Court Rules Bush Can be Sued over Faith-Based Initiatives

[danarhea]

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a case which seeks to find President Bush's faith based initiative violates separation between church and state. This program was instituted by Bush in an executive order, thus bypassing Congress, and has also never been tested by the courts as to its consitutionality, ruled the appelate court. This is going to be a good case to follow. I have my own reasons why the faith-based initiatives should be shot down, but would like to hear the views of a few others on both sides first.

Article is here.

 

[KCConservative]

.................... :yawn: ......................

 

[danarhea]

.................... :yawn: ......................

<Translation>

I dont give a rat's ass about the political or judicial processes of the United States, so I will try and derail this thread. I am a troll, after all, and that is what trolls do.

<End translation>

 

[M14 Shooter]

.................... :yawn: ......................

I second the motion.

 

[akyron]

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a case which seeks to find President Bush's faith based initiative violates separation between church and state. This program was instituted by Bush in an executive order, thus bypassing Congress, and has also never been tested by the courts as to its consitutionality, ruled the appelate court. This is going to be a good case to follow. I have my own reasons why the faith-based initiatives should be shot down, but would like to hear the views of a few others on both sides first.

Article is here.

Meh. I recall this being about the charities that went in to rebuild after national disasters and give aid. If someone is willing to feed,clothe, and shelter the homeless they probably don't particularly care where the aid comes from as long as they and their kids get much needed food.

69% of Americans favor providing more generous government assistance to the poor.

Many of these social services are faith based. So should we scrap them all because their common religions brought them together to assist?


http://www.atheistcharities.com/ doesn't have that great a record.

When I see the atheist meals-on-wheels program out in full force I will probably change my mind.
Until then let the government assist those that are doing the work.

 

[tryreading]

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a case which seeks to find President Bush's faith based initiative violates separation between church and state. This program was instituted by Bush in an executive order, thus bypassing Congress, and has also never been tested by the courts as to its consitutionality, ruled the appelate court. This is going to be a good case to follow. I have my own reasons why the faith-based initiatives should be shot down, but would like to hear the views of a few others on both sides first.

Article is here.

I don't like it. An executive order should not be used to allow funding of faith-based groups whatever their intentions. These groups should raise money on their own without government assistance. President Bush has crossed the line in other ways, such as paying a journalist for positive coverage, and conducting surveillance of Americans without bothering to obtain court paperwork, and I see this as another questionable decision. Anyway, looks like the courts will decide, which is the proper process.

 

[MSgt]

.................... :yawn: ......................

Bwahahahaha!



The courts will set it right. End of story.

 

[tryreading]

Meh. I recall this being about the charities that went in to rebuild after national disasters and give aid. If someone is willing to feed,clothe, and shelter the homeless they probably don't particularly care where the aid comes from as long as they and their kids get much needed food.

69% of Americans favor providing more .

Neither of the above groups is qualified to determine if the order is legal.

Many of these social services are faith based. So should we scrap them all because their common religions brought them together to assist?


http://www.atheistcharities.com/ doesn't have that great a record.

When I see the atheist meals-on-wheels program out in full force I will probably change my mind.
Until then let the government assist those that are doing the work.

Don't scrap them, just disentangle them from the Executive branch.

 

[danarhea]

Meh. I recall this being about the charities that went in to rebuild after national disasters and give aid. If someone is willing to feed,clothe, and shelter the homeless they probably don't particularly care where the aid comes from as long as they and their kids get much needed food.

69% of Americans favor providing more generous government assistance to the poor.

Many of these social services are faith based. So should we scrap them all because their common religions brought them together to assist?


http://www.atheistcharities.com/ doesn't have that great a record.

When I see the atheist meals-on-wheels program out in full force I will probably change my mind.
Until then let the government assist those that are doing the work.

