Comicsartist

If the religious group is serious about helping and they need funds to do so, they would/should be more than happy to oblige the rules of said funding.

Blessed are the meek. Love thy neighbor. The last shall be first.

I don't think God would mind one bit if His/Her/It's believers don't mention His/Her/It's name while they help. Actions speak louder than words any day.

Helping should come first. Pushing the churches agenda should be a far second.

__________________

God Is Santa for Adults

no, I read the plan. I'm totally against any type of 'faith whatever' in the white house. that whole dept needs to be removed. furthermore I believe (I guess) that NO federal money should go to any relgious group as long as they don't pay property taxes on there main spot to congregate. It is fine with me for a non profit to be mainly staffed by a particular church as long as there are no religious symbols or names of any sort attached to said non profit. then I'm ok with the fed giving some money to them. maybe in the form of free rent or something similar as long as the non profit meets or exceeds said donations on their own.

how was that? I'm in a strange mood today.

__________________
Have Faith in Yourself...
. ...Not an invisible friend!

I Believe = I Guess Religion is an Illusion of Control!
www.Yessy.com/OldBaldy
www.OldBaldyPhoto.com

God Is Santa for Adults

I agree but unfortunately I've only ran into the 'pushy' kind of religious follower. 'religious words' are part of their vocabulary and they use them without thinking about it. Kind on like when we were younger and cussed a lot. I never knew how much I said fuck until I had to stop. I just don't see a religious person making that type of effort for something they believe in. I knew I had to stop or I would be fired.

__________________
Have Faith in Yourself...
. ...Not an invisible friend!

I Believe = I Guess Religion is an Illusion of Control!
www.Yessy.com/OldBaldy
www.OldBaldyPhoto.com

Ptech

CA

A most interesting point on civil v. criminal immunity. I hope you are right about that. Are you an attorney? This might be the best news I've heard in several days. We would still be dependent upon the political will to begin the prosecution.

Regarding the FB Initiative, it might be a good thing, but is it a legal thing? Or a wise thing?

I could be persuaded that govt largesse to poor people is a good thing compared to govt largesse to the defense industry, but why must it be done in the name of religion? The govt is supposed to be strictly neutral on matters of religion. Having a WH office of faith-based anything leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

CosmicRocker

Exactly.
No need to get the government involved at all.

They can do what they want thru donations, but not my tax $$

__________________

time to dump all that self doubt, hate, distrust, envy, paranoia, and overdue library books.

tune in today. ponder tomorrow.

Forget yesterday. the river doesn't run in reverse

CosmicRocker

it's a difference without a meaning.
stay OUT of religion, churches.

or else start taxing them

__________________

time to dump all that self doubt, hate, distrust, envy, paranoia, and overdue library books.

tune in today. ponder tomorrow.

Forget yesterday. the river doesn't run in reverse

W.M.DEEEZ

This sounds fine in theory, but how do you pay for these programs? Federal, state, or local taxes?

I live in a region with a huge contingent of a particular religious group. They breed like vermin, and the majority are receiving public assistance. There is no end in sight to their growth, and consequently, to our tax burden.

As with any well meaning program, there will be those who exploit it to the fullest extent.

__________________
Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got til it's gone

Comicsartist

Unfortunately, until the Bible Belt realizes that you don't need to have faith in a higher power to be a good person, faith will always be in the White House. Be it true faith, or simply spoken word, though, is another thing altogether.

I go to a church up the road every so often called Eastside Christian. They are non-denominational (in regards to baptist, protestant, et al) and their motto is "A Church for people who don't like Church." I have helped them during their Help Build Hope event, where we all built house frames to send down to New Orleans. They have charitable drives quite often and here's the cool thing:

Yes, they wear shirts displaying the name of the church, but they absolutely do not push their ideas onto you. They do not try to force feed you Jesus, and they do a lot of good in the community. I think the main reason they wear the shirts is to show you that a church can do good works without it being incumbent upon your attendance next Sunday.

If the church down the road can do it, I am sure others can, too.

But, like I said, if good works come first and church attendance comes second, I am all for federal funding. As long as the money goes to help people and the separation remains in place, which can be a tricky thing but a doable thing, I am all for it.

__________________

gonzo

They'd pass my test if I show up wearing my pentagram and they still act civil and unincumbent.

cheapseats

The key sameness is that they both HAVE faith-based initiatives.

It is altogether inappropriate in governance committed to separation of church and state.

__________________