Lawsuit challenges bill that would allow religious discrimination

http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=3025

+++++++++++++++++++++++
With all the talk about the seperation of church and state as of late I found this fairly interesting.

Get a load of this guy:
+++++
Harper Lawson, a spokesman for Barrow, said his boss voted as he did because he “believes that religious and faith-based organizations should have the freedom to hire individuals of their own faith” and that he thinks “it is unreasonable for the federal government to force a religious or faith-based organization to hire individuals”
++++++++
And of course hes right. Except for the fact that these group are receiving taxpayers money. Maybe I should refuse to pay taxes because it will go to people who believe in god....think they would accept that excuse?

:@@:

And the bill passed, surprise, surprise...

House OKs Bill on Faith-Based Jobs
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=4&u=/latimests/20050303/ts_latimes/houseoksbillonfaithbasedjobs

meanwhile, hardcore liberals want the term B.C. taken out of text books.....

Not to mention they cant stand the ten commandments being anywhere. My one question is this.... if you actually READ the ten commandments, what is wrong about them? Do liberals WANT you to steal, murder, commit adultery, ect?... Now given the first two are about God, but christianity IS a big part of american history. If South Carolina can fly a Confederate flag, i dont see what harm the ten commandments does.....

Originally posted by Decka

Now given the first two are about God, but christianity IS a big part of american history.

So is slavery, Indian removal and oppression of women. Not the strongest argument we've got there.

If South Carolina can fly a Confederate flag, i dont see what harm the ten commandments does...

South Carolina's state flag doesn't have a Confederate symbol. It's a palm-tree looking thing. It's Georgia that has a Confederate symbol on its flag, and i don't think that's appropriate either. Neither am I a big fan of "In God We Trust" on the coins. Or "Under God" in the plegde of allegiance. The "history" argument just doesn't work, I'm sorry.

The pledge of alligence was written by a Christian socialist.

"Under God" was added by macarthy-ites looking to portray Commies as godless.

History is full of sillies.

GOP Congressman Seeks to 'Restore Free Speech' in Churches

CNSNews.com) - A U.S. House Republican wants religious leaders to be able to use their pulpits to endorse political candidates and he has introduced legislation that would do just that through a change in the tax code.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200503\POL 20050303e.html

++++++++++++++++++++++

Just when you think they couldnt whore themselves anymore...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
GOP Congressman Seeks to 'Restore Free Speech' in Churches

CNSNews.com) - A U.S. House Republican wants religious leaders to be able to use their pulpits to endorse political candidates and he has introduced legislation that would do just that through a change in the tax code.
I have no problem allowing churches to endorse political candidates...as long as they pay their taxes like any other political organization, of course.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
The pledge of alligence was written by a Christian socialist.

"Under God" was added by macarthy-ites looking to portray Commies as godless.

History is full of sillies.

Listen to this..... spinning at its best....

Maybe these "macarthy-ites" just beleived in God, so they added it in their pledge. You know not every little thing has some horrific, scandalous underlying meaning.

But of course you see it as christians trying to undermine commies.....

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Just when you think they couldnt whore themselves anymore...
Do you honestly believe that republicans are any better at "whoring themselves" than democrats are? If so, then please tell me you're joking...

Originally posted by Decka
Listen to this..... spinning at its best....

Maybe these "macarthy-ites" just beleived in God, so they added it in their pledge. You know not every little thing has some horrific, scandalous underlying meaning.

But of course you see it as christians trying to undermine commies.....
No, Decka - actually I think this is one instance where 500's correct. Let him relish it - it doesn't happen all too often.

Originally posted by Decka
Listen to this..... spinning at its best....

Maybe these "macarthy-ites" just beleived in God, so they added it in their pledge. You know not every little thing has some horrific, scandalous underlying meaning.

But of course you see it as christians trying to undermine commies.....
Decka, he's actually absolutely right. During the Red Scare era, the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge in order to differentiate ourselves from the "godless Commies". The phrase was added in 1954 (some sixty years following the original publication of the Pledge) when a Catholic group called the Knights of Columbus pressured Congress to insert the words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
"More specific objections have been raised since the addition of the phrase under God to the Pledge. 1954, the year of its addition, also held the height of the Cold War anti-communist movement in the United States. Anti-communist ideology in the U.S. frequently identified the Soviet states with atheism; the House Un-American Activities Committee and Senator Joseph McCarthy were still on the lookout for "godless Communist" infiltrators."

