed up on this one, but I still don't believe this will be enough to unseat him from the Presidency next term.

Just my honest opinion.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#5 Feb 25 2004 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
try to remember that every single President with the exception of JFK was a Protestant.
Thank you. I'm trying to figure out where a born-again Methodist would be interested in making the Catholic Church richer. I think Mren just gets excited when he sees the C-word.

I'm against the proposal to use government funds to restore missions, but more because the missions are still owned and operated by a private enterprise than because of faith based issues. If the Church wants to hand over ownership and operation of the missions to the government as historic landmarks, go for it and spend whatever fixing them up. As it is, it's about the same as if I owned and lived in a pre-Civial War house and expected government funds to keep it up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Feb 25 2004 at 1:07 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,563 posts
Prodestant, Methodist, Catholic. All the same.

If they were being setup as historical sights that would be completley diffrent. They are just fixing up churches that are less then 100 years old then handing them right back to the churches that continue to hold services in them.
#7 Feb 25 2004 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Any bets on if the money wasn't raised a bunch of historians would go screaming and crying to the government because these buildings didn't get saved?

Is this the first time our government has stepped in to give financial aid a historic building?

Are all of you in a tizzy just because somebody mentioned the ultimate evil "Religion" word. Would you care if these buildings were introduced to a wrecking ball?

Two of these buildings are no longer owned by the Catholic church. Let's say the government gives say $1,000,000 to some society to save the two buildings that the Catholic church doesn't own? Would that be ok or because they were once owned by the Catholic church are those building forever demonized in your eyes?

Here's a question for you Mrens. Would you prefer to see these missions closed down due to disrepair and let those homeless people sit in the street starving or do you have some shred of decency in you and would like the people that rely on those missions for basic soup and bread keep getting those basic things?

If you read the article you would have noticed these are MISSIONS! They give food, clothes, blankets, etc to homeless people. You know, kinda like the government does (ie, welfare and the like). Primary difference between the government and these "evil Catholic missions" is the mission will give somebody a blanket, closthes and food while the government gives money so those that desire beer and wine can purchase beer and wine.

Jophiel
Please don't let me think I read what your wrote. Are you really proposing the government take ownership of a mission? The be all and end all of red tape, beaurcracy and ultimate money pits be converted from something that's ran by volunteers to an "organization" (I use this term very very loosely) that is the epidomy of black holes money sinks?

Non-profit organizations by nature have to be efficient because they don't have a blank check book to survive by. Government exists to spend money in order to get more money. Even you can see that, right?

Ok, everybody rate me down to 2.00 please. :)
#8 Feb 25 2004 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
They are just fixing up churches that are less then 100 years old then handing them right back to the churches that continue to hold services in them.



Quote:
The state’s 21 missions run along a 600-mile stretch of highway from San Diego to Sonoma and were founded by the Catholic Church in the late 1700s and early 1800s.


Do the math again Mrens. Try 200 years old. I've barely finished my first cup of coffee, am still not awake and even this pea sized brain can add. By the way, how many buildings on the west coast are 200ish years old?

Quote:
Prodestant, Methodist, Catholic. All the same.


Agnostic, aehiest, tree hugging bear molesters. All the same.

Quote:
If they were being setup as historical sights that would be completley diffrent.

So if some individual or even a small corporation (maybe even a non-profit orgainization) purchased the missions but accepted the money you wouldn't have a problem with it? Would it be ok if the mission owners rented out the hall to some 3rd group in order to offset the costs of running that mission? You know, something like a parent ran senior party for high school grads that would keep the kids off the streets on graduation night. How about a boy scout troop for an hour a week so they could have one central place to get together? What about a small congregation of people that wanted a place to hold worship on Sunday mornings? Maybe even a Friends of Bill W meeting a couple of times a week. The mission hall might even be rented out to a group of wheelchair bound people that want to get together once a week and play basketball. Would the mission be allowed to do any/all of these things in your eyes and still be held in a higher light than the flaming bag of crap you think they are?
#9 Feb 25 2004 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Please don't let me think I read what your wrote. Are you really proposing the government take ownership of a mission
Perhaps I misinterpreted "mission"

I read it in a "save the heathen primitives and bring them to Christ" way, in that these were old churches dating back to the beginnings of Western expansion and originally there to teach the natives about the glory of our Lord and Savior. I assumed the Church still owned and maintained them and even held services in them, but I didn't read it as a food drive and blanket disbursment thing. I completely agree that the government should not take control of a privately owned charity/shelter.

What I meant was, should the government take control of the buildings, toss a plaque on the front door and some velvet ropes inside to keep you off the altar and then charge families $1.50 a head to get inside, I'm all for them restoring and maintaining them. I am most empathically not for the government taking active operations from a building that's going to be functioning as anything but a landmark and tourist trap.

So, no, you didn't read what I wrote Smiley: wink Or, at least, not what I meant to write.

Quote:
Prodestant, Methodist, Catholic. All the same
WTF? Do you get a free tinfoil hat with your manifesto?

Quote:
They are just fixing up churches that are less then 100 years old
Maybe they teach math differently in Mormon school than they do to us Catholics, but "late 1700's to early 1800's" says 200+ years old to me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Feb 25 2004 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Um... Just to clarify. These are historical landmarks. They are not generally functional churches (I wont say absolutely because I can't guarantee that no one ever does services in any of them). However, the areas they are in have modern churches that people attend. I don't know of anyone who goes to church every sunday at a mission.

They are old buildings that people go to visit in exactly the same way they visit a site like the Alamo. The religious connection really is secondary in this case. They aren't asking for money so they can spruce them up and hold services in them. Quite the opposite, they'd ideally like to be able to pay for the upkeep of these sites without having people tromping around in/through them.

Um... And yes. If you own a historical landmark, you can get funds to help pay the upkeep of it. Even if it's a house you are living in. Usually, I'm as skeptical as anyone about when the RR tries to funnel funds to support religious things, but in the case of the missions, they really should be treated just like any other historical landmark. In this case, they literally are not recieving funds purely because the Catholic church happens to own them.

I'd like to point out as well the here in SD, Presidio Park (which has a mission on the grounds), is one of the most popular sites for wiccan worship in the city. The tower with the pentagram on the top of it (about 500 feet from the mission building itself), just kinda workds well. This really isn't about worship, it's about maintaining some historically valuable buildings.


As to the "faith based" charities and such. I can't really comment. I don't know enough about the details. The problem is that you can't ever really tell how much money is going to go to legitimate assistance, and how much is going to go into preaching. I always look at such things with a hint of suscpicion. However, one can't argue with the fact that despite the preaching bit, religious charities are much much much more successful then publically run ones. Um... I kinda agree with the article though that most of the reason for that success is because the government is not funding them, so the mess that is government bureaucracy doesn't come into the picture.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Feb 25 2004 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
These are historical landmarks. They are not generally functional churches (I wont say absolutely because I can't guarantee that no one ever does services in any of them). However, the areas they are in have modern churches that people attend. I don't know of anyone who goes to church every sunday at a mission
Yeah, well, you didn't know anyone who ever had an anullment either Smiley: wink

Just kidding. Given that this is a story much closer to your neck of the woods than mine, I'll have to take your word on it. All I know is what I read in the linked article which states "Nineteen of the 21 missions are still owned by the church and function as places of worship." Whether or not they function as constant places of worship, I dunno. Obviously the linked site has an agenda.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 277 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (277)