| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dave Thompson" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 02:36:37 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Keep God to yourself |
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of religious
groups or churches can be funded.
Here, in the words of our gov't, concerning faith based groups use of
government hand outs, from a HUD site:
6. What are the rules on funding religious activity with Federal money?
The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may
not use direct government to support "inherently religious" activities.
Don't be put off by the term "inherently religious" - it's simply a phrase
that has been used by the courts in church-state cases. Basically, it means
you cannot use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship,
instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government
money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide.
Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive direct governmental funds
should take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently
religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer.
Such organizations should also carefully account for their use of all
government money.
This does not mean your organization can't have religious activities. It
simply means you can't use taxpayer dollars to fund them. Some faith-based
organizations set up separate charitable organizations (called "501c(3)
corporations") to keep programs that receive government money separate from
those that engage in inherently religious activities.
7. If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I
separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service
program?
A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently
religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or
proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the
government-funded services that it offers. If, for example, your church
receives Federal money to help unemployed people improve their job skills,
you may conduct this program in a room in the church hall and still have a
Bible study taking place in another room in the same hall (but no Federal
money can be used to conduct the Bible study). Or a faith-based social
service provider may conduct its programs in the same room that it uses to
conduct religious activities, so long as its government-funded services and
its religious activities are held at different times. If you have any
questions or doubts, you should check with the official who administers HUD
funds for that specific program.
http://www.hud.gov/local/shared/working/faithbased/r4/faq.cfm?state=nc#7
Put "free exercise clause" in google and learn.
No thanks, I'm well versed in Com and !st Amendment Law already. The one who
needs to google and support their claim is you, since I just posted a
reference from a government page that showed you were absolutely wrong.
Government must remain neutral. It cannot support one religion over another
nor religion over non religion. It cannot fund religious activities such as
worship, bible study, or proselytizing. It cannot become entangled in non
secular activities to the point where there is no secular purpose.
The establishment and free excercise clause must be read together to be
understood.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first part says that congress shall make regarding anything that
supports religion, such as a religious establishment. Establishment is a
noun, not a verb, and the establishment of religion is a braod term meant to
be taken inclusively regarding religion. If it did not, the free excercise
clause would make no sense, since "thereof" must refer to the word
"establishment". Taken as a noun, the free excercise clause means "the free
excercise of religion". Taken as a verb it would mean "the free excercise of
establishing a religion" which would completely contradict the establishment
clause and render the free excercise useless in protecting religious
liberties, since the two together would now read that congress cannot
establish a religion, and yet people can't interfere with them establishing
a religion.
So please try to have some understanding of the 1st amendment, unless you
like to be continually shown you have no idea what you are talking about.
.
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
13 Oct 2005 02:59:39 PM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11ktdq7dhu7jb0f@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires
not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private affairs
of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
Okay, if you say so, you win. But you didn't change my mind.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
13 Oct 2005 03:17:34 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K0z3f.187451$nF6.181316@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11ktdq7dhu7jb0f@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires
not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private affairs
of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
Okay, if you say so, you win.
I'm curious why you feel you have to snip out all the relevant material and
references I posted?
It was literature from the very administration you are blindly obedient to,
explaining the very program they initiated, in very simple terms you could
understand.
But you didn't change my mind.
I have no intention to. I understand that ideologues like you will ignore
anything that contradicts your opinion, no matter how plain, obvious, and
concrete the references are.
I only post so that conservative righties can demonstrate themselves their
irrational stubborness and cult of obedience. The more you ignore facts,
misrepresent the evidence, and demonize the messenger, the better moderates
and liberals look.
So believe whatever you want. The facts are against you, and the more you
deny them the more stupid you appear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Be Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
13 Oct 2005 08:58:28 PM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K0z3f.187451$nF6.181316@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11ktdq7dhu7jb0f@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires
not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private affairs
of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
Okay, if you say so, you win.
I'm curious why you feel you have to snip out all the relevant material and
references I posted?
It was literature from the very administration you are blindly obedient to,
explaining the very program they initiated, in very simple terms you could
understand.
But you didn't change my mind.
I have no intention to. I understand that ideologues like you will ignore
anything that contradicts your opinion, no matter how plain, obvious, and
concrete the references are.
I only post so that conservative righties can demonstrate themselves their
irrational stubborness and cult of obedience. The more you ignore facts,
misrepresent the evidence, and demonize the messenger, the better moderates
and liberals look.
So believe whatever you want. The facts are against you, and the more you
deny them the more stupid you appear.
God Bless you in your ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 12:09:08 PM |
|
|
"Be Frank" <Frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NgE3f.7179$gj1.5070@fed1read05...
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K0z3f.187451$nF6.181316@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11ktdq7dhu7jb0f@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires
not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private affairs
of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
Okay, if you say so, you win.
I'm curious why you feel you have to snip out all the relevant material
and references I posted?
It was literature from the very administration you are blindly obedient
to, explaining the very program they initiated, in very simple terms you
could understand.
But you didn't change my mind.
I have no intention to. I understand that ideologues like you will ignore
anything that contradicts your opinion, no matter how plain, obvious, and
concrete the references are.
I only post so that conservative righties can demonstrate themselves
their irrational stubborness and cult of obedience. The more you ignore
facts, misrepresent the evidence, and demonize the messenger, the better
moderates and liberals look.
So believe whatever you want. The facts are against you, and the more you
deny them the more stupid you appear.
God Bless you in your ignorance.
Please do your godly obligation and point out exactly what was ignorant.
That is, if you aren't just a typical conservative koolaid drinking
blowhard.
Either you can't read for comprehension or you really are nothing more than
a conservative dumbass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lein" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
13 Oct 2005 09:33:15 PM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
13 Oct 2005 09:41:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
And Congress doesn't have a chaplain?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 12:14:09 PM |
|
|
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
And Congress doesn't have a chaplain?
They do, but that only proves that congress is willing to ignore the
constitution and that nobody has challenged it yet. I would say that if
congressmen pay for the chaplain's salary out of their own pocket, or that
the chaplain does it pro-bono or an outside organization provides him, then
it would be all right.
It really doesn't prove that the constitution allows it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lein" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 04:07:16 PM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
And Congress doesn't have a chaplain?
They do, but that only proves that congress is willing to ignore the
constitution and that nobody has challenged it yet. I would say that if
congressmen pay for the chaplain's salary out of their own pocket, or that
the chaplain does it pro-bono or an outside organization provides him, then
it would be all right.
It really doesn't prove that the constitution allows it.
If they do pay out of their own pocket or it's done pro-bono, the
constitution does indeed allow it "...or prohibit free exercise
thereof..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
15 Oct 2005 08:04:10 AM |
|
|
In article <11kvpr2s406ih45@corp.supernews.com>,
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote:
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
And Congress doesn't have a chaplain?
They do, but that only proves that congress is willing to ignore the
constitution and that nobody has challenged it yet.
Nope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Trolley Car Thomason" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
07 Nov 2005 03:29:57 PM |
|
|
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-B9DBC6.09041015102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <11kvpr2s406ih45@corp.supernews.com>,
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote:
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to
do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars
can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental
powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the
state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
And Congress doesn't have a chaplain?
They do, but that only proves that congress is willing to ignore the
constitution and that nobody has challenged it yet.
Nope.
Then what does it prove?
You obviously lack anything to support your baseless denial of the obvious.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 12:20:39 PM |
|
|
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
The chaplain has a secular purpose in that he is also a soldier, commander,
and councelor. Providing for the good of the soldier in battle and on base
regardless of the function (barber, chaplain, bartender) is also secular in
nature.
You apparently don't have an understanding of what secular is, what the
constitution says, or what the promotion of religion actually is.
Military chaplains are fine and dandy as long as they don't proselytize. The
same applies to officers and enlisted men. The USAFA is a good example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
15 Oct 2005 08:03:44 AM |
|
|
In article <11kvq7bdn2nl4d1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote:
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
The chaplain has a secular purpose in that he is also a soldier...
Nope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Trolley Car Thomason" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
07 Nov 2005 03:30:41 PM |
|
|
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-288E67.09034415102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <11kvq7bdn2nl4d1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote:
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to
do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars
can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental
powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the
state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
The chaplain has a secular purpose in that he is also a soldier...
Nope.
An army chaplain is not a soldier?
What is he then, a marine?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lein" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
19 Oct 2005 03:30:38 PM |
|
|
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <11kvq7bdn2nl4d1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote:
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-648D13.22412713102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1129257195.301231.223040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AXv3f.129518$0b3.55829@fe09.news.easynews.com...
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote in message
news:11kt1631cohfua5@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplacetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGs3f.159999$w76.56929@fe05.news.easynews.com...
It does not even preclude them from using tax dollars to do
so.
Yes, it does.
Would you be so kind as to quote that part for us?
Would you?
Note, you can't answer my post, honestly can you.
I guess not. I don't even know what you are referring to.
I'm guessing this has to do with your comment that tax dollars can
be
used
to support religious institutions.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
requires not
just that the state keep one religion from using governmental powers
to
force its beliefs on others, but also to keep the power of the state
from
favoring one religion over another or meddling in the private
affairs of
any
religion. Tax dollars are just one way of supporting and meddling
with
religion. Therefore tax dollars cannot be given to religious
institutions
to
support religious activities,
Sure they can.
No they cannot.
They may not fund religious activities, but secular programs of
religious
groups or churches can be funded.
So no military base has a church and no branch of the armed forces has
a member of the clergy on the payroll, right?
The chaplain has a secular purpose in that he is also a soldier...
Nope.
The chaplain at one of my bases was a baptist, he counciled many
servicewoman not to have abortions and did so in a taxpayer owned
church that had pictures of a guy nailed to a cross.
Other activities he would perform in the government facility at
taxpayer expence was religious oriented weddings, baptisms, communion,
etc. The Catholic chaplain would hear confessions. This was pretty
much their full time job, never saw them take part in any non-religious
military activities. Well, I take that back, I think I remember one of
them give the pre-dinner prayer before the secular Navy Day Ball.
I wonder if these are the secular activities athiest Dave had in mind.
Don't think the base barber would even be allowed to do those sort of
things.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 02:33:40 AM |
|
|
The military has Chaplins for council. oF all demonations. INCLUDING PAGAN.
All of these bible thumpers trying to enfore people to be Xitan should note
that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 12:22:06 PM |
|
|
<hoover@aol.com> wrote in message
news:obJ3f.183$5i.118@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The military has Chaplins for council. oF all demonations. INCLUDING
PAGAN. All of these bible thumpers trying to enfore people to be Xitan
should note that.
And note that if they or any other officer or enlisted men use their station
to proselytize, it is a violation of the rules. Just ask the Air Force
Academy about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 05:18:57 PM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" <Dthomsn@removeyourass.com> wrote:
<hoover@aol.com> wrote in message
news:obJ3f.183$5i.118@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The military has Chaplins for council. oF all demonations. INCLUDING
PAGAN. All of these bible thumpers trying to enfore people to be
Xitan should note that.
And note that if they or any other officer or enlisted men use their
station to proselytize, it is a violation of the rules. Just ask the
Air Force Academy about it.
The rules apply to proselytizing of any stripe, including political. I got
reamed out for having an elect Goldwater poster in my barracks room in
1964.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "directory" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep God to yourself |
14 Oct 2005 01:41:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The military has Chaplins for council. oF all demonations. INCLUDING PAGAN.
All of these bible thumpers trying to enfore people to be Xitan should note
that.
Lose your paranoia.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
