Separation?....We don't need no separation!!

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: WingZero94

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: WingZero94
Where in the constitution is does it say separation of church and state?

It doesn't, although it does prohibit establishment of and infringement on religions. If the government were, hypothetically, reimbursing only Christian faith-based groups, and refusing to repay other, similarly-situated faith-based groups, it would probably violate the Establishment Clause. I don't think that's the case in this instance, however.

Yea, you're right. They are reimbursing all faith based organizations, Christian, Jew, Scientologists, Etc.

People always get on the Seperation of Church and State thing and the constitution. Thomas Jefferson said it to protect the church from the state.

Actually, he stated it for the exact opposite and rightfully so. He was afraid of leaders being coerced or manipulated into forcing a specific religious doctrine down the throats of the people therefore abolishing other people's right to practice their religion freely.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

As for the others that asked me the specific question:

How is this unconstitutional?

Maybe this will help determine if it is/isn't?

In 1971, the Supreme Court decided Lemon v. Kurtzman which created three tests for determining whether a particular government act or policy unconstitutionally promotes religion.

The Lemon test says that in order to be constitutional, a policy must:

1. Have a non-religious purpose;
2. Not end up promoting or favoring any set of religious beliefs; and
3. Not overly involve the government with religion.

Now, if ANY of the groups that helped were holding services that any of the evacuees had to attend, they have broken rule #1. I know that the argument will be that they were there to help, which I don't doubt. But I also know through volunteering, that shelters often make those that would like to partake in their generosity sit through a sermon before they are allowed to eat or sleep at their place. If that was the case at any of these as well....they have violated the constitution by giving federal funds to them.

I would think that the army holding recruiting events outside of the astrodome would probably make the churches think that if they can do it....so can we.

if they broke rule number 1 i may agree with you that they shouldn't receive funding. the gov't shouldn't endorse a religious group preying on people in a tough situation.

 

[piasabird]

Without these faith based groups a lot of people would be living on the street!

Personally I would rather see the Government just funnel help through them in the form of food and aid to the survivors. Many faith-based groups such as Mormons dont beleive in asking the government for money. However, they can not keep giving forever, sooner or later supplies run low and something has to be done for the survivors. Lets not let our hatred of religion cause people to go hungry or be kicked out on the street! Do you hate religion so much that you would not help people?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Without these faith based groups a lot of people would be living on the street!

Personally I would rather see the Government just funnel help through them in the form of food and aid to the survivors. Many faith-based groups such as Mormons dont beleive in asking the government for money. However, they can not keep giving forever, sooner or later supplies run low and something has to be done for the survivors. Lets not let our hatred of religion cause people to go hungry or be kicked out on the street! Do you hate religion so much that you would not help people?

1. do people who give up rooms in their own homes and give food from their table get compensated?

2. aren't these churches funded by the members? Do those members get a cut of the return?

and just for the fun of it..

"Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4

But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Luke 14:13-14

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Acts 20:35

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
II Corinthians 9:7

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: conjurWhile I'm not thrilled with tax dollars going to faith-based groups, as long as those groups don't preach to or try to convert the victims, I don't have as much of a problem with it, esp. given the magnitude of the storms that have hit that area.

Indeed that's the problem with funding religious organizations with government money...sure they are helping people who are in need...but is the government money enabling the church to proselytize as well? If there is any danger that government money is being used for spreading religion...government money should stay out!

the same can be said for any organization that helps people and gets reimbursed. Are we going to apply a litmus test of whether or not we believe in that organizations belief's and determine if their beliefs are upto snuff and give them their reimbursement?

Careful what you wish for because it is a two way street.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Kalbi
Since when is "freedom of religion" equal to "separation of church and state"?

Exactly. Still waiting for OP to answer my question.

Well thats so easy I'll answer it. Freedom of religion is infringed when the government supports one religion or group of religions monetarily.

They arent endorsing the religion but reimbursing them for their help.

 

[TheSlamma]

Jefferson said it to protect the church from the state.

Now instead it's the state that needs the protection 😉

 

[glenn1]

I am sick of this administration thinking that the constitution doesn't apply to them.

Your reading comprehension skills must be as poor as your grasp of Constitutional principles and the nature of the federal government system.

According to the article, religious groups that operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state and local governments in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would be eligible.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I don't see why this is an issue.

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
I don't see why this is an issue.

It's not. Just another Bush hater post...

Topic Summary: Bush administration blurries lines between church and state

 

[WingZero94]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: piasabird
Without these faith based groups a lot of people would be living on the street!

Personally I would rather see the Government just funnel help through them in the form of food and aid to the survivors. Many faith-based groups such as Mormons dont beleive in asking the government for money. However, they can not keep giving forever, sooner or later supplies run low and something has to be done for the survivors. Lets not let our hatred of religion cause people to go hungry or be kicked out on the street! Do you hate religion so much that you would not help people?

1. do people who give up rooms in their own homes and give food from their table get compensated?

2. aren't these churches funded by the members? Do those members get a cut of the return?

and just for the fun of it..

"Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4

But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Luke 14:13-14

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Acts 20:35

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
II Corinthians 9:7

Nicely put.

 

[MicroChrome]

Yeah, nicely put... It all really sound good till you figure out the money you have been putting in the hat that has been passed around a billion times maybe 10% might be going to help out the cause... Damn the pope needs another new gold hub cap....

I don't buy into it. Never will ... There are better organizations like the red cross that do it better...