Separation of Church and State

[MrFun]

I was informed from a friend earlier this evening, that the Senate refused to even floor a proposal that the federal government can legally offer financial contributions to religious denominations.

President Bush, being the high-handed, arrogant SOB, decided to invoke executive authority, and enact this into law anyway, against the Sentate's wishes.


Seems like President Bush never heard of this concept in American law called "separation of the church and state."

What can President Bush get away with before mainstream, moderate voters realize that he is an extremist??

[Shi Huangdi]

link?

[MrFun]

I tried doing a search on cnn.com -- no luck.

My friend said he found this out today from the news -- I can try searching again.

[MrFun]

Found it -- but this happened last month, so it's old news, I guess.

Violation of American Law

[MrFun]

Click on the damn link, Shi.

[Shi Huangdi]

Yup, interesting story.

[MrFun]

So how did Bush, last month, get away with violating the separation of the church and state??


More, and more, he seems to be appearing somewhat of an extremist more so than the usual moderate Republicans.

[Shi Huangdi]

Na, I think this is more of a moderate "wedge" issue. It's not really a direct assault on seperation of Church and State, it's not as though he is directly funding denominations as the thread titled suggested. So long as the money is going to stuff like helping religious organizations fund their soup kitchens, it shouldn't be a problem. I think Bush may be overestimating the effect this has on energizing his religious voting base.

[MrFun]

You just wait and see what happens . . .

religious leaders will join other secular leaders at the mudpit and pig trough, squealing and salivating for money from the government.

And then other religious denominations will complain and maybe could even sue the federal government for discrimination if they perceive that the government is neglecting to give aid to other less dominant denominations.

I see all kinds of possible problems that can arise from this stupid law.

[mrmitchell]

I hear that Bush did something I didn't like! It must be a day of the week ending in 'y'!

[Kuciwalker]

I think that it's fine, so long is it's a charity. Why hurt people trying to help needy people?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Na, I think this is more of a moderate "wedge" issue. It's not really a direct assault on seperation of Church and State, it's not as though he is directly funding denominations as the thread titled suggested. So long as the money is going to stuff like helping religious organizations fund their soup kitchens, it shouldn't be a problem. I think Bush may be overestimating the effect this has on energizing his religious voting base.

And just as long as the Patriot Act is only used against terrorists, it's fine.

Of course, it seems as though meth labs count as terrorist chemical weapon manufacture, money forgery counts as something terrorist, and being a journalist counts as being an ISP with terrorist-related records...

Oh, crap, did I just say that the Bush administration abuses its own laws? Oh, my. What an outrage. After all, Bush is a 100% competent president.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by skywalker
I think that it's fine, so long is it's a charity. Why hurt people trying to help needy people?

Hurt? Religious people aren't prevented from working in a non-religious charity. If they just want to help people as an advertisement for their brand of the One True Way, they can do it on their own money. o_0

[PLATO]

The only "Seperation of Church and State" that I find in my Conctitution says that the Government shall not set up a State sponsoed Church. You guys got a newer version?? I would love to see where it says that the goernment can't help the needy just because the service provider is owned by a Church.

[mrmitchell]

Well, from the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,