Originally posted by sputnik
So is slavery, Indian removal and oppression of women. Not the strongest argument we've got there.

i see your point sputnik, but just because you can name some bad things about american history doesn't mean that we shouldnt try to keep some things around. And its not like putting the ten commandments in a court house is forcing christianity on anyone..... They dont even have to look at it.

South Carolina's state flag doesn't have a Confederate symbol. It's a palm-tree looking thing. It's Georgia that has a Confederate symbol on its flag, and i don't think that's appropriate either. Neither am I a big fan of "In God We Trust" on the coins. Or "Under God" in the plegde of allegiance. The "history" argument just doesn't work, I'm sorry.

Well you have every right to not like those things. I dont mind them... since some people are so adament about ridding our whole nation of anything christian(exageration), its nice to have a few areas left.

Ive said it once and i'll say it again.... While i realize and respect the seperation of church and state, A nation should always remember where it came from.

and ive heard a million "echo-arguments" about asking how would I feel if satanic symbols were everywhere, my answer is this. What does satan stand for? stealing, sin, murder, greed, adultery, etc. What does God stand for? caring, loving, sharing, giving, saving, etc. Which one sounds more appealing?

As far as the confederate flag, i could have sworn South Carolina was in a debate a few years back about whether or not they could fly their confederate flag. It could be georgia too.....but i know South Carolina is in there also. And its not their state flag either.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Decka, he's actually absolutely right. During the Red Scare era, the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge in order to differentiate ourselves from the "godless Commies". The phrase was added in 1954 (some sixty years following the original publication of the Pledge) when a Catholic group called the Knights of Columbus pressured Congress to insert the words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
"More specific objections have been raised since the addition of the phrase under God to the Pledge. 1954, the year of its addition, also held the height of the Cold War anti-communist movement in the United States. Anti-communist ideology in the U.S. frequently identified the Soviet states with atheism; the House Un-American Activities Committee and Senator Joseph McCarthy were still on the lookout for "godless Communist" infiltrators."

If that's the one and only reason they put "under God" in there, then thats dumb. IF that is the case, then thanks for pointing that out borg... and sorry 500 for the accusation of spinning things-at least in that instance:) lol

I sure hope that isn't correct, but MANY people who claim to be "of God" really lack the love and compassion which is what God is all about. Satan can distort things very much so.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I have no problem allowing churches to endorse political candidates...as long as they pay their taxes like any other political organization, of course.

I'm a definite believer in the importance of the separation of church and state, but I really don't get that rule. Why can't a pastor have an opinion and share it?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'm a definite believer in the importance of the separation of church and state, but I really don't get that rule. Why can't a pastor have an opinion and share it?
Because they're tax-exempt. By not taxing churches, the government is prohibited from interfering with the affairs of the church, and for very good reason. By the same token, the churches are prohibited from interfering with the affairs of the government. They can't have it both ways. Churches can yell about whomever they want to, if they pay taxes.

Originally posted by Decka
i dont see what harm the ten commandments does.....

ever read the constitution?

Originally posted by Decka


and ive heard a million "echo-arguments" about asking how would I feel if satanic symbols were everywhere, my answer is this. What does satan stand for? stealing, sin, murder, greed, adultery, etc. What does God stand for? caring, loving, sharing, giving, saving, etc. Which one sounds more appealing?



What? Who brought up satanism? Last time I checked, kids weren't performing government-sponsored Satanic rituals in schools or on government property. And I don't really see how your argument answers the question you asked yourself.

If you want to know what harm posting the ten commandments does, or what "Under God" or "In God We Trust" does, listen to this. I'm not denying that mentioning God on our currency is the most important thing ever, but I certianly don't "Trust in God" so that would make me not included in the "we." Does this make me less American than theists? And I certianly don't consider myself to be "Under God" So does that also make me not an American? These phrases, innocuous as they may seem, are no less than government endorsement of religion. And that, quite simply, is not the government's place.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Because they're tax-exempt. By not taxing churches, the government is prohibited from interfering with the affairs of the church, and for very good reason. By the same token, the churches are prohibited from interfering with the affairs of the government. They can't have it both ways. Churches can yell about whomever they want to, if they pay taxes.

I hardly see how having an opinion about politicians qualifies as "interfering" with the government. I can absolutely see having a ban on religious or any tax-exempt organization donating money to politicians, but this strikes me as a free-speech issue. Plus I don't like the idea of the government monitoring what pastors are saying inside the church.

Personally I'd really prefer that any church I attend keep out of the political arena, but I just don't see the harm in allowing a church to take a political position on something - at least no harm that outweighs the restriction being placed on the free speech.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Because they're tax-exempt. By not taxing churches, the government is prohibited from interfering with the affairs of the church, and for very good reason. By the same token, the churches are prohibited from interfering with the affairs of the government. They can't have it both ways. Churches can yell about whomever they want to, if they pay taxes.

