Faith-Based Government Funding

[ClydeR]

I wasn't going to post anything about this, but two different people in this forum emailed asking for my opinion. My approach is different from what you probably expected.

You've probably seen the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShGDZhOWRT0) of a church in Connecticut exorcizing the "homosexual demon" from a teenager.

My opinion is that the government should not get involved in controlling what churches do as part of their worship services. And churches should not get any government funding for their ministry activities, unless the funding is part of a government effort to address societal ills. That leads to the question of whether or not churches that perform gay exorcisms should get government funding for their efforts under President Obama's expanded version (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=41587) of President Bush's faith based initiative.

President Obama has made more explicit use of religious references in public that President Bush did.


As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

More... (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html)

But there are questions about whether Obama is sincere. There was no reason for the press to question Bush's sincerity because everybody knew that Bush was sincere.


“I applaud that. It gives people a sense of comfort,” Perkins said. “But I think it’s a veneer, a facade that covers over a lot of policies that are anti-Christian.” That includes, in his view, Obama’s stance in favor of abortion rights.

More... (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html)

The government should not give money to religious ministries just because the ministries are politically helpful to the President. Instead, ministries should have equal access to government funding along with non-religious charities. Rigorous adherence to the rule that only success should be rewarded would prove Obama's sincerity.

If the church group in Connecticut can prove that it has performed more than one successful homosexual exorcism, then -- and only then -- should it be able to compete for government funds set aside for faith-based and other charities.

[Bhuryn]

I doubt anyone on the forum gives a shit about your opinion enough to bother emailing you.

[Androidpk]

http://i42.tinypic.com/25aqakn.jpg

[Gan]

I think every ClydeR thread needs to be spammed with homosexual art.

[Parkbandit]

I wasn't going to post anything about this, but two different people in this forum emailed asking for my opinion.

Pretty sure emailing yourself from two different accounts doesn't count as two different people emailing you for your opinion.

[Geshron]

I hope there are tons more Anti-Christian policies.

By that I mean specifically, so they fucking leave gay people alone. And so they don't attempt to teach my kids creationism, or even have the forum to debate that in.

[ClydeR]

...or even have the forum to debate that in.

That's the problem. Too many liberals want to shut down debate and silence those with dissenting views. Some liberals even want to transform dissenting views into "hate crimes." It's unamerican.

[Gan]

That's the problem. Too many liberals want to shut down debate and silence those with dissenting views. Some liberals even want to transform dissenting views into "hate crimes." It's unamerican.

So you'd be ok with classes discussing sexuality and homsexuality topics in public schools?

[Kembal]

So you'd be ok with classes discussing sexuality and homsexuality topics in public schools?

You fell into the trap! :)

(he's still just a persona)

[Stanley Burrell]

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii243/Desviaciion/orcyay.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I hope there are tons more Anti-Christian policies.

By that I mean specifically, so they fucking leave gay people alone. And so they don't attempt to teach my kids creationism, or even have the forum to debate that in.

Yea! We should burn the Bible and close down all the Churches Geshron doesn't agree with.. just so he can prance around in peace!

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/Images/gay-pride-parade-fairy.jpg

[ClydeR]

You fell into the trap!

I'm not the genius that Kembal makes me out to be. Gan's question is perfectly legitimate.

The answer is no. Of course you should not teach sexuality and homosexuality topics in schools. If you teach such things to teenagers, then they will experiment with it, which will lead to teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. That's the risk of teaching kids about sex.

What's the risk of teaching kids about creationism? That they'll create a universe? No, there's no risk to exposing children to the science of creationism.

[Stanley Burrell]

If you teach such things to teenagers, then they will experiment with it, which will lead to teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

This is a very good point you make. They taught me about sex education and gay and lesbian lifestyles when I was in the seventh grade -- And I immediately walked into a gay bar and had my bunghole penetrated by at least 5 different STDs from lots of minority's and poor people's small penises.

It was only until the Church later saved me that I was able to have normal, proper missionary-style intercourse twice a year with my wife and move to the state of Mississippi.

Praise Jesus and may Obama's gay agenda burn in hell.

[Gan]

You fell into the trap! :)

(he's still just a persona)

Yes, there was a trap there, but it was not a trap that ClydeR made...
And yes, I know he's just a persona, yet this juant through hypocrisy looks to be amusing.



The answer is no. Of course you should not teach sexuality and homosexuality topics in schools.


That's the problem. Too many [conservatives] want to shut down debate and silence those with dissenting views. ... It's unamerican.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Latrinsorm]

What's the risk of teaching kids about creationism? That they'll create a universe?Hey man, people probably scoffed at David Whatley when he set out to create the most immersive and persistent MMORPG the world has ever known... and continue to do so... so uh... can you repeat the question?

[Geshron]

Yea! We should burn the Bible and close down all the Churches Geshron doesn't agree with.. just so he can prance around in peace!

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/Images/gay-pride-parade-fairy.jpg

Yes, I'm so gay. Yet I voted for McCain and have 20,000+ conservative-edged posts on a forum for a text-based game that less than 1,000 people nowadays acknowledge or understand.

Oh woops, that's not me...

Really dude. I don't promote any form of intolerance, religious or otherwise. If you care to debate when in our natural history a fucking SNAKE spoke to a MAN then start another thread. Until then quit weakly attempting to bash your fellow nerds with homosexual claims because I fully disagree with the religious right. I disagree with anything that promotes intolerance. If there were more substance to your character than incessant liberal bashing, I'd have something else to talk about but sadly that isn't the case.