Of course, Americans want to be generous, but at what cost? Guess who is getting FEMA money? Operation USA, which has 25 years of experience in disaster relief? How about Pat Robertson instead? Bingo. Robertson's Operation Blessing is near the top of the list on the FEMA brochure, which designates faith based charities almost excusively. Other than the Red Cross and one or two others, secular organizations with extensive disaster relief histories are almost completely left out. What does Robertson have a history of doing with donations? Mining gold and silver, and buying race horses. In addition to being named as someone people should contribute to, the US Government gave Robertson a million in cash.

Now why should anyone be upset at this? I can give several reasons:

1) While Robertson and his church is getting such favorable treatment from the government, The Nation of Islam was given nothing, although they also applied for faith based funds for the black community. Those charites which are religious, which are featured in the list, are mostly Christian or Jewish. Where are the American Islamic charities (Islam is the third most popular religion in America, after Christianity and Judaism)? Where are the Bah'ai charities, which also tried to get funds? Where are the Krishna groups' funds? Where are funds for the Quakers? Funds for groups outside of what our government dictates to be the mainstream do not exist. This, my friend, is promoting the establishment of religion by our government, and the reason for the lawsuit.

2) Many of the faith based charities which are getting government money are scams. For instance, Pat Robertson, who I already mentioned above, used his donations, not for humanitarian efforts, but to fund his lavish lifestyle and personal business ventures.

3) Why should Robertson be on the list? His contributions to the Bush campaigns are one good reason he is on that list, or received grant money from FEMA. So did other religious Neocons who promoted the Bush campaigns. Herbert J. Lusk II also promoted Bush, and also got a one million dollar grant from FEMA.

4) While Atheist Charities does not have a great track record as you say, that is not a valid argument, since blatant thieves like Robinson are already getting money.

5) A few charities which receive grants require those who seek aid to pray. This not only clearly violates the establishment clause, but is antichristian in that Jesus made no such requirements. Those who found God did so because they wanted to.

6) Now back to the Separation of Church and State issue - On Feb. 10, 2001, a well known self proclaimed minister ranted and raved about the evils of faith based initiatives. In his speech, he cited a well reasoned fear that, once religious institutions accept government money, they could end up being enslaved by government. Who was this evangelist? None other than our favorite hypocrite Pat Robertson, who has since demonstrated that his faith and devotion can be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Question to Pat Robertson: Do you belive in God and Jesus Christ?

Robertson: How much is my answer worth to you?

 

[Stinger]

I don't like it. An executive order should not be used to allow funding of faith-based groups whatever their intentions.

If they are not prostelitizing why not give them assistance just like any other group?

These groups should raise money on their own without government assistance.

Then why not all other groups too?

President Bush has crossed the line in other ways

Well let's deal with this precieved on your part crossing.

 

[MSgt]

Of course, Americans want to be generous, but at what cost? Guess who is getting FEMA money? Operation USA, which has 25 years of experience in disaster relief? How about Pat Robertson instead? Bingo. Robertson's Operation Blessing is near the top of the list on the FEMA brochure, which designates faith based charities almost excusively. Secular organizations with extensive disaster relief histories are almost completely left out. What does Robertson have a history of doing with donations? Mining gold and silver, and buying race horses. In addition to being named as someone people should contribute to, the US Government gave Robertson a million in cash.

Now why should anyone be upset at this? I can give several reasons:

1) While Robertson and his church is getting such favorable treatment from the government, The Nation of Islam was given nothing, although they also applied for faith based funds for the black community. Those charites which are religious, which are featured in the list, are mostly Christian or Jewish. Where are the American Islamic charities (Islam is the third most popular religion in America, after Christianity and Judaism)? Where are the Bah'ai charities, which also tried to get funds? Where are the Krishna groups' funds? Where are funds for the Quakers? Funds for groups outside of what our government dictates in the mainstream do not exist. This, my friend, is promoting the establishment of religion by our government, and the reason for the lawsuit.

