Clinton Speaks about Bush-

[wendybeth]

How does Halliburton get a contract for repairing a disaster before it even happens? And if they have an exclusive 'Contractor for the USA' contract, that's news to the rest of us.

You don't have to prove your faith to me, but you don't get to act like your on a mission from God, either. Bush thinks he is the Annointed One, and has ever since 9/11. I merely observe that oftentimes, people of a quieter faith show by deed, not by verbosity.

Supreme arrogance is being absolutely certain that your way is the only way.

Oh, and Scaeagles- the Salvation Army, while a great organization, has a bit of a rep in the anti- gay dept. Most of them do. We had a 'church' up here for decades that was pro- Aryan; think they would just give to anyone?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Oh, and Scaeagles- the Salvation Army, while a great organization, has a bit of a rep in the anti- gay dept. Most of them do. We had a 'church' up here for decades that was pro- Aryan; think they would just give to anyone?

Does the salvation army ask people to prove sexual orientation before giving them food? I really doubt it, but I have no evidence to support my claim.

Of course there are whacko individual churches everywhere. This does not mean they would receive federal funds to support their charitable work.

Supreme arrogance is being absolutely certain that your way is the only way.

I always liked the quote by Lady Thatcher - "Consensus is the absence of leadership." However, to suggest that Bush believes his way is the only way is not always true. Ted Kennedy (or rather his staffers) wrote the education bill. So much has been made of "flip flopping". He didn't want a Bureau of Homeland Security, then he changed his mind. There are other numerous examples. Was it flip flopping or seeing that his way wasn't best?

On tax cuts, no - he believed his way was best. He stood by it. Pushed for them in an uncompromising fashion. Does someone run for President because they believe they have ideas that will work for the country? Of course. This means you get in and push your agenda. Of course it is arrogance. Show me a politician who isn't arrogant. You must have an ego to run for office and tell people that you are the best to lead them.

[Name]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Honestly-sometimes I think some people believe that people have to prove their faith to them- if that is not supreme arrogance I don't know what is.

I don't require anyone to prove their faith to me, in fact I don't require anyone to disclose their religious preference to me either.

That being said, its the people that do disclose their religious preference without being asked about it, that generally give religious people a bad name.

I am a big fan of the don't ask, don't tell policy, in almost everything in life, especially when the answer really has no bearing on anything.


To say that religious preference means anything, is arrogance, IMNSHO.

[wendybeth]

Okay, Scaeagles, so we screen the church entities that wish to participate. For what? To see if they are breaking any laws regarding equal rights, discrimination, etc? Few churches could pass that test. The Salvation Army has a policy in place barring employment of gay persons. (Or they did). Would their refusal to hire gays negate any government contracts? What about the actual ministering- would it be only to a particular churches' congregation, or like-minded people, or to the general public? (There goes a few more churches I can think of). Would they proselytize while they were doing it? Would they even be allowed to? Too many questions, and then don't even get me going on the type of governmental agency that would be created to oversee this whole mess.

And in the end, would there be enough to address the need out there? I doubt it.

[scaeagles]

So, then, WB, what you are saying then is that it is more important to make sure that those passing out food don't allow certain religious beliefs to influence their hiring practices and don't dare mention the name of Jesus or Allah or whomever.

I thought the important thing was making sure they got fed and had their needs met.

While we're at it, we better make sure no Christians take in foster children. Foster parents take state money to care for them and they might dare bring them to church.

The whole idea is to limit government regulation so that the help gets to where it is needed in a more efficient fashion. Current government regulation makes overhead ridiculous and the process as inefficient as possible. I do not believe that government can do it better than relifgious organizations.

Would there be fraud and misuse? I have no doubt. I would dare say that there may be just a bit of that going on in the current way of the government handling things.

[sleepyjeff]

When did a line in the Constitution deigned to protect religon from the Government get warped to mean just the opposite?

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So, then, WB, what you are saying then is that it is more important to make sure that those passing out food don't allow certain religious beliefs to influence their hiring practices and don't dare mention the name of Jesus or Allah or whomever.

I thought the important thing was making sure they got fed and had their needs met.

While we're at it, we better make sure no Christians take in foster children. Foster parents take state money to care for them and they might dare bring them to church.

The whole idea is to limit government regulation so that the help gets to where it is needed in a more efficient fashion. Current government regulation makes overhead ridiculous and the process as inefficient as possible. I do not believe that government can do it better than relifgious organizations.

Would there be fraud and misuse? I have no doubt. I would dare say that there may be just a bit of that going on in the current way of the government handling things.

Scaeagles, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Separation of church and State- that "little line" is there for a damned good reason. Every word you say only convinces me more how very, very intelligent our Founding Fathers were.

As it stands now, the churches can go and do good deeds relatively easily. I can choose not to give to a church or organization that discriminates , and they are free to discriminate against me or my loved ones, so long as they don't do it on the public dime.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

When did a line in the Constitution deigned to protect religon from the Government get warped to mean just the opposite?

Many of the early settlers of this country also experienced life in a country that was taken over by religious zealots for a period of time. They knew what it was like to have one ruling religion, and I see that 'little line' as a protection against such a type of government. Tell me, would either of you be so eager to have religion play a larger role in government if that religion was Islam?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Many of the early settlers of this country also experienced life in a country that was taken over by religious zealots for a period of time. They knew what it was like to have one ruling religion, and I see that 'little line' as a protection against such a type of government. Tell me, would either of you be so eager to have religion play a larger role in government if that religion was Islam?

I see your point. I guess to me I have always read it "freedom of religon" not "freedom from religon"....although to some I suppose there is no difference. One of those shoe things I suppose

[scaeagles]

Well, WB, we are certainly not going to come anything close to agreement. So, I suppose it is time to remove the proverbial brick wall so that both of our foreheads are saved the pain.