Imho.

the greyest areas in terms of the 1st amendment. While there continue to be flaws, it sounds like there have been some significant improvements as well.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Couldn't we just help the poor and needy because it's the humane and sensible thing to do, and leave God out of it?

But the great preponderance of compassionate money is given in and through religious groups. If you check the statistics, these groups operated by far with the lowest costs. Many of give a significant percentage of our incomes to such efforts through religious bodies. Somewhere in our innards we know that our faith leads us to do what we do. Do you have a problem with that?

It's OK for you to justify certain actions or policies because of your faith, so why isn't it OK for Randall Terry and Fred Phelps to do the same?

Yes, I know, you think you escape this problem by labeling YOUR faith (and your faith alone) as "authentic" Christianity, but that's exactly what Terry and Phelps would say about theirs.

And so it goes. You guys trying to out-scream each other about who really knows what Jesus wants, and the rest of us trying to point this out but getting slapped down by both sides.

As your daughter has suggested, perhaps you are carrying water for the Republicans by trying to discourage progressive secular leftists and driving a wedge in the Democratic party. Hmmm.

Phelps is the antithesis of all the Christian message holds as sacred.
I doubt if you are in any position to judge it. Some of the rests of us are.
I want to encourage secular leftists. We are on the same team. I applaud everything they do which is consistent with a liberal humanistic agenda. I just ask for the same thing.

Phelps thinks homosexuality is "desperately evil" and that god's judgment will fall upon America if we tolerate it.

Terry thinks abortion is equivalent to murdering human babies, and I guarantee you he views that as "desperately evil" too.

Your arguments are their arguments.

It's a pity you refuse to understand this.

be it God, aliens, or late night conversations with your neighbors dog as long as it's motivates you to help others.

I have a problem with a government that's founded on the separation of church and state promoting faith based initiatives when it could just as easily call them American based initiatives. If you want faith based charity, go to a church.

Until the government or other secular organizations step up to the plate, the neediest of the neediest in this country are dependent on programs that are run by religious organizations.

It's important that there be oversight of those organizations and resources to help them understand what they can not can not do. In addition, some organizations that are willing to provide services may need specific resources to do them, which this office also oversees.

Do you see this as a problem?

but we are far away from that at this point.

Office to support faith based AND secular and other NGO initiatives and aid programs would be more inclusive. Perhaps that would be more constructive approach.

Republicans may claim God and the Christian religion as their own, but there are few worse Christians out there than them.