Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Shadowman wrote:When I start paying taxes, I don't want them to use it on groups that burn children's fantasy books, and tell me that either I follow their rules, or go to hell.

I'm not saying all Christian groups do that, I just don't want to fund the ones that do.

exactly why I stopped going to church around age 7 (not that my church did it, but hearing about stuff like that made me care less and less about religion as a whole.)

Hi! It's "Mrs. Caelus" :: raise eyebrow::

Anyways, to all you non-U.S. Government-freaks:
The article was a bit confusing. The Plymouth Rock was a great big hypothetical that the Justices keep pounding Clement with and he keeps having more and more problems arguing his case. (Which is Let Pres. Bush put money where he wants, it only violates the establishment clause if Congress does it. This is because of court precedents that are confusing even the Justices and Lawyers in question. It says that as a taxpayer, you cannot question the Executive branches spending on the establishment clause issue. But there are different interpretations of the precedents, hence the issue. The issue is not truly the establishment clause but if the taxpayers can question an executive action.)(I think)

I suggest skimming the court transcript if you are interested. It is rather funny. There's not a lot of "legal-esse" and the transcriptionist even put in "(Laughter)".

I'm currently on page 25 out of 73. And that is where I have gotten the info in this post. I could be rather wrong about some of this, I am just a student of government, not a practitioner or a teacher.

Also, it does not seem that the money is actually going to a church, but to good-works organizations that are based in relgion. Like a organization of Baptist women who get together on Wednesdays and feed the homeless. Even AA, it could be argued, is a relgious organization. I don't have a problem with the program, except for the fact that Pres. Bush seems to be targeting specificly good-works organizations that are religious in nature. There would be nothing wrong, in my eyes, with giving those Baptist women govenrment money, if they also considered giving money to the good city of Whatever, USA organizations that have no particular religious affilation.

Hope this helps. As I said, I could be wrong.

Exactly why would an "atheist" care to begin with?

Fine their tax payers, but why should they get money like a church group. They have no religion, so it really doesn't consist of the same thing imho. Or are they just looking for something to whine about, since it's not Christmas time.

But hey our money goes to pay senators, presidents, governors, mayors and all their entourages.

But no one complains about that, even though they all DO SQUAT, 9 times out of 10 to help our country. Example...Ted Kennedy, George W Bush, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Mckane(sp)....should I go on.

Instead of trying to fix, our inward problems, they focus on, lets fix the middle east, lets help Africa, but our homeless and sick die in the streets. Cause we're so uppity on the lets fix the world, just not ourselves bs.
Or the constant bs from every side, more money for schools.

Yet kids still don't receive an education equaling the amount of our tax dollars going to these schools.

I'm saying this about both sides of the fence.

But here we are worried about some poor atheist who's got his panties in a bunch.

And because it's Bush, it's automatically wrong. But it was ok for the Clinton's to screw with religion and mix it with government.

Think about it though. Wasn't this country founded on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press? Wasn't that the very reason why the pilgrims broke away from the motherland? Granted things are very different now. but the principle exists still today in our society. Nowadays You see religious groups competing left and right for the hearts of the people. at one moment you've got two well dressed men standing at your door asking you if you're prepared for Jehovah's return. and the next you see an ad from the Christian Children's Fund. It's essentially a big race to get the most followers before the big day comes! and with quite a few, the policy is either you're with them or against them. If one thinks about it, the sad truth is a lot of people in this world just can not, and will not accept another's faith. we all have that mindset, what we were raised on is an ineffable truth that cannot be changed. Why does bush want to favor towards the Christian side of things? Why does he want us to pay our hard earned tax money to those Christian groups? Because he's a bloody Christian that's why. People tend to be in favor of what they like. It's human nature, and it's also human nature to want others to believe in our faith too. Me myself, I don't think that bush should be paying the American Taxpayers' money to something that HE believes in. Before he builds another church of Jesus, he should consider those who could have had a temple of Bhudda, or another place where someone other than a Christian is welcome to worship.
you don't catch bees with flypaper my friends, and they will sting you if you try... think about it!

I am an Ordained minister and I honestly working on forming my own religion because the hypocrisy of it all makes me laugh.

America was founded as a Christian nation this is true. However due to the constitution a separation of Church and State was imposed. This separation has nothing to do with the line "One Nation under God" People who say that the separation of church and states forbids that line are clearly idiots. The separation of Church and State was instituted to guarantee that the central government never had a single secular religion associated like much of Europe.

Our Tax money should not be used to build a christian church. However if proper documents can be provided of a previous church that was located in Plymouth Rock then it would fall in as a replica of American History.

Just my $0.02

GUYS!

They aren't using tax payer money to build a church at Plymouth Rock. That was hyperbole, metaphor.

The issue is Bush is spending money to promote religiously based charities at the exclusion of nonreligiously based charities.

The US Government isn't building any churches!!!

Rodimus Lantern wrote:I am an Ordained minister and I honestly working on forming my own religion because the hypocrisy of it all makes me laugh.

America was founded as a Christian nation this is true. However due to the constitution a separation of Church and State was imposed. This separation has nothing to do with the line "One Nation under God" People who say that the separation of church and states forbids that line are clearly idiots. The separation of Church and State was instituted to guarantee that the central government never had a single secular religion associated like much of Europe.

Our Tax money should not be used to build a christian church. However if proper documents can be provided of a previous church that was located in Plymouth Rock then it would fall in as a replica of American History.

Just my $0.02

And what a $0.02 it was!

Caelus wrote:GUYS!

They aren't using tax payer money to build a church at Plymouth Rock. That was hyperbole, metaphor.

The issue is Bush is spending money to promote religiously based charities at the exclusion of nonreligiously based charities.

The US Government isn't building any churches!!!

Ah I see.... Now only if I wouldn't post while I am doped up on Nyquil. lol

Well in this case I still feel that the money should not be spend solely on religiously based charities unless they have a cure for aides or cancer they are willing to trade. lol