2) Many of the faith based charities which are getting government money are scams. For instance, Pat Robertson, who I already mentioned above, used his donations, not for humanitarian efforts, but to fund his lavish lifestyle and personal business ventures.

3) Why should Robertson be on the list? His contributions to the Bush campaigns are one good reason he is on that list, or received grant money from FEMA. So did other religious Neocons show promoted the Bush campaigns, Herbert J. Lusk II also promoted Bush, and also got a one million dollar grant from FEMA.

4) While Atheist Charities does not have a great track record as you say, that is not a valid argument, since blatant thieves like Robinson are already getting money.

5) A few charities which receive grants require those who seek aid to pray. This not only clearly violates the establishment clause, but is antichristian in that Jesus made no such requirements. Those who found God did so because they wanted to.

6) Now back to the Separation of Church and State issue - On Feb. 10, 2001, a well known self proclaimed minister ranted and raved about the evils of faith based initiatives. In his speech, he cited a well reasoned fear that, once religious institutions accept government money, they could end up being enslaved by government. Who was this evangelist? None other than our favorite hypocrite Pat Robertson, who has since demonstrated that his faith and devotion can be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Question to Pat Robertson: Do you belive in God and Jesus Christ?

Robertson: How much is my answer worth to you?

This is mere partisan desperation to reach for yet another excuse to bash and create controversey. Why do I get the feeling that their are plenty of facts ommitted here?

 

[danarhea]

This is mere partisan desperation to reach for yet another excuse to bash and create controversey. Why do I get the feeling that their are plenty of facts ommitted here?

If you have something to cite, then cite it. Or do you belive that Pat Robertson is an honest man? Read the links, then see what you can come up with to rebut them.

 

[MSgt]

If you have something to cite, then cite it. Or do you belive that Pat Robertson is an honest man? Read the links, then see what you can come up with to rebut them.

I think Pat Robertson is a big-mouthed idiot who uses his status to do as he pleases. I think Pat Robertson has shot his mouth off far too often and does not belong in the political arena in the manner that he has chosen. I think Pat Robertson is not a man of God in the same light as I would see Billy Graham. I need no links to know this. Nor do I need links to rebut feigned paranoia merely meant to bash.

 

[danarhea]

I think Pat Robertson is a big-mouthed idiot who uses his status to do as he pleases. I think Pat Robertson has shot his mouth off far too often and does not belong in the political arena in the manner that he has chosen. I think Pat Robertson is not a man of God in the same light as I would see Billy Graham. I need no links to know this. Nor do I need links to rebut feigned paranoia merely meant to bash.

Whether or not you think this thread is meant to bash, or is the product of what you perceive as paranoia, is irrelevant. You do need links, or do you have first hand knowlege of the events? Lets be specific:

Do you admit or deny Operation blessing, owned by Pat Robertson, required those asking for assistance to state whether they "consider themselves saved from eternal damnation because they are observant Christians"?

Do you admit or deny that, in 1999, Robertson's organization was denied funding because of this requirement?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson decries big government?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson has no problems taking money from big government, and has taken in more than one million?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson's tax exempt status was revoked because he used his church for political purposes?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson attempted to sell Bank of Scotland accounts to his parishoners?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to buy a half million dollar race horse?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to fund his own private gold mining operations in Africa?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to fun his own private diamond mining operations in Africa?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson supported at least 2 brutal dictators, who murdered their own people?

Do you admit or deny that one of the African dictators was a business partner of Pat Robertson, in regard to his gold mining operation?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to buy an oil refinery?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to buy oil storage tanks and depots in Huntington, California?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson bought the 700 club using money donated to him for humanitarian purposes?

Be specific please. If you run out of space, you may use up to 8 additional reams of blank paper.

Seriously, Pick just one of these points and make an admission or denial. Please use a link to rebut that point. Just because you say it is so doesnt make it so. Or are you one of the experts with first hand knowlege? If so, please document your experience which you feels qualifies you for not having to post a link.