[Seran]

And churches should not get any government funding for their ministry activities, unless the funding is part of a government effort to address societal ills.

Which church,

Which faith,

Who determines which "ills" the church's can address?

---
The government should not be in the business of picking which church's to champion. A public body cannot do so without endorsing one faith as being superior to others.

The U.S. Constitution says;

No religious funding whatsoever, no dictation of the faith US citizens should follow. These are what is espoused by the Bill of Rights, so leave it the hell alone.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, I'm so gay. Yet I voted for McCain and have 20,000+ conservative-edged posts on a forum for a text-based game that less than 1,000 people nowadays acknowledge or understand.

Oh woops, that's not me...

Really dude. I don't promote any form of intolerance, religious or otherwise. If you care to debate when in our natural history a fucking SNAKE spoke to a MAN then start another thread. Until then quit weakly attempting to bash your fellow nerds with homosexual claims because I fully disagree with the religious right. I disagree with anything that promotes intolerance. If there were more substance to your character than incessant liberal bashing, I'd have something else to talk about but sadly that isn't the case.

Read your post again. You disagree with anything that promotes intolerence... As long as you agree with it. Otherwise, you want to remove their ability to debate their viewpoint.

Your posts are a perfect example of hypocrisy.

[Geshron]

Last time I checked I didn't say I didn't tolerate conservatives.

I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to insure you couldn't enjoy the same quality of life as myself just because we have different political and moral viewpoints. That's precisely where I draw the line, the moment this differing opinion crosses my front door, or yours for that matter.

Am I intolerant of Christians in particular? Absolutely, but purely on the basis that they can't just fucking stay out of the rest of humanity's business. Since a very early age I have been completely lost on the concept of concerning myself with my neighbor's business, politics, sexual orientation or practice, or anything of the sort. Private, or otherwise. It also annihilates the premise of "love thy neighbor". It should be finished "love thy neighbor...but, be weary and vigilant of thy neighbor, and if thy neighbor should be homosexual, Muslim, Atheist, or even Agnostic, try to circumvent their personal choice and impose".

Nor do I raise my voice or get genuinely upset during a debate of conflicting view. Honestly, that was a fine attempt at contorting what it is I said to make me seem equally intolerant. If by intolerant in my particular instance, you mean that I have no patience, respect or desire to attempt to understand a certain group of people believing an arbitrary set of moral guidelines written by their fellow men, then I'll wear the title proudly. I can live with that, as I have no concern for their imaginary immortality or supernatural and arcane belief system. I'm not losing a wink, assuredly.

[AnticorRifling]

I remember when I thought it was cool to be intolerant based on retarded assumptions that lumped everyone of a certain belief into a stereotype.

[Parkbandit]

I remember when I thought it was cool to be intolerant based on retarded assumptions that lumped everyone of a certain belief into a stereotype.

Seriously. I didn't know that believing in fiscal conservative values automatically forced me to believe in God and hate all gay people.

[Geshron]

Seriously. I didn't know that believing in fiscal conservative values automatically forced me to believe in God and hate all gay people.

Oh so you agree with Ron Paul then?!

LIBERTARIAN! I SAID IT!

I'm kidding, this is a redundant argument but at least took away from ClydeR's original and useless point.

[Parkbandit]

Oh so you agree with Ron Paul then?!

LIBERTARIAN! I SAID IT!

I'm kidding, this is a redundant argument but at least took away from ClydeR's original and useless point.

Ron Paul's been far more accurate about the economy than anyone else. He's just too radical for my personal tastes. I'm all for smaller government, but he wants like 3 government employees total.

[ClydeR]

Which church,

Which faith,

Who determines which "ills" the church's can address?

Everybody knows, or should know, what is ailing society. But if it's unclear, then we let the majority determine it through our duly elected (which would exclude Al Franken) representatives and president, even when he is a Democrat.

[ClydeR]

Read your post again. You disagree with anything that promotes intolerence... As long as you agree with it.

Yes! That's exactly the problem with some of these people.

[Latrinsorm]

It also annihilates the premise of "love thy neighbor".I don't know if you have kids or not. If not, suppose you have one, and if so, suppose you have another one. Would you concern yourself with your hypothetical child's business, politics, etc.? Would you, for instance, tell your hypothetical child that lying is wrong, or that doing heroin is bad? If you would not have such concern, could you honestly say that you loved your hypothetical child?

This line of questioning would best be viewed in the absence of a position on whatever ClydeR is talking about and whatever PB is talking about, as one's a brainwashed quasi-automaton and the other is ClydeR. It so happens that I neither approve of nor endorse so-called Christians condemning homosexuality.

Christ's love is not the love of "be nice to and always agree with". Christ came to set brother against brother, mother against daughter, the world aflame. His model is not deferential, it is intimate, which is essentially the same as very intrusive.

[Geshron]

Ron Paul's been far more accurate about the economy than anyone else. He's just too radical for my personal tastes. I'm all for smaller government, but he wants like 3 government employees total.

We completely agree on something. I only trust his fiscal sense. He seems to be regularly spot-on. I would fear for all federal employees if he were elected, however.

[Seran]

Vote Ron Paul, 2012!

[radamanthys]

I'm not sure Paul himself is right for the presidency. He can stay where he is- probably more effective that way. And will be there longer.

His ideas are right for that office, though. And the rest of congress, as well.