| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"K.C." |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2005 11:50:29 PM |
| Object: |
USA religious history |
Every single President and state of the USA has officially acknowledged
God in official speeched and proclamations. Chaplains, found
constitutional in 1983, are a federally funded position specifically
tasked with religion (offical government religious position). If
chaplains are constitutional, what government religious expression
(short of establishing one faith only) could be unconstitutional.
You have been lied to about religion in government. There is no
separation, and there has never been. Jefferson, who said the
separation phrase, spoke of His own faith, as President, in that very
letter and spoke of God on many other times. Every President has
spoken of their faith...every one....no exception. So, why would we
keep a teacher from speaking their faith, when their President is
allowed to do so?
In fact, here is a fun example. On D-Day, FDR went on the air to pray
for American troops in WWII. He asked all Americans to join him. Now,
here's the interesting part. No teacher, today, would be able to pray
the very words of the President in class without violating a rule that,
apparently, didn't apply to FDR himself. Why is that? Check it out.
You've been lied to.
Ken Clifton
http://providential-plan.com/undergod.html
(A Nation Under God)
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 08:07:13 AM |
|
|
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Every single President and state of the USA has officially acknowledged
:|God in official speeched
Speeched?
:|and proclamations.
What were Jefferson's proclamations?
:| Chaplains, found
:|constitutional in 1983, are a federally funded position specifically
:|tasked with religion (offical government religious position).
Found politically ok because legal precedence was ignored.
It is as disgraceful moment for the USSC as Scott v. Sanford.
:| If
:|chaplains are constitutional,
They aren't
:|what government religious expression
:|(short of establishing one faith only) could be unconstitutional.
:|
:|You have been lied to about religion in government.
The only one lying around here is you
:|There is no
:|separation, and there has never been.
History says otherwise stupid
Explain the history presented here. You won't of course, but it would be
fun to see your try
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
11 Jan 2005 07:42:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Every single President and state of the USA has officially
:|acknowledged God in official speeched
Speeched?
:|and proclamations.
What were Jefferson's proclamations?
:| Chaplains, found
:|constitutional in 1983, are a federally funded position specifically
:|tasked with religion (offical government religious position).
Found politically ok because legal precedence was ignored.
Wrong again loser. Chaplains and prayers in Congress have occured since
day one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ninure Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
10 Jan 2005 12:43:34 PM |
|
|
Christian American Quiz
Please answer the following Questions:
1) Which is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on over
twenty different countries since 1945?
2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons?
3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians
in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it
the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?
4) Which country's illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the
UN Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism?
5) Which country rejected the order of the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986,
and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution
calling on all states to observe international law?
6) Which country was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of
providing"direct and indirect support" for "acts of
genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s?
7) Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty in December 2001?
8) Which country renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process
for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international
conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001?
9) Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade
at a small arms conference in July 2001?
10) Aside from Somalia, which is the only other country in the world to
have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
11) Which is the only Western country which allows the death penalty to be
applied to children?
12) Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban
Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines?
13) Which is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998?
14) Which was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a
1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism?
15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet
reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions?
Answer to all 15 questions: The United States of America.
Do you call these actions "Christian"!!!!!
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
Take my polls
http://ninure.100megsfree5.com
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scream Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 05:19:35 AM |
|
|
Historically, problems with "Church and State" being in bed together was
that both worked as partners in crime -- keeping the people ignorant and
blind. The church was used as an instrument by the state to squelch
dissident thought and behavior.
Now that America has become obsessed with seperation of "Church and State",
corporporations and media have simply climbed into bed with the State. Now
it's the media keeping people ignorant and in the dark.
I don't see people freaking out about keeping "Corporate media and State"
seperate. I don't see anyone freaking out about media conglomeration, where
media companies buy out smaller companies, turning themselves into media
monopoly giants like Disney or Rupert Murdoch's news empire.
The Big Ten Conglomerates
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
If anything, corporations/media and the State are fucking each other quite
nicely, specially since the Iraq war.
You don't have to worry about religion. It was battered, beat up and left
for dead in a ditch 30-40 years ago by America. Why else does everyone
associate the word "priest" with "pedophile"? The media has done it's job
very well. "Church" is the old shoe. The corporate media is the new
mistress.
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105249829.500588.9330@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Every single President and state of the USA has officially acknowledged
God in official speeched and proclamations. Chaplains, found
constitutional in 1983, are a federally funded position specifically
tasked with religion (offical government religious position). If
chaplains are constitutional, what government religious expression
(short of establishing one faith only) could be unconstitutional.
You have been lied to about religion in government. There is no
separation, and there has never been. Jefferson, who said the
separation phrase, spoke of His own faith, as President, in that very
letter and spoke of God on many other times. Every President has
spoken of their faith...every one....no exception. So, why would we
keep a teacher from speaking their faith, when their President is
allowed to do so?
In fact, here is a fun example. On D-Day, FDR went on the air to pray
for American troops in WWII. He asked all Americans to join him. Now,
here's the interesting part. No teacher, today, would be able to pray
the very words of the President in class without violating a rule that,
apparently, didn't apply to FDR himself. Why is that? Check it out.
You've been lied to.
Ken Clifton
http://providential-plan.com/undergod.html
(A Nation Under God)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 12:13:23 AM |
|
|
Maybe someday, the Demagogue Party will come back into control of things,a
lthough that is doubtful. Then they can have a atheist ceremony swearing in
whatever they like...maybe their darling, Dr. Newdow holding up a copy
of....now what in the hell would he use to be appropriate? Maybe his kid's
first soiled sanitary napkin?
Of course, by them, old docky would expect to be atomic detritus f loating
along with the Mississippi, so what the *****?
The finest thing I could imagine doing for this country would be flying into
Tehran with a suitcase, maybe two or three of them.
Liberals would never understand this kind of talk as they are bored shitless
every day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rockwell" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 02:54:56 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:7Y3Ed.846$SS6.195@trnddc07...
Maybe someday, the Demagogue Party will come back into control of things,a
lthough that is doubtful. Then they can have a atheist ceremony swearing
in whatever they like...maybe their darling, Dr. Newdow holding up a copy
of....now what in the hell would he use to be appropriate? Maybe his kid's
first soiled sanitary napkin?
Of course, by them, old docky would expect to be atomic detritus f
loating along with the Mississippi, so what the *****?
The finest thing I could imagine doing for this country would be flying
into Tehran with a suitcase, maybe two or three of them.
Liberals would never understand this kind of talk as they are bored
shitless every day.
Mostly because of idiots like you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "K.C." |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 12:23:42 AM |
|
|
Docky Wocky wrote:
Maybe someday, the Demagogue Party will come back into control of
things,a
lthough that is doubtful. Then they can have a atheist ceremony
swearing in
whatever they like...maybe their darling, Dr. Newdow holding up a
copy
of....now what in the hell would he use to be appropriate? Maybe his
kid's
first soiled sanitary napkin?
Of course, by them, old docky would expect to be atomic detritus f
loating
along with the Mississippi, so what the *****?
The finest thing I could imagine doing for this country would be
flying into
Tehran with a suitcase, maybe two or three of them.
Liberals would never understand this kind of talk as they are bored
shitless
every day.
I used to try to defend liberals. However, they want liberty for none
besides themselves. They oppose liberating any country under
dictatorial rule. They don't want tolerence of any conservative
position. They refuse to let diversity of throught include religous
thought. Liberalism, to my point of view, seems to be a lie.
K.C.
http://providential-plan.com/undergod.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "NotHimAgain" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 12:08:41 PM |
|
|
"They oppose liberating any country under dictatorial rule. They don't
want tolerence of any conservative
position. They refuse to let diversity of throught include religous
thought. Liberalism, to my point of view, seems to be a lie."
K.C.>
For what......oil? We should be moving away from oil.
Refuse diversity? What we are tired of is the religious right's "my religion
is better than yours" attitude.
"They refuse to let diversity of throught include religous thought"> What
the hell is this supposed to mean?
If your suggesting mixing political action with religious beliefs.......it
should not happen.....period.
Why is it that most of the so-called religious people that I've met are
hypocrites? Then they go to church on Sunday and ask for forgiveness and
everything is ok again. What a sham. What a game.
What a lie.
Sign me:
Sensible agnostic
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105251822.476382.157550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Docky Wocky wrote:
Maybe someday, the Demagogue Party will come back into control of
things,a
lthough that is doubtful. Then they can have a atheist ceremony
swearing in
whatever they like...maybe their darling, Dr. Newdow holding up a
copy
of....now what in the hell would he use to be appropriate? Maybe his
kid's
first soiled sanitary napkin?
Of course, by them, old docky would expect to be atomic detritus f
loating
along with the Mississippi, so what the *****?
The finest thing I could imagine doing for this country would be
flying into
Tehran with a suitcase, maybe two or three of them.
Liberals would never understand this kind of talk as they are bored
shitless
every day.
I used to try to defend liberals. However, they want liberty for none
besides themselves. They oppose liberating any country under
dictatorial rule. They don't want tolerence of any conservative
position. They refuse to let diversity of throught include religous
thought. Liberalism, to my point of view, seems to be a lie.
K.C.
http://providential-plan.com/undergod.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DeserTBoB" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 01:34:04 AM |
|
|
On 8 Jan 2005 22:23:42 -0800, "K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I used to try to defend liberals. However, they want liberty for none
besides themselves. They oppose liberating any country under
dictatorial rule. They don't want tolerence of any conservative
position. They refuse to let diversity of throught include religous
thought. Liberalism, to my point of view, seems to be a lie. <snip>
A classic case of psychological projection. What he's really spewing
here is the right position on religious right handed wing nuts!
dB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
16 Jan 2005 03:03:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:23, King Cong wrote:
I used to try to defend liberals.
Proof, please.
However, they want liberty for none
besides themselves.
Proof, please.
They oppose liberating any country under
dictatorial rule.
Proof, please.
They don't want tolerence of any conservative
position.
Illiterate sentence. Your brain is broken.
They refuse to let diversity of throught include religous
thought.
Proof, please.
Liberalism, to my point of view, seems to be a lie.
Anything that has anything whatsoever to do with
intelligence is going to be misunderstood -
purposefully or viciously - as opposed to your
theocratic attempted tyranny.
Remember TeeJay: ". . . for I have sworn upon the altar
of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny
over the mind of man."
You're a theocratic tyrant wannabe, King Cong.
I have sworn to defend my country against "all
enemies, foreign and domestic". You fall into the
category of "domestic".
You once swore to defend the Cnstitution of the United
States of America. You no longer do so. You have set
yourself up as an enemy of the Constitution of the
United States of America.
May you rot in hell.
K.C.
Gray Shockley
------------------------------------------------------
United States of America Army (retired)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Victoria Hirt" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
09 Jan 2005 12:22:14 PM |
|
|
On 8 Jan 2005 21:50:29 -0800, "K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have been lied to about religion in government. There is no
separation, and there has never been.
Here's the deal in a nutshell. The government cannot force anyone to
worship a specific religion or to believe in a God. The question then
becomes: Can the government and/or taxpayer money be used to promote
or fund a religion or religious thing? If it can, then whose religion
is going to be the religion chosen? In addition, is it okay with you
that YOUR religious beliefs are NOT the ones chosen.
Example: Say you are a Christian fundamentalist and the government
decided to back your religious beliefs. Everywhere you look is your
religion being promoted. Your prayers are said in school and your
religious beliefs are being taught. You are a very happy camper.
But then you notice that laws are being changed because of that ever
growing number of Catholics in the U.S. partly because of the fast
growth of Latino populations. Suddenly the religion the government
backs isn't YOUR religion, but the Catholic religion. Your precious
granddaughter is forced to say the Rosary every morning and pray to
the statue of Mary put up in the schools.
You think it couldn't happen? Then go to any town or city and see how
many directions are both in English and Spanish. I worked the polls
on election day and we had to have instructions in both English and
Spanish even though I am from a very small town.
This is a case of be very careful of what you wish for because if you
get it, it could come back and bite you.
The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
11 Jan 2005 07:41:21 PM |
|
|
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On 8 Jan 2005 21:50:29 -0800, "K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have been lied to about religion in government. There is no
separation, and there has never been.
Here's the deal in a nutshell. The government cannot force anyone to
worship a specific religion or to believe in a God. The question then
becomes: Can the government and/or taxpayer money be used to promote
or fund a religion or religious thing?
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so called
artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and insult the
religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to fund attacks
on religion and the religious, but the left does not believe the
government should assist churches and religious groups that help feed
and shelter the homeless and down and out. One only has to look at the
so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in ***** and ***** which
was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And also the Plays that the
Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay, this was also funded by the
NEA. The left had no problem with funding these attacks against the
religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer money going to churches that
help feed and shelter the homeless, and educate our children.
Kind of shows you what kind of values the left really has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Victoria Hirt" |
|
| Title: "Liberal" National Endowment for the Arts |
12 Jan 2005 12:11:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so called
artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and insult the
religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to fund attacks
on religion and the religious, but the left does not believe the
government should assist churches and religious groups that help feed
and shelter the homeless and down and out. One only has to look at the
so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in ***** and ***** which
was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And also the Plays that the
Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay, this was also funded by the
NEA. The left had no problem with funding these attacks against the
religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer money going to churches that
help feed and shelter the homeless, and educate our children.
Kind of shows you what kind of values the left really has.
The above post is just total nonsense. S/he is ranting about the
left, but evidently knows little of the National Endowment for the
Arts or the leader of her/his party.
January 29, 2004 - Mrs. Laura Bush announced today that President
George W. Bush is requesting an $18 million budget increase for the
National Endowment for the Arts to fund a major new initiative,
American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius. This
ambitious three-year program will combine arts presentations with
education programming to introduce Americans to the best of their
cultural and artistic legacy. American Masterpieces will sponsor
presentations of the great American works across all art forms, and
will reach large and small communities in all 50 states.
The President's request would raise the Arts Endowment's budget by $18
million from $121 million in FY 2004 to $139.4 million, the largest
increase since 1984. -
http://www.nea.gov/news/news04/AmericanMasterpieces1.html
A handful of questionable events that have made headlines do not
outweigh the tremendous good that is done by the National Endowment
for the Arts. Thankfully the Bushes know that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" National Endowment for the Arts |
12 Jan 2005 11:44:25 PM |
|
|
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so called
artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and insult the
religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to fund attacks
on religion and the religious, but the left does not believe the
government should assist churches and religious groups that help feed
and shelter the homeless and down and out. One only has to look at the
so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in ***** and ***** which
was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And also the Plays that the
Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay, this was also funded by the
NEA. The left had no problem with funding these attacks against the
religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer money going to churches that
help feed and shelter the homeless, and educate our children.
Kind of shows you what kind of values the left really has.
The above post is just total nonsense. S/he is ranting about the
left, but evidently knows little of the National Endowment for the
Arts or the leader of her/his party.
January 29, 2004 - Mrs. Laura Bush announced today that President
George W. Bush is requesting an $18 million budget increase for the
National Endowment for the Arts to fund a major new initiative
And your lack of intelligence is really showing here.
What was stated was how people like you on the left think that it is ok
for public funds to be used to insult and attack the religious and their
beliefs, yet you scream when public funds are giving to religious groups
who care for the poor, and educate our children.
A handful of questionable events that have made headlines do not
outweigh the tremendous good that is done by the National Endowment
for the Arts. Thankfully the Bushes know that.
Artists and art of any type does not need to be funded by taxpayer funds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Victoria Hirt" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" National Endowment for the Arts |
13 Jan 2005 11:09:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:44:25 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so called
artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and insult the
religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to fund attacks
on religion and the religious, but the left does not believe the
government should assist churches and religious groups that help feed
and shelter the homeless and down and out. One only has to look at the
so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in ***** and ***** which
was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And also the Plays that the
Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay, this was also funded by the
NEA. The left had no problem with funding these attacks against the
religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer money going to churches that
help feed and shelter the homeless, and educate our children.
Kind of shows you what kind of values the left really has.
The above post is just total nonsense. S/he is ranting about the
left, but evidently knows little of the National Endowment for the
Arts or the leader of her/his party.
January 29, 2004 - Mrs. Laura Bush announced today that President
George W. Bush is requesting an $18 million budget increase for the
National Endowment for the Arts to fund a major new initiative
And your lack of intelligence is really showing here.
What was stated was how people like you on the left think that it is ok
for public funds to be used to insult and attack the religious and their
beliefs, yet you scream when public funds are giving to religious groups
who care for the poor, and educate our children.
Well, it wasn't my lack of intelligence showing. It was my manners.
You stated "people like you on the left think it is ok for public
funds to be used to insult and attack the religious" and "you scream
when public funds are giving to religious groups who care for the
poor, and educate our children."
I have NEVER said such things nor believed them. I support religious
groups getting taxpayer money for charity work. I also was offended
by the art exhibit that you mentioned.
You simply made up lies about me and posted them at a response to my
earlier comment (which had nothing to do with the point you were
trying to make).
My response to you now that you have once again attacked me with your
lies:
***YOU ARE A UNDERHANDED LIAR!*** Stop posting things I have never
said like I had said them. You owe me an apology.
A handful of questionable events that have made headlines do not
outweigh the tremendous good that is done by the National Endowment
for the Arts. Thankfully the Bushes know that.
Artists and art of any type does not need to be funded by taxpayer funds.
You don't get it. Thankfully the president does.
Here's one example of what the NEA does:
The National Endowment for the Arts has awarded a $29,000 grant for
"Coming Home! Self-Taught Artists, the Bible and the American South,"
an exhibition organized by AMUM for a grant proposal written by the
exhibition's curator, Dr. Carol Crown, professor of art history at the
U of M, and AMUM director, Dr. Leslie Luebbers. Of the 55 million in
NEA awards across the nation (the vast majority going to state arts
councils), AMUM received the largest project grant in Tennessee.
Coming Home! explores the impact of the Bible on Southern self-taught
artists as well as the religious intent of their art. It is composed
of four major parts that bring together scenes of contemporary
religious life in the South with depictions of biblical events. The
exhibition includes approximately 200 paintings and sculptures by
artists such as William Edmonson, Howard Finster, Clementine Hunter,
Sister Gertrude Morgan, Edgar Tolson, and Myrice West.
Coming Home! will open at AMUM in March of 2003, and it will travel to
other institutions through mid-2005.
-------------------------
More on the NEA
"NEA At A Glance
A Great Nation Deserves Great Art
The National Endowment for the Arts is the largest annual funder of
the arts in the United States. An independent federal agency, the
National Endowment for the Arts is the official arts organization of
the United States government.
Mission: The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency
dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and
established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing
leadership in arts education.
Vision: A nation in which artistic excellence is celebrated,
supported, and available to all Americans.
The Arts Endowment has made America a better place to live. Before the
establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965, the arts
were limited mostly to a few big cities. The Arts Endowment has helped
create regional theater, opera, ballet, symphony orchestras, museums
and other art organizations that Americans now enjoy. In its 38-year
history, the National Endowment for the Arts has awarded more than
120,000 grants that have brought art to Americans in communities large
and small.
The Arts Endowment awards grants to nonprofit organizations in three
areas: Access to Artistic Excellence, Learning in the Arts, Challenge
America, and Partnership Agreements. Forty percent of its funds are
awarded to state and jurisdictional arts agencies and six regional
arts organizations. In addition to the NEA Jazz Masters, the Arts
Endowment awards fellowships in literature and the folk and
traditional arts. And it is the National Endowment for the Arts that
solicits nominations from the public for the National Medal of Arts
and forwards them to the President for his final decision."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" National Endowment for the Arts |
13 Jan 2005 09:36:32 PM |
|
|
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:44:25 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so
called artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and
insult the religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to
fund attacks on religion and the religious, but the left does not
believe the government should assist churches and religious groups
that help feed and shelter the homeless and down and out. One only
has to look at the so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in
***** and ***** which was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And
also the Plays that the Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay,
this was also funded by the NEA. The left had no problem with funding
these attacks against the religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer
money going to churches that help feed and shelter the homeless, and
educate our children. Kind of shows you what kind of values the left
really has.
The above post is just total nonsense. S/he is ranting about the
left, but evidently knows little of the National Endowment for the
Arts or the leader of her/his party.
January 29, 2004 - Mrs. Laura Bush announced today that President
George W. Bush is requesting an $18 million budget increase for the
National Endowment for the Arts to fund a major new initiative
And your lack of intelligence is really showing here.
What was stated was how people like you on the left think that it is ok
for public funds to be used to insult and attack the religious and
their beliefs, yet you scream when public funds are giving to religious
groups who care for the poor, and educate our children.
Well, it wasn't my lack of intelligence showing.
It sure is. As you go off on a path that is not even related to the
discussion at hand.
The issue is not who supports the NEA, but how people like you on the
left support public funds being used to attack and insult religion and
the religious.
It was my manners.
You stated "people like you on the left think it is ok for public
funds to be used to insult and attack the religious" and "you scream
when public funds are giving to religious groups who care for the
poor, and educate our children."
And then you go off and post how Bush had increased the funds going to
the NEA. And that was never the issue. The issue is how most but not all
of the people on the left, support gvt funds being used to attack and
insult the religious, while at the same time complaining that the gvt
should not be giving funds to churches that engage in charity or
education of our children (vouchers).
I have NEVER said such things nor believed them. I support religious
groups getting taxpayer money for charity work. I also was offended
by the art exhibit that you mentioned.
Than I retract my eariler posting of lumping you into a group that holds
the opposite position of what you posted above.
A handful of questionable events that have made headlines do not
outweigh the tremendous good that is done by the National Endowment
for the Arts. Thankfully the Bushes know that.
Artists and art of any type does not need to be funded by taxpayer
funds.
You don't get it. Thankfully the president does.
So educate us, why do you think the federal gvt should subsidize the
arts. I would rather see that public money be spent on the poor and or
education. Mankind will always have those that are gifted with artistic
talent, there is no reason to subsidize such works of art.
Here's one example of what the NEA does:
The National Endowment for the Arts has awarded a $29,000 grant for
"Coming Home! Self-Taught Artists, the Bible and the American South,"
an exhibition organized by AMUM for a grant proposal written by the
exhibition's curator, Dr. Carol Crown, professor of art history at the
U of M, and AMUM director, Dr. Leslie Luebbers. Of the 55 million in
NEA awards across the nation (the vast majority going to state arts
councils), AMUM received the largest project grant in Tennessee.
And just think how many meals could have been provided to the homeless or
the poor with that money.
It is not that I oppose arts, but public funds would be better spent
taking care of our people in need of assistance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" National Endowment for the Arts |
14 Jan 2005 01:05:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:44:25 -0600, Dana wrote
(in article <10uc273g1i5dn4a@corp.supernews.com>):
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so called
artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and insult the
religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to fund attacks
on religion and the religious, but the left does not believe the
government should assist churches and religious groups that help feed
and shelter the homeless and down and out. One only has to look at the
so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in ***** and ***** which
was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And also the Plays that the
Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay, this was also funded by the
NEA. The left had no problem with funding these attacks against the
religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer money going to churches that
help feed and shelter the homeless, and educate our children.
Kind of shows you what kind of values the left really has.
The above post is just total nonsense. S/he is ranting about the
left, but evidently knows little of the National Endowment for the
Arts or the leader of her/his party.
January 29, 2004 - Mrs. Laura Bush announced today that President
George W. Bush is requesting an $18 million budget increase for the
National Endowment for the Arts to fund a major new initiative
And your lack of intelligence is really showing here.
What was stated was how people like you on the left think that it is ok
for public funds to be used to insult and attack the religious and their
beliefs, yet you scream when public funds are giving to religious groups
who care for the poor, and educate our children.
Weldfare queens such as you should not have had
children when you knew that you could only afford
them by being a welfare queen.
Quite obviously your Mother should have had an
abortion before bringing forth a genetic monster
such as you .
A handful of questionable events that have made headlines do not
outweigh the tremendous good that is done by the National Endowment
for the Arts. Thankfully the Bushes know that.
Artists and art of any type does not need to be funded by taxpayer funds.
I agree with that.
However, I also believe that trash such as
you should not be allowed to collect welfare.
Gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" National Endowment for the Arts |
14 Jan 2005 08:12:34 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:44:25 -0600, Dana wrote
(in article <10uc273g1i5dn4a@corp.supernews.com>):
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so
called artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and
insult the religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok
to fund attacks on religion and the religious, but the left does not
believe the government should assist churches and religious groups
that help feed and shelter the homeless and down and out. One only
has to look at the so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in
***** and ***** which was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And
also the Plays that the Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay,
this was also funded by the NEA. The left had no problem with
funding these attacks against the religious, yet they ***** about
taxpayer money going to churches that help feed and shelter the
homeless, and educate our children. Kind of shows you what kind of
values the left really has.
The above post is just total nonsense. S/he is ranting about the
left, but evidently knows little of the National Endowment for the
Arts or the leader of her/his party.
January 29, 2004 - Mrs. Laura Bush announced today that President
George W. Bush is requesting an $18 million budget increase for the
National Endowment for the Arts to fund a major new initiative
And your lack of intelligence is really showing here.
What was stated was how people like you on the left think that it is
ok for public funds to be used to insult and attack the religious and
their beliefs, yet you scream when public funds are giving to
religious groups who care for the poor, and educate our children.
Weldfare queens
Keep crying wimpy.
51 SH and still as dumb as a rock.
A handful of questionable events that have made headlines do not
outweigh the tremendous good that is done by the National Endowment
for the Arts. Thankfully the Bushes know that.
Artists and art of any type does not need to be funded by taxpayer
funds.
I agree with that.
Gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Victoria Hirt" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
12 Jan 2005 07:29:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On 8 Jan 2005 21:50:29 -0800, "K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have been lied to about religion in government. There is no
separation, and there has never been.
Here's the deal in a nutshell. The government cannot force anyone to
worship a specific religion or to believe in a God. The question then
becomes: Can the government and/or taxpayer money be used to promote
or fund a religion or religious thing?
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so called
artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and insult the
religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to fund attacks
on religion and the religious, but the left does not believe the
government should assist churches and religious groups that help feed
and shelter the homeless and down and out.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's not the left
that is supporting the NEA. It's the RIGHT up to and including
President and Mrs. Bush.
One only has to look at the
so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in ***** and ***** which
was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And also the Plays that the
Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay, this was also funded by the
NEA. The left had no problem with funding these attacks against the
religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer money going to churches that
help feed and shelter the homeless, and educate our children.
Kind of shows you what kind of values the left really has.
The left? I guess you don't know that the Bushes support the National
Endowment for the Arts, do you? Take a look here at Mrs. Bush
announcing the increase for NEA funding -
http://www.nea.gov/national/masterpieces/Press/AmericanMasterpieces1.html
"And on January 29, 2004 - President Bush Requests $18 Million Budget
Increase for National Endowment for the Arts, Largest Since 1984" -
http://www.nea.gov/news/news04/AmericanMasterpieces1.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: USA religious history |
12 Jan 2005 11:48:32 PM |
|
|
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:41:21 -0900, Dana <dana@255.255.255> wrote:
Victoria Hirt wrote:
On 8 Jan 2005 21:50:29 -0800, "K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have been lied to about religion in government. There is no
separation, and there has never been.
Here's the deal in a nutshell. The government cannot force anyone to
worship a specific religion or to believe in a God. The question
then
becomes: Can the government and/or taxpayer money be used to promote
or fund a religion or religious thing?
Being that the the federal government has sponsored and paid so called
artists from the NEA funds to make items that attack and insult the
religious, it is apparent that the left thinks it is ok to fund attacks
on religion and the religious, but the left does not believe the
government should assist churches and religious groups that help feed
and shelter the homeless and down and out.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's not the left
that is supporting the NEA. It's the RIGHT up to and including
President and Mrs. Bush.
One only has to look at the
so called art that had the Virgin Mary covered in ***** and ***** which
was funded by the NEA using taxpayer money. And also the Plays that the
Gays put on portraying Jesus as being gay, this was also funded by the
NEA. The left had no problem with funding these attacks against the
religious, yet they ***** about taxpayer money going to churches that
help feed and shelter the homeless, and educate our children.
Kind of shows you what kind of values the left really has.
The left? I guess you don't know that the Bushes support the National
Endowment for the Arts, do you? Take a look here at Mrs. Bush
announcing the increase for NEA funding -
I did not say it was the left that is the only one who supports the NEA.
It was stated and you just proved that the left thinks it is ok to use
public funds to attack and insult the religious.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