 

[MSgt]

Whether or not you think this thread is meant to bash, or is the product of what you perceive is paranoid, is irrelevant. You do need links, or do you have first hand knowlege of the events. Lets be specific:

Do you admit or deny Operation blessing, owned by Pat Robertson, required those asking for assistance to state whether they "consider themselves saved from eternal damnation because they are observant Christians"?

Do you admit or deny that, in 1999, Robertson's organization was denied funding because of this requirement?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson decries big government?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson has no problems taking money from big government, and has taken in more than one million?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson's tax exempt status was revoked because he used his church for political purposes?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson attempted to sell Bank of Scotland accounts to his parishoners?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to buy a half million dollar race horse?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to fund his own private gold mining operations in Africa?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to fun his own private diamond mining operations in Africa?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson supported at least 2 brutal dictators, who murdered their own people?

Do you admit or deny that one of the African dictators was a business partner of Pat Robertson, in regard to his gold mining operation?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to buy an oil refinery?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson used donations to buy oil storage tanks and depots in Huntington, California?

Do you admit or deny Pat Robertson bought the 700 club using money donated to him for humanitarian purposes?

Be specific please. If you run out of space, you may use up to 8 reams of blank paper. Seriously, Pick just one of these points and make an admission or denial. Please use a link to rebut that point. Just because you say it is so doesnt make it so. Or are you one of the experts with first hand knowlege? If so, please document your experience which you feels qualifies you as not having to post a link.

Frankly, I don't care. It's pointless. I never gave him any money. President Bush has friends and he has not forsaken them while he has been in office. Wow, I wonder if any Presidents have ever done that before. I wonder if any Presidents have had idiot friends. Don't you have a life outside of bashing?

 

[danarhea]

Frankly, I don't care. It's pointless. I never gave him any money. President Bush has friends and he has not forsaken them while he has been in office. Wow, I wonder if any Presidents have ever done that before. I wonder if any Presidents have had idiot friends. Don't you have a life outside of bashing?

1) I don't care. That is obvious, but does not speak to the point.

2) President Bush has friends and he has not forsaken them while he has been in office. Which means that, as long as he supports Bush, then his relationships with dictators who murder their own people, and his use of funds intended to feed starving people for his own business interests is OK with you?

3) Wow, I wonder if any Presidents have ever done that before. I wonder if any Presidents have had idiot friends. I am sure they did also do things which are just as bad. However, this thread is not about them. Start a thread about them, and I will more than happy to post in that thread that I agree with you. Aside from that, irrelevant to the subject material at hand.

4) Don't you have a life outside of bashing? Yet another sorry attempt at sidestepping the issue, and once again, irrelevant.

Your whining is hereby thrown out of this court of public opinion.

 

[MSgt]

1) I don't care. That is obvious, but does not speak to the point.

2) President Bush has friends and he has not forsaken them while he has been in office. Which means that, as long as he supports Bush, then his relationships with dictators who murder their own people, and his use of funds intended to feed starving people for his own business interests is OK with you?

3) Wow, I wonder if any Presidents have ever done that before. I wonder if any Presidents have had idiot friends. I am sure they did also do things which are just as bad. However, this thread is not about them. Start a thread about them, and I will more than happy to post in that thread that I agree with you. Aside from that, irrelevant to the subject material at hand.

4) Don't you have a life outside of bashing? Yet another sorry attempt at sidestepping the issue, and once again, irrelevant.

Your whining is hereby thrown out of this court of public opinion.

Bwahahahaha! Such desperation.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by danarhea
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a case which seeks to find President Bush's faith based initiative violates separation between church and state. This program was instituted by Bush in an executive order, thus bypassing Congress, and has also never been tested by the courts as to its consitutionality, ruled the appelate court. This is going to be a good case to follow. I have my own reasons why the faith-based initiatives should be shot down, but would like to hear the views of a few others on both sides first.

It's about time the judiciary started putting a stop to this sh!t.

 

[akyron]

It's about time the judiciary started putting a stop to this sh!t.

I would agree but meanwhile people are homeless and starving. I would like to see some solutions and alternatives being offered instead of the usual pointless front and center ranting.
What Pat Robersons says matters little if at all in the big picture. He can barely speak for himself let alone God.


"The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson


Pat Robertson is merely one nut in a forest of acorn trees and can/should be marginalized off the page where he belongs.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

As much as I agree that Robertson is a snake, I'm just going to go back to the thread.

Madison, Wis. - A group can sue the federal government over claims that President Bush's faith-based initiative is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, a federal appeals court ruled.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated the lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The group claims Bush's program, which helps religious organizations get government funding to provide social services, violates the separation of church and state.

Is it an unlawful establishment of religion, like when Congress forced the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance is? Or is sending federal dollars to subsidize a church's charity work merely a means of using available resources without "endorsing" anything? Tricky.

Personally, I think that a party campaigning on a "smaller government" platform is being hypocritical when it expands government influence into yet another sphere where it doesn't belong. But they're Republicans, and the last highway appropriations bill alone proves conclusively that the GOP doesn't give a crap about it's "platform".

The bigger question is if the government has the authority to spend taxpayer money on objects of charity. James Madison says "no".

If it's "charity", then clearly it's not proper to be stealing the money from people who don't want to volunteer it. You know, the old "your money, our choice" scam so beloved of the goody-two-shoes crowds.

But suing is a fine first step to stop the expansion, if the courts can be trusted to read the Constitution, which they can't.

 

[Middleground]

Bwahahahaha! Such desperation.

Shesh, GySgt, is that all you got? Dan spends a bit of time to carefully layout and explain his logic (which I think is most excellent and eye-opening) and you come back with "such desperation." I thought you were more open-minded. Now you reply like Navy Pride.

Instead of accusing the messenger, why don't you try to debunk the message? If it bothers you so, and if you feel Dan is being misleading, then debate away. I, for one, would be interested in hearing your side of things, though, of course, if done properly.

Just a quick question. How do you feel about separation of church and state? I get the feeling that you don't agree with it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Orginally posted by akyron
I would agree but meanwhile people are homeless and starving. I would like to see some solutions and alternatives being offered instead of the usual pointless front and center ranting.

Solutions about the homeless and starving or a run-away Presidency that doesn't have a clue about God?

 

[Hoot]

Most of you know that I am no fan of Bush, however, I'm leaning toward support of the faith based initiatives.

Why? Because I believe churches can do a far better job of helping the poor in this nation then any government program can hope to achieve.

Perhaps the problem can be solved by doing away with the tax exemptions of churches that receive government funding?

If this is in violation of the separation of church and state, then so be it, but perhaps the Prez could implore the American people, through donations, to support these programs without taxpayer money?

 

[Engimo]

Why? Because I believe churches can do a far better job of helping the poor in this nation then any government program can hope to achieve.

For what reason? This is a baseless claim without statistics or some sort of reasoning.

Perhaps the problem can be solved by doing away with the tax exemptions of churches that receive government funding?

How about we get rid of tax exemptions for all churches, eh? Then we could fund a whole bunch of public welfare projects.

If this is in violation of the separation of church and state, then so be it, but perhaps the Prez could implore the American people, through donations, to support these programs without taxpayer money?

I'm sorry, but you can't do that. You can't just say "Well, this violates the 1st Amendment, but what the hell!". If you think Faith-Based Initiatives are a good idea, get a constitutional amendment passed that makes them legal. Until such time, we're gonna have to get rid of them.

 

[KCConservative]

FYI

Post #3 is a bold faced lie. The poster wrote the untruthful quote and attibuted it to me. I never said it. Never. He made it up and is trying to pass it off as one of my quotes. His post has been reported because it is a lie.

:2mad: