Gov. (USDA) tells Christian Charitable Ministry....

[Guest TankerHC]

No more Jesus, Praying, or Bibles handed out due to Separation of Church and State or no more food from the USDA program.

 

They chose Jesus, Praying and Bibles. 

 

So the Government (USDA in this case) is staffed by idiots too stupid to know that NOWHERE in our Constitution does it demand Separation of Church and State. There is NOTHING official anywhere, it was a suggestion (One sentence) by Jefferson. Thats it. And it is mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/09/usda-tells-christian-charity-to-kick-jesus-to-curb/?test=latestnews

 

 

 

You tell the same lie long enough and it will become truth. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It shows what kind of idiots are in the government. See what happens when the churches and individuals step up.

 

Nashville Union Mission doesn't accept any government anything. That group will do just fine.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

When a missionary organization is handing out government cheese, then how is that not the government subsidizing the establishment of a religion?

How about muslim missionaries handing out government cheese?

[Smith]

According to the founding fathers government should support religion but not establish an official religion that is mandated. Been over many times before and some just want to hear what tickles their ears.

[TMF]

When a missionary organization is handing out government cheese, then how is that not the government subsidizing the establishment of a religion?

How about muslim missionaries handing out government cheese?

I don't have a problem with either one. I mean, ideally no one would be handing out government cheese unless they were homeless, disabled or such that they were so destitute they couldn't feed their family; as in not having a red cent to their name nor having $300 air Jordans and flat screens. But if someone is gonna do it I don't care what they believe in.

[RobertNashville]

The Nashville Rescue Mission is the only one I support; not because they are faith-based (although that's fine) but because they refuse to accept any sort of government "help".

 

Sleeping with the devil has consequences!

[mav]

Has anyone else noticed the pattern?  The only time I ever see the phrase, separation of church and state,  used by the guv or left leaning individuals is when it focused on Christianity.

 

Now that this story has gotten national attention via Fox News, I am certain the mission will do better without the government.  Its too bad that we, as Christian taxpayers, can't tell the government without penalty, "No freedom to exercise our faith?  No money (cheese) for you."

[RobertNashville]

When a missionary organization is handing out government cheese, then how is that not the government subsidizing the establishment of a religion?

How about muslim missionaries handing out government cheese?

Whether the word "establish" is used as a verb or an adverb, to establish something, especially something as complicated as a religion, requires significant action; far beyond simply giving group "A" supplies for them to hand out to Group "B".

 

Now, if the government "only gave the supplies to one particular religious group and refused to give it to others or took other overt actions then perhaps an argument could be made but I don't see anything like that happening here.

[leroy]

Been waitin for this to come up...  I help in a small church in east tennessee; doin the "bean countin"....  Several years ago when the first "stimulus" came out; the local political class county politicos passed thru federal gubmt stimulus grant dollars earmarked to help feed folks to local churches that had food banks that helped those in need... .

 

The reason; the churches had the infrastructure and contacts needin the food... 

 

The payback to the gubmt (...i think, at least....) wuz to take the public political credit for "giving" to the needy usin the church as a vehicle to do so... . 

 

The only requirement wuz to be able to demonstrate that ya bought food with it; and that ya handed it out to whomever wuz in need.... .  No names, no record keeping (...other than the usual business recordkeeping...), no "....separation of church and state baloney....", no nothin.  I suspect this one will go away.  

 

leroy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't have a problem with either one. I mean, ideally no one would be handing out government cheese unless they were homeless, disabled or such that they were so destitute they couldn't feed their family; as in not having a red cent to their name nor having $300 air Jordans and flat screens. But if someone is gonna do it I don't care what they believe in.

 

I have no problem with private charities, and private charities (in my experience) may be more effective than government work. My main giving over the years has been to salvation army and catholic charities because they seem to deliver good bang for the buck.

 

But in my experience watching programs work when I was doing the social worker thang, all charities gov and private are forced to be selective in handing out the goodies, because resources are always scarcer than the demand.

 

Some religious charities were pretty good at restricting their selectivity on the basis of "need" or other objective criteria, but other charities expected clients to "pay the piper" by participating in religious ritual in order to receive the goodies. Which is fine when not government subsidized. If the bum wants a sammich bad enough, then he'll have to listen to the sermon and bow his head at the appropriate times.

 

However, not even the laziest bum should be required to participate in religious services as a condition for his government cheese. Either he's qualified for the government cheese based on some kind of objective standards, or he is not qualified by objective standards. Otherwise, the government would be subsidising missionary work.

 

Which is easier and less intrusive on religions?

1-- The government closely regulates religious charities, meddling to assure that none use religion as a selection criteria for handing out government cheese.

<or>

2-- Religious charities don't get government cheese.

[TMF]

Some religious charities were pretty good at restricting their selectivity on the basis of "need" or other objective criteria, but other charities expected clients to "pay the piper" by participating in religious ritual in order to receive the goodies. Which is fine when not government subsidized. If the bum wants a sammich bad enough, then he'll have to listen to the sermon and bow his head at the appropriate times.

Sounds like Starvin Marvin's family.... "Now, now. We don't EAT the bibles" http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103422/marklar

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Has nothing to do with "allowing" the government to use force to regulate charities, Lester. The problem with the government

is that they want their mitts on everything. the churches, being a well organized conduit to distribute, have always been successful

doing this. Their is no argument to make from the government, or any individual that can require a church to refrain from encouraging

a prayer out of the person receiving. The only argument is made without merit. It is a bastardization of what the Constitution says.

 

That doesn't mean the government has to give the cheese, but if you remember, we are the government. I wonder if holding the

cheese back from a charity does anything positive? Hell, if they want to hold it back, let it mold. Others will pick up the slack.

 

All this does is tell me what the government is for. Not much good for people who might benefit.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nashville Union takes no government "charity", which tells me our government means to change. Union Mission is a decent

charity and it does it with religious belief being part of its foundation. Thanking God for something and not thanking God is

up to the individual, but so is sharing bounty.

 

Somehow, I doubt God is the problem.

[mav]

 

 

Some religious charities were pretty good at restricting their selectivity on the basis of "need" or other objective criteria, but other charities expected clients to "pay the piper" by participating in religious ritual in order to receive the goodies. Which is fine when not government subsidized. If the bum wants a sammich bad enough, then he'll have to listen to the sermon and bow his head at the appropriate times.

 

However, not even the laziest bum should be required to participate in religious services as a condition for his government cheese. Either he's qualified for the government cheese based on some kind of objective standards, or he is not qualified by objective standards. Otherwise, the government would be subsidising missionary work.

 

 

Lester, do you know of a specific Christian charitable organization that has adopted the "No Jesus, No Food" policy?  I hear this often, but I don't buy it.  Turning away someone in need because they did not want to hear anything about Jesus is really antithetical to the Christian belief.

 

I have no problem with my tax dollars going to a religious-based charity.  They most certainly will do a better job with the money than the government, who can really only give out cards which might end up paying for boob jobs, big screen tvs, drugs, etc...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The churches, being a well organized conduit to distribute, have always been successful

doing this. Their is no argument to make from the government, or any individual that can require a church to refrain from encouraging

a prayer out of the person receiving. The only argument is made without merit. It is a bastardization of what the Constitution says.

 

That doesn't mean the government has to give the cheese, but if you remember, we are the government. I wonder if holding the

cheese back from a charity does anything positive? Hell, if they want to hold it back, let it mold. Others will pick up the slack.

 

Consider, maybe the government would hand out tons of cheese to muslims in Dearborn MI, because the muslims have the biggest distribution network. Then maybe destitute southern baptist famiies must praise Allah in order to get the government cheese? No harm encouraging a prayer out of the person receiving. Or maybe in some towns it is the Scientologists or Moonies or Hare Krishnas handing out the government cheese.

 

Lester, do you know of a specific Christian charitable organization that has adopted the "No Jesus, No Food" policy?  I hear this often, but I don't buy it.  Turning away someone in need because they did not want to hear anything about Jesus is really antithetical to the Christian belief.

 

Hi Mav. When I was doing social work, some religious charities didn't have strong religious tests, and some did. As earlier stated, ALL charities have limited resources and are forced to pick and choose clients. When I was doing social work, it was great luck getting a "strongly religious" client that I could match with a copasetic "strongly religious" charity, because such folk were a shoo-in to receive help from such charity, and my job was done from that point on. A sect that will only "take care of its own" still does good work, because they ARE taking care of people. I'm not criticizing that some of them won't give much or any help to those that are not their own. It is just something that happens in some of the religious charities, but not all.

