Obama wants to expand faith-based programs - Page 4

cheapseats · 07-03-2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comicsartist

Is it just me, or is everyone only reading the headline 'Obama to expand faith based initiatives' without going through and noting the differences between his and Bush's plans?

Again, HAVING a faith-based initiative...regardless discrepancies in their personal slants...has a core sameness that cannot be denied.

When Obama supporters embraced Change, was that what they had in mind...a DIFFERENT set of faith-based initiatives?

cheapseats · 07-03-2008, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comicsartist

"Few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said. Such partnerships can take place without violating the Constitution, he said. "I believe deeply in the separation of church and state."

That's a HUGE difference between Obama and Bush right there.

SAYING it is the big difference? He believes deeply in the separation of church and state whilst proffering faith-based initiatives?

When the former-Nazi pope was visiting...with American taxpayers kicking in for the pageantry...one of his speeches included a line that ran, not verbatim but pretty exactly, "Catholicism is not about exterior things, but about interior things." He said this while wearing a white satin robe with gold-thread adornment and fur trim, and more bling than a pimp.

Talk is cheap, including talk of change.

cheapseats · 07-03-2008, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comicsartist

As for my second point, if Obama's plan can find a way to support projects that help underprivileged communities, be the projects Christian, Muslim, Jewish or secular in origin, it would be a good thing. If the projects are worth being funded by the Government, they should be, in my opinion. As long as they work out better than no child left behind, and the groups aren't 'pushing' their religion on you and making you accept their version of God before they'll help you.

There are NO church projects that are "worth" government funding. Again, the reason they are absolved from rendering unto Caesar is because it is supposed that their donation haul is directed unto philanthropic work in the community, lessening the demand on government-read-that-taxpayers.

Our federal and state governments are positively RIDDLED with welfare schemes and the alphabet agencies that administer them. Why on God's green earth would the government/taxpayer also fund the church programs? It is madness.

Better that church-going folk volunteer their services in the secular world than that government volunteer taxpayer funds in the religioso world.

Money changing hands has commonality with sex...a relationship is NEVER the same afterward, and you can't undo it.

cheapseats · 07-03-2008, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Is Santa for Adults

I only wnder how a religious group could function 'without' talking or teaching about their religion.

It is delusional to imagine that the devout keep their lips zipped. They have Good News and The Word, and the very fact of their charity speaks to SHARING. They would share food but not God's word, when they are so clear that man does not live by bread alone? Preposterous.

cheapseats · 07-03-2008, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I am serious about helping and I need funds to do so. I will not preach...where do I apply for Dogma-less Dollars?

cheapseats · 07-03-2008, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ptech

CA
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.

Minister of Beliefs, anyone?

More government largesse to poor people and less to the defense, oil, telecommunication, insurance and legal industries? You bet. But we have ALL KINDS of government relief agencies that we can fund, if we've decided we're about helping people. Too, there is the matter of shitty shitty shitty public schools.

If a church cannot afford this or that, they can't afford it...go without or use a credit card, like the rest of us.

I want to be a Giver, alas, I have nothing to give. But it is Good to Give, so I prevail upon you to give me the goods, so I can turn around and be Good by giving it away?

Note the extra step in there, and imagine the attendant paperwork. For what? So the churches can act as Good Guy Middle Men on the taxpayer's dime?

cheapseats · 07-03-2008, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comicsartist

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.

Separation cannot exist when there are financial ties...that is why lobbying is a crime against democracy.

If Good Works were the mission of the churches, parishioners would volunteer where the MANY charitable opportunities exist rather than seek funding to operate under their "own" tent.

God Is Santa for Adults · 07-03-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

that is great to hear and I do personally appreciate your efforts to help. I do also like the 'theory' of your non-denominational church but even though it is only a little bit, they do still need to show they are a church doing the work. It is by far the closest thing I have heard of to a church not pushing their ideals on others but not as far as I would personally care for. But I'm me...

God Is Santa for Adults · 07-03-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheapseats

It is delusional to imagine that the devout keep their lips zipped. They have Good News and The Word, and the very fact of their charity speaks to SHARING. They would share food but not God's word, when they are so clear that man does not live by bread alone? Preposterous.

I feel the same way.

I was just on the toilet this am reading my proper 'reading material' when I came accross a quote from Lewis Black that I thought would go well with this thread.

"It's exhausting. What really gets me fired up is, if it works for you, great; now shut up. The thing is, if you really want me to get interested in your fucking religion, show me an example, asshole. If I go, 'wow, what a great person you are. How did it happen?' 'Well I let christ into my life.' Then I get it. But don't tell me you let christ into your life and assume I'm supposed to think you are a great person. In terms of that stuff, the worst are the jehovah witnesses. thay'er just crazy" Lweis Black quoted from Playboy.

On Comics behalf, I have to admit his church sounds pretty damn close to my idea of a good church, so Ca, keep up the good work.

Heretic · 07-03-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Is Santa for Adults

I feel the same way.

I was just on the toilet this am reading my proper 'reading material' when I came accross a quote from Lewis Black that I thought would go well with this thread.

"It's exhausting. What really gets me fired up is, if it works for you, great; now shut up. The thing is, if you really want me to get interested in your fucking religion, show me an example, asshole. If I go, 'wow, what a great person you are. How did it happen?' 'Well I let christ into my life.' Then I get it. But don't tell me you let christ into your life and assume I'm supposed to think you are a great person. In terms of that stuff, the worst are the jehovah witnesses. thay'er just crazy" Lweis Black quoted from Playboy.

On Comics behalf, I have to admit his church sounds pretty damn close to my idea of a good church, so Ca, keep up the good work.

In terms of what to pray to there's always another option...

"MEEP, MEEP!!"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode