Posted on 04/30/2007 9:14:44 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
Fortunately, said institution is also freed by Amendment I; however, that does not change the immorality of the violation of the First Amendment by redistributing tax dollars to First Church of Sometown.
(1) No law requires them to take the money.
(2) The individual states, not the federal government, are already taking measures to pressure churches into abandoning their teaching.
And not by withholding faith-based funding - they don't provide faith-based funding.
They are doing it by enacting state level legislation that requires all employers to adopt same-sex hiring quotas, to distribute contraceptives and to pay for abortions for their employees, and on and on.
This has been underway for years in states and municipalities and is completely unrelated to to any federal funding program whatsoever.
You can repeat that until you are blue in the face: in now way does the legislation contemplate the establishment of, respect the establishment of or establish any religion.
Please tell us which relgion is receiving this favorable Congressional treatment.
The coerced redistribution of wealth does not promote the general welfare.
The Constitution contradicts you, as does the Federalist.
The Constitution provides for taxation, and the Constitution provides for internal improvement projects and other undertakings to promote the general welfare.
Take it up with the Founders.
Oh, was faith-based initiatives for the San Diego Padres?
What was this non-sentence intended to mean?
Guess who else shilled for that program? Fred Thompson, Bill Frist, and Lamar Alexander. Alexander even shilled for a state income tax to fund it.
Actually the program was originally pushed by Former governor New WcWherter, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton. Tennessee was to be the test for Hillary Care and the states Medicaid system was expanded greatly to do this. But only before the Medicaid system was purposefully made to fail.
Now just follow me on this. For this program to continue the two U.S. Senators and governor, state lawmakers etc had to get yearly waiver from the U.S. Department of Health Care and Fiance. The senators who did this? Fred Thompson, Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander and now likely Bob Corker. It isn't just a state matter it is federal dollars.
Sundquist was elected when McWherter was term limited out. IIRC Tenn Care began in McWherters last year. Then comes Sundquist-R who refused to address rampant fraud. The state was literally blackmailed into paying up to HMO's who were here today gone tomorrow some of which had former state officials as their CEO's.
Tenn Care was and is in effect a middle man to the HMO's to distribute the money. There is zero accountability for these funds which violates the state and U.S. Constitution. But who is gonna stand up to it when both parties shill for it? It was fraud with federal dollars and no one stood up to it and called it what it was.
Bush reminds me of Sundquist alot. He was the DEMs best man in office and made the Conservatives task an almost impossibility as well. The party is still split in my state with one state senator who recently became an Independent.
Eaglet did I miss anything on TennCare and it's not so humble operations? I didn't mention doctors were being blackmailed either by big name insurance.
Was this legislation intended to fund non-religious organizations such as the San Diego Padres, or was it intended to fund religious organizations such as churches, synagogues, and mosques?
I think you covered it reasonably well. It was a good example of the dangers of applying socialism to medicine by liberal Republicans.
The Constitution contradicts you, as does the Federalist.
At the time the general welfare clause was written, the Constitution prohibited direct taxation. Subsequent amendment still did not _require_ direct taxation. The Constitution still does not say that the coerced redistribution of wealth.
Why are you so dogmatic about defending socialism?
Correction: The Constitution still does not say that that it was established to promote the general welfare through the redistribution of wealth.
Look I was against Gonzales long before the DEMs seriously went after him. When he started his data base nonsense he lost all my support. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States not start Spy on your neighbor type programs. He needed to go a long time ago. And I don't think he should be allowed to continue in his job just so some Republicans can get their political jollies against the DEM's. He's wrong and should be fired.
Paul's votes match his talk. His rhetoric to reduce government waste is backed by action, so it is not just mere "lipservice."
Thanks for that warning.
If people want to spend their substance to help improve another country's politics, that is their perogative, but sending our tax dollars abroad is another matter. The Constitution provides for the common defense of these United States, not the common defense of the United Nations or any other foreign entity.
(1) Religious organizations make their own internal laws, rules and regulations. Congress does not legislate their rules for them.
(2) The Padres are a for-profit organization and are a silly example.
The new legislation was intended to end discrimination against faith-based non-profits. The government already provides funding for anti-religious non-profits like the ACLU, the NEA and Planned Parenthood. The new legislation ends the imbalance.
No it didn't.
The Constitution still does not say that the coerced redistribution of wealth.
Was that intended to be a sentence?
Why are you so dogmatic about defending socialism?
Taxation is not socialism. If taxation were socialism, then the US Constitution would be a socialist document, since it provides for taxation.
Government requires money to function whether that government is monarchical, republican, democratic or socialist.
You have yet to substantiate these database claims.
The government kept databases long before Gonzalez was USAG and will continue to long after he is gone.
I will point out that TN healthcare has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any mythical new powers supposedly granted to the federal Executive.
But I appreciate the new information about Fred Thompson (if it is reliable).
Of course. That's what I was saying. Forgive me I could have been clearer. You want to donate to organizations that can improve another country's situation, go for it. I'll even say if you want to sign up and fight in another country (much as US citizens did before Wilson got this nation needlessly involved in WWI) that's your prerogative as well.
Congress should not be leglating with respect to them (USC Amendment I).
The new legislation was intended to end discrimination against faith-based non-profits. The government already provides funding for anti-religious non-profits like the ACLU, the NEA and Planned Parenthood. The new legislation ends the imbalance.
The constitutional and conservative way to stop discrimination would be to stop funding all of these organizations, not liberally funding _more_ of them.
Correction: Congress should not be legislating with respect to them (USC Amendment I).
Those who believe in such causes would have more liberty to support them if the tax burdern were lower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.