 

Its just none of the governments biz to be involved in. Ferinstance if both Scientologists and Moonies get lots of government cheeze, they might get into a bidding war, trying to win the most converts by being the most liberal in handing out government cheeze. None of the gov's biz.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest TankerHC]

According to the founding fathers government should support religion but not establish an official religion that is mandated. Been over many times before and some just want to hear what tickles their ears.

 

Where exactly does it say that? I have read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers 100 times, show me where it says "Cannot support Religion" anywhere, and I will show you where it doesnt, The US Constitution, the only document that matters. When Atheists brought Jeffersons words before the Supreme Court, it was interpreted to mean exactly what Jefferson meant, A WALL of Separation between Church and State, re-enforcing Article 5 and the 1st Amendment. Because Jefferson never said there should be a "Separation" of Church and State, what Article 5 and the 1st Amendment states are near EXACTLY what Jefferson stated. 

No Government establishment of a National Religion and no test of Religion to hold public office, which is why Obama can support the Muslims all he wants and will have done nothing illegal. Favoritism yes, illegal or Unconstitutional? No. That "Wall of Separation" protects Freedom of Religion from Government interference. It does not separate Church and State. And nowhere does it say or has it been determined by the US Supreme Court, those who are charged with interpreting the Constitution, that the US Government cannot support any Religion. In fact they can support all Religions. 

 

The Atheists (Who practice the RELIGION of Atheism), like to argue the point that the Supreme Court never re-enforced the "Separation of Church and State" so it must be true. Wrong, when the US Supreme Court fails to rule or partially rules, whatever is in the Constitution is standing. Period. Which is why I like arguing with Atheists, they (For the most part) have no idea how Government works, as long as they can get leftists "on their side" Constitutional or Unconstitutional means nothing, they get their dear leaders to make Constitutional rulings from their Political Offices, which does not work and fails the second it comes in front of the SCOTUS "In most cases".. So they find unconstitutional workarounds. 

 

What our Government has been doing for a solid 5 years now with respect to Religion is wrong, unconstitutional and illegal. 

 

I am not an overtly religious person, but the 1st, 2nd, 13th, all of the Amendments and all of the Articles are equally important as far as I am concerned, including the Articles of impeachment which should have been exercised a long time ago and have been brought, but Boehnor said he "Didn't want to put the American people through that". Thats BS. 

 

We could go back to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the factthat there is zero real documentation on all of those quotes on citizens owning firearms from the Founders or the fact that Geroge Washington himself formed a militia, and disarmed 14000 citizens in order to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in order to prove that there is no right for citizens to own firearms or not have their weapons confiscated and that the 2nd Amendment is not there to protect the people but to protect the Government. Some may also want to read Article 4, section 4. F0r one there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the violent overthrow of the Government, but Article 4 does allow the Government to protect the people (Citizens) from "Domestic Violence". THE Government CAN legally and Constitutionally quell an insurrection by the people, our own "Father of our Country" did it himself. He LED the militia WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT, and that was a simple tax revolt. And the people he did it against were the very people who fought for him during the Revolution.

 

So should we disarm, turn all of our guns in and rely on the Government to protect us from ourselves? No, just because someone says something does not make it true. The Founders left the interpretation to the SCOTUS, with specific instruction. 

 

If it isnt on that parchment or in a Supreme Court decision, it doesn't matter what anyone says, states or writes. . 

Edited September 10, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Consider, maybe the government would hand out tons of cheese to muslims in Dearborn MI, because the muslims have the biggest distribution network. Then maybe destitute southern baptist famiies must praise Allah in order to get the government cheese? No harm encouraging a prayer out of the person receiving. Or maybe in some towns it is the Scientologists or Moonies or Hare Krishnas handing out the government cheese.

 

 

Hi Mav. When I was doing social work, some religious charities didn't have strong religious tests, and some did. As earlier stated, ALL charities have limited resources and are forced to pick and choose clients. When I was doing social work, it was great luck getting a "strongly religious" client that I could match with a copasetic "strongly religious" charity, because such folk were a shoo-in to receive help from such charity, and my job was done from that point on. A sect that will only "take care of its own" still does good work, because they ARE taking care of people. I'm not criticizing that some of them won't give much or any help to those that are not their own. It is just something that happens in some of the religious charities, but not all.

 

Its just none of the governments biz to be involved in. Ferinstance if both Scientologists and Moonies get lots of government cheeze, they could get into a bidding war, trying to win the most converts by being the most liberal in handing out government cheeze. None of the gov's biz.

As long as the government doesn't discriminate against a religious organization, and the organization doesn't discriminate against a particular group, other than give it to truly needy people, I don't care. If a needy person takes food from a Muslim organization, it doesn't mean they have to join that religion, just like any Christian based charity. There are no sign up cards that I know of.

 

The government shouldn't be the arbiter of this, in any way, and anyone who thinks they should be, is just too PC for me.

 

The problem, to me, is, why does the government have the cheese, in the first place?

Edited September 10, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Lester Weevils]

As long as the government doesn't discriminate against a religious organization, and the organization doesn't discriminate against a particular group, other than give it to truly needy people, I don't care. If a needy person takes food from a Muslim organization, it doesn't mean they have to join that religion, just like any Christian based charity. There are no sign up cards that I know of.

 

The government shouldn't be the arbiter of this, in any way, and anyone who thinks they should be, is just too PC for me.

 

The problem, to me, is, why does the government have the cheese, in the first place?

 

Yep, in an ideal world. As I said earlier, either the government would have to meddle with religions enforcing fairness (a place it definitely doesn't need to be meddling), or the government would have a policy not to subsidize any of them. A hands-off policy ensuring minimal regulation and meddling in religion.

 

The government shouldn't be in the cheese business, IMO.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Lester, I think the government should be the ones not discriminating, instead of accusing the individual or group of it. I

just think it has been allowed for too long, the other way. The government is not our boss, unless we accede certain

things to it. we didn't, in this case. They usurped it.

 

As far as it being ideal, ideal would be to let people perform charitable acts as they see fit, and leave the damned government

out of it. I perform my own charitable acts when I decide. The government performs it's own charitable acts after it taxes you

and I and allows some fools to decide where it should go, after they get their cut. It ain't right!

 

Kill the income tax and let people live again. Those people who wish to live off the government dole can die off, as far as I'm concerned.

 

My disability, which I paid for, is taking five months to process. What the Hell is the government doing so well that that is the case?

A bunch of incompetent fools, as far as I'm concerned, and criminal. It takes wanting to be charitable to a lower level than I care.

[bersaguy]

This subject is too deep for me to comprehend. Just reading the thread made my head hurt............. :ugh:

[Smith]

Where exactly does it say that? I have read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers 100 times, show me where it says "Cannot support Religion" anywhere, and I will show you where it doesnt, The US Constitution, the only document that matters. When Atheists brought Jeffersons words before the Supreme Court, it was interpreted to mean exactly what Jefferson meant, A WALL of Separation between Church and State, re-enforcing Article 5 and the 1st Amendment. Because Jefferson never said there should be a "Separation" of Church and State, what Article 5 and the 1st Amendment states are near EXACTLY what Jefferson stated. 

No Government establishment of a National Religion and no test of Religion to hold public office, which is why Obama can support the Muslims all he wants and will have done nothing illegal. Favoritism yes, illegal or Unconstitutional? No. That "Wall of Separation" protects Freedom of Religion from Government interference. It does not separate Church and State. And nowhere does it say or has it been determined by the US Supreme Court, those who are charged with interpreting the Constitution, that the US Government cannot support any Religion. In fact they can support all Religions. 

 

The Atheists (Who practice the RELIGION of Atheism), like to argue the point that the Supreme Court never re-enforced the "Separation of Church and State" so it must be true. Wrong, when the US Supreme Court fails to rule or partially rules, whatever is in the Constitution is standing. Period. Which is why I like arguing with Atheists, they (For the most part) have no idea how Government works, as long as they can get leftists "on their side" Constitutional or Unconstitutional means nothing, they get their dear leaders to make Constitutional rulings from their Political Offices, which does not work and fails the second it comes in front of the SCOTUS "In most cases".. So they find unconstitutional workarounds. 

 

What our Government has been doing for a solid 5 years now with respect to Religion is wrong, unconstitutional and illegal. 

 

I am not an overtly religious person, but the 1st, 2nd, 13th, all of the Amendments and all of the Articles are equally important as far as I am concerned, including the Articles of impeachment which should have been exercised a long time ago and have been brought, but Boehnor said he "Didn't want to put the American people through that". Thats BS. 

 

We could go back to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the factthat there is zero real documentation on all of those quotes on citizens owning firearms from the Founders or the fact that Geroge Washington himself formed a militia, and disarmed 14000 citizens in order to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in order to prove that there is no right for citizens to own firearms or not have their weapons confiscated and that the 2nd Amendment is not there to protect the people but to protect the Government. Some may also want to read Article 4, section 4. F0r one there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the violent overthrow of the Government, but Article 4 does allow the Government to protect the people (Citizens) from "Domestic Violence". THE Government CAN legally and Constitutionally quell an insurrection by the people, our own "Father of our Country" did it himself. He LED the militia WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT, and that was a simple tax revolt. And the people he did it against were the very people who fought for him during the Revolution.

 

So should we disarm, turn all of our guns in and rely on the Government to protect us from ourselves? No, just because someone says something does not make it true. The Founders left the interpretation to the SCOTUS, with specific instruction. 

 

If it isnt on that parchment or in a Supreme Court decision, it doesn't matter what anyone says, states or writes. . 

??? Methinks you didn't actually read my post. I was agreeing with you just as I agree with the above rebuttal of my position that I didn't make. ;)

Edited September 10, 2013 by Smith

[DaveS]

It shows what kind of idiots are in the government. See what happens when the churches and individuals step up.

 

Nashville Union Mission doesn't accept any government anything. That group will do just fine.

I volunteer at Mana Café once a month and we give out USDA food Items to the needy. Mana is a religious based organization that feeds the hungry. I don't know how this will affect the programs there. Most likely they'll tell the USDA to kiss off.

 

Keep in mind that the USDA mandates to the USFWS that the hundreds of tons of deer and wild pigs killed on government land each year during controlled hunts, must be left to rot, and cannot be given to the needy.

 

DaveS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester, I think the government should be the ones not discriminating, instead of accusing the individual or group of it. I

just think it has been allowed for too long, the other way. The government is not our boss, unless we accede certain

things to it. we didn't, in this case. They usurped it.

 

As far as it being ideal, ideal would be to let people perform charitable acts as they see fit, and leave the damned government

out of it. I perform my own charitable acts when I decide. The government performs it's own charitable acts after it taxes you

and I and allows some fools to decide where it should go, after they get their cut. It ain't right!

 

Kill the income tax and let people live again. Those people who wish to live off the government dole can die off, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Stuff from the government usually has strings attached. OTOH stuff from individuals or private organizations usually have strings attached as well. No such thing as a free lunch.

 

Some people can get tax breaks from charitable donations, which is kinda like the gov partially subsidizing yer own idea of charity, but it seems difficult to get much of a break uness you are giving away fork-lift loads of money. I've never managed to get a charitable deduction.

 

The smaller the gov, the fewer strings the gov holds. If religions don't want to be government controlled then they shouldn't take government money.

 

If religions do take government money then it wouldn't be right if the taxpayer can't hold that religion accountable for the proper use of the money. Which would result in a religion controlled by government red tape. Alternately you can cut the red tape and just hand out our tax money with no strings, no accountability. The government only does that for its very bestest friends. :)

[LagerHead]

No more Jesus, Praying, or Bibles handed out due to Separation of Church and State or no more food from the USDA program.

 

They chose Jesus, Praying and Bibles. 

 

So the Government (USDA in this case) is staffed by idiots too stupid to know that NOWHERE in our Constitution does it demand Separation of Church and State. There is NOTHING official anywhere, it was a suggestion (One sentence) by Jefferson. Thats it. And it is mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/09/usda-tells-christian-charity-to-kick-jesus-to-curb/?test=latestnews

 

 

 

You tell the same lie long enough and it will become truth. 

 

Even Jefferson's statement about it has nothing to do with the way it is implemented today. His statement was purely against the establishment of a state religion or church like they had in England. 

[Guest TankerHC]

??? Methinks you didn't actually read my post. I was agreeing with you just as I agree with the above rebuttal of my position that I didn't make. ;)

 

 

Oh, sorry. Thought you were saying the Government cannot support religion. Fact is we have been supporting Religion since day one, (Feb 1555) we just werent tolerant of each other, different colonies had different Religious laws, based solely on financial interests and survival. 

 

I'm just getting sick of the stupidity of Atheists as much as gun grabbers and our Government who supports both against everyone else (Known as the majority).