Believe it or not, the NAACP also has a tax exempt status that obligates it to be politically neutral. I'd say the church is held to that standard a little tighter.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I hardly see how having an opinion about politicians qualifies as "interfering" with the government. I can absolutely see having a ban on religious or any tax-exempt organization donating money to politicians, but this strikes me as a free-speech issue. Plus I don't like the idea of the government monitoring what pastors are saying inside the church.

Personally I'd really prefer that any church I attend keep out of the political arena, but I just don't see the harm in allowing a church to take a political position on something - at least no harm that outweighs the restriction being placed on the free speech.
Well, I see your point, but I think a lot of it is also keeping a loophole closed. Namely, if non-profit organizations are allowed to be political, then political candidates could all of a sudden not pay taxes...

Personally I'd really prefer that any church I attend keep out of the political arena, but I just don't see the harm in allowing a church to take a political position on something - at least no harm that outweighs the restriction being placed on the free speech.
I think there's a difference between speaking your mind on politics and actually endorsing a candidate. A pastor is a leader of an organization and shouldn't be placing his opinion as though it is the opinion of his entire organization(church).

Believe it or not, the NAACP also has a tax exempt status that obligates it to be politically neutral. I'd say the church is held to that standard a little tighter.
The NAACP is a corrupt organization that pulls the "oh, we were slaves" every chance they can and get to slime their way out of countless things. While that is wrong and retarded there really is no reason to attempt to use them as a refutation of what is going on.

The NAACP is a corrupt organization that pulls the "oh, we were slaves" every chance they can and get to slime their way out of countless things. While that is wrong and retarded there really is no reason to attempt to use them as a refutation of what is going on. yup. They were very necessary when they first formed, Like unions. And like Unions they have become so corrupt and odious that they might have started doing more harm than good...

Holy shit...did you just make a good point, 500, or am I hallucinating?

I alwasy make a good point...:D

Guy visits huge "christian" gathering. Hears contradictions every sentence.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Air Jesus
With The Evangelical Air Force

As Christian broadcasting's leading lights gathered at the National Religious Broadcasters' convention in Anaheim, California, only power-mongering and profiteering could keep their contradictions from bubbling to the surface

http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/nrbconvention.html

Originally posted by Decka
What does God stand for? caring, loving, sharing, giving, saving, etc. Which one sounds more appealing?

Boy have you been brain washed. God stands for (the christian god) hypocrasy, descrimination, hate, manipulation of the masses and the spread of evil throughout the world. In addition the christian god incites wars and civil disobedience. It kills. It manipulates and it is evil.

now if only god would send down a lightning bolt to strike your stupid ass down, but since he wont smite people just for being stupid and ignorant, one of these will have to do: STFU Echo

Watch out Echo, or Travh might get confused and think HE'S God. And then he'll smite you with his mighty lightning bolt of conservative wrath.

Originally posted by Echo2
Boy have you been brain washed. God stands for (the christian god) hypocrasy, descrimination, hate, manipulation of the masses and the spread of evil throughout the world. In addition the christian god incites wars and civil disobedience. It kills. It manipulates and it is evil.
While I agree that organized religion has taken a bad turn, I feel compelled to tell you that the evil you speak of is the evil of man - not God. The Christian God extols none of those virtues, and that's a fact. As far as God "inciting war", well, I'd say no more so than Allah has, or pretty much any other religious icon since the dawn of man. The core base of almost any religion is the same: love, understanding, compassion, tolerance, and generosity. Man is the one, through his own selfish need, that manages to dirty that message on a regular basis.

Sputnik - trav doesn't even come close to being scarry. He's more like a mosquito that is irritating. You know the kind ya just want to slap. lol

Prae - I agree with you in theory, but I believe god is also a man made idea. Originally to help explain his environment and then to control the population. Man has continued to use god to manipulate and controll populations down through the ages.

Our founding fathers understood this and tried to keep religion out of our government for just that reason.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
yup. They were very necessary when they first formed, Like unions. And like Unions they have become so corrupt and odious that they might have started doing more harm than good... although necessary when they were formed, they took on corruption a lot sooner than you're thinking. a poor black person couldnt get representation from them, even in the early years.

Really - how so? (Btw, I'm not questioning the validity of your statement - I'm just curious. :))

sputnik has a great ability to ignore everything that has been said leading up to my posts and focus on my post like I said it out of the clear blue sky. she is well on her way down the path of liberal irrelevance if she chooses to act like the rest of the boards libs and take everything completly out of context and use it to fit their arguemnts any way they see fit.

Because we have so many religious freedoms in this Country and so many nationalities, what harm would it do to YOU personally if we were to keep Church and State truly separate? We focus on the right to keep God in everything: "in God we trust" on our currency, God in the pledge of allegiance, etc. Seriously, what harm would come crashing down if it were to change? Remove the "in God we trust" from currency, remove the "under God" from the pledge and remove the 10 commandments from government and what happens? Pandemonium? Utter chaos?

Originally posted by saycricket
what happens? Pandemonium? Utter chaos?
No - just a complete loss of identity in an almost faceless nation to uphold a fundamental right that already existed. I, personally, don't want to be part of something that I see being flushed down the toilet when our country is clearly turning into a grab bag of moral and social depravity. I mean, come on – the VAST majority of us are Christian, and it’s part of our heritage. When did the cliché “when in Rome” lose its validity?

Originally posted by Travh20
sputnik has a great ability to ignore everything that has been said leading up to my posts and focus on my post like I said it out of the clear blue sky. she is well on her way down the path of liberal irrelevance if she chooses to act like the rest of the boards libs and take everything completly out of context and use it to fit their arguemnts any way they see fit.

Umm...ouch?

I was kidding Travh. You know...joke joke?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Really - how so? (Btw, I'm not questioning the validity of your statement - I'm just curious. :)) there were 2 black kids out playing withe a group of white kids. they were all friends . one day, when they were all about to go home, the little white girl gave all of the boys a kiss on the cheek, even the black kids. they all laughed and went home. the little girl, being naive, told her mother what she had done. the mother, furious, called the father. he called the police on the little black boys, and they went to the school where the boys were. the cops dragged the little boys out of their classroom, administered a minor beating on them,( with visible scars and bruises ). whenthe father came to see about his sons, they were in a jail cell. the father called the NAACP, to see if they would do something about it. the first thing the naacp wanted to know was , what the father was worth money wise. when they found out that the father was poor, they said, and i quote, they are not worth fighting this case for......end of story....oh by the way, this was in the 50's or very early 60's

How did you hear about this? :confused:

Originally posted by The Praetorian
How did you hear about this? :confused: they did a whole story on the oprah winfrey show, with the parents and the boys ( now grown) and they had the NAACP on the show, and they couldnt say shit about it because it was true ...after that, i read up on it, and it was true

NAACP is a scam, just like jackson and Sharpton. a money making racket that intends to keep blacks down so they can keep their pockets lined. Self sufficient, independent black people are the NAACP's worst nightmare.

Originally posted by Travh20
NAACP is a scam, just like jackson and Sharpton. a money making racket that intends to keep blacks down so they can keep their pockets lined. Self sufficient, independent black people are the NAACP's worst nightmare. travh, i just did a radio show on the very thing you just said, and the show received rave reviews....especially from blacks. that is exactly what jesse jackson did when he ran for president, and what al planned to do if his false bid worked. get a lot of black support, and sell it to the highest bidder, therefore making him rich.....just like jesse did !!

hell korg, maybe you should be the black leader, send the reverends Jackson and Sharpton back to their congregations, if they have one

Originally posted by Travh20
hell korg, maybe you should be the black leader, send the reverends Jackson and Sharpton back to their congregations, if they have one i always tell blacks, while im on my program, that the day of needing a leader is dead. that we have the wherewithall to succeed without making ONE man rich

Posted by Decka:
My one question is this.... if you actually READ the ten commandments, what is wrong about them? Do liberals WANT you to steal, murder, commit adultery, ect?...

I love it when someone doesn't want the 10 commandments posted in a court of law and you twist it to mean that we are saying we "want you to steal, murder, commit adultery, ect".

Remember this, write it down if you have to, ONLY THREE OF THE COMMANDMENTS (KILLING, STEALING, & BEARING FALSE WITNESS) ARE ACTUALLY LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY AND WE ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF THOSE BEING ILLEGAL!!! The other 7 are not laws, though I believe a couple are good advice to follow, and the 10 commandments overall are a religious guideline that are not used by a judge or jury in a court of law. Also, the first 3 commandments (not the first 2 as you said) are strictly religious and nothing else. So, my one question to you is this...why do you need them posted in a place like a courtroom?

Maybe they should be laws. You know get rid of that whole weekend thing and get back to working our hands to the bone.

THERES ONLY ONE DAY OF REST

You hear that you lazy satanist mother fuckers?