"No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election."
Win debates? The problem with this thinking is that if you are going to use the Bible as a source of your arguments to "win" debates, as if you are a Bible-believing person, then you will also have to recognize the sanctity of innocent life (i.e. "pro-life"), traditional marriage between a man and woman (since the Bible mention repeatedly throughout in the form of "begat so and so" who "begat so and so"...ad nauseum. Kind of hard to show the history of generations of "begats" between gay couples in a Bible. The Bible sets a precedence on the whole "begatness" thing when it comes to between a man and woman), and charity in the Bible. Also, the most important thing for Bible-believers is the belief in Jesus Christ and not about how Jesus Christ performed "community service" as Hillary tried to explain being the most important aspect of Christian believers:
"No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election.'"
Many of the Republicans believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ, or simply religious and believe in family values. Many. Not Everybody in the case of Republicans having a "monopoly" on religion and values. Better take a hard look at "Reverend" Al Sharpton and "Reverend" Jesse Jackson when it comes to their religion and values, though it hasn't worked for them yet.
As for "charity" didn't President Bush set up the Faith Based and Community Initiative a few years back? Where efforts on the following populations are focused on:
At-risk youth
Ex-offenders
Homeless
Hungry
Substance abusers
Those with HIV/AIDS
Welfare-to-work families
I think Hillary Clinton is a wee bit late to talk about charity and helping the poor. When President Bush had already set up a Welfare to Work program to help welfare recipents and low income members of society get into stable and expanding jobs and become independent and productive members of society. The whole premise of charity is about giving these people a chance to become independent productive members. Just like the old Chinese proverb:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
What is readily apparent is that Hillary Clinton got "religion in her blood" in preparation for the 2008 presidential election. A big blow to those Democratic "special interest" people who wouldn't touch a Bible if their life depended on it. Another blow is knowing the fact that Bill Clinton support the ban on local gay marriage. And he'll be helping his Hillary. Wonderful! Now you have Hillary Clinton who got "religion" her political blue blood and her husband who got the other "religion" in his blood on the belief and support for the ban on local gay marriage.
If certain "special interest" people keep picking a Democratic presidential candidate despite his or her specialized religious issues ("got religion') then some of them are certainly going to get themselves screwed over and over again, just as Democrats have done so again and again toward non-whites throughout history. But they keep voting Democrats. Don't these people see abuse toward them when it happens?
As for the vote on the ban on gay marriage (but not Civil Union) in Oregon which got 57% of the votes in a state where Kerry won 51.5% of the vote kind of tells you that the votes were mostly about "values" rather than just religious values. This certainly dispels the notion that Kerry lost the election because of those religious right wing nut jobs. Or even the evil Karl Rove who planned all this to get Oregon people to vote for the ban on gay marriage. Y'all might want to rethink your excuses of why the John Kerry lost the race.
Remember this.
Kerry sucked. Bill Clinton got sucked. Hillary Clinton got sucker punched. Do you want to be a sucker, too?
Might as well go the way of the Libertarian Party from now on. Only thing is, you might have to wait awhile until something happens with this party. Until then, you guys are seriously, seriously screwed if you keep picking the same Democrat party for the all the wrong reasons.
12 comments:
You think Faith-Based initiatives worked? *snicker*
I work in human services -- trust me, they do NOT work.
In fact, several religious denominations were ignored by Bush's so-called faith-based initiatives.
Its rules are too rigorous to a point where many services refused to touch them.
Just get educated. Oh, you can't. You hide in New Mexico.
R-
About gay marriage, why do I bother to explain? You simply twisted things up to meet your needs. Millions of voters were duped into believing that bibles will be banned, that gay marriage will be permitted if Kerry was elected. I knew because my friend in rural Arkansas sent me the postcard of what RNC sent -- so despicable action that you approved of.
The whole marriage thing was merely a sham to bullshit around -- it is ignoring the larger picture, the goal is to have a license so that we can have the assets, protections, insurances for two partners -- the right to visit the loved one in the hospital. Et al. These can be accessed when you uttered "I do" to your woman, but we had to get a lawyer to fight to get what we needed. You don't need them more than I do. So why stop us?
Why didn't you go out and educate people about civil unions or marriage licenses? I don't see you doing that. What you are oding is very selfish. But again, that is so you.
R-
So much for "anonymous" postings.
The topic was about the hypocrisy within the Democratic party when it comes to holding up the Bible.
Don't blame me, blame Bill Clinton's support for the ban on local gay marriage where he tried to convince John Kerry to follow his lead.
Oh, about the "Bible ban" logic? Then religious Democrats would've been running over to vote for George W. Bush. Remember. The Democratic party has just as many left-wing religious nut jobs over there, too. I'm sure they'll believe in their own Democratic party's words about how they'll "ban" the Bible.
No..I dont' think "millions" were duped into believing the Bible will be banned by the John Kerry's administration.
I'll give you credit for trying, tho'.
I didn't post it up as anonymous. Something went haywire -- I don't hide behind the screen like many others. I always signed my trademark: "R-" no matter what. Get it?
R-
One more thing -- your comment made me think -- it is not worth the energy nor time to discuss with you because you're so hard-headed to begin with -- just look at your background.
All I have to say, "No wonder."
R-
No problem. Just join the legion of people who find it easier to give up and move to Canada rather than to try and produce an honest dialogue. And from a few written articles you've read you already "know" me and I'm "hard headed"?
I'll give you another point to reconsider why the Democratic Party is screwing you guys around.
The Federal Government makes the deliberate efforts to promote consistency between both government policy and government practice that are hospitable to faith-based based organizations. That policy and practice did not start with the Bush administration.
For example, let's take federally funded childcare for low-income families. More than a dozen years ago, Congress wrote the rules in such a way that churches and other expressly faith-based organizations can take part without sacrificing their faith commitments and characteristics.
The above concept regarding faith-based organizations is found in the Charitable Choice concept/program. Since Bush became president, there has been many bitter opposition to Charitable Choice in Congress.
But during the previous administration, Congress and President Bill Clinton wrote four times!!! the language and concept of Charitable Choice into federal law!
Now, Charitable Choice is an integral part of the Bush faith-based initiative program. The Charitable Choice concept was put into law even before George W. Bush became president!
Now, here's another shocker for you Ridor. The Charitable Choice concept was endorsed not only by George W. Bush, but also by his opponent, Al Gore, during the presidential campaign of 2000.
Now, you have Hillary Clinton doing the Bible thing, you have Bill Clinton supporting the ban on local gay marriage, and you had Al Gore who supported the Charitable Choice concept. All relating to a faith-based scenario.
Again, Ridor. It's the Democrats that are screwing you around...not the Republicans. You know where they stand. But do you know where the Democratic party stand?
Let me mention one very, very successful faith-based program that's been around for decades and got hundreds of millions of dollars in its modern history from the government but did not take the money for its counseling programs but used it to help people instead.
Any guess?
The Salvation Army.
Not to mention many others in a similar situation but not as historic as the Salvation Army. We have Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, the Jewish Federations throughout the country, the Muslim organizations that do social service. For a fair amount of our country's history faith-based organizations have been given funds by the federal government to provide needed social services....not to proselytize.
So, yeah, I'm from New Mexico, a state Bush won when on November 1st Gov. Richardson of NM who bragged on national tv that Kerry would carry the state because Richardson "I know my state" didn't know any better.
If you want a dialogue, fine. If not. Fine with me. Go ahead and give up like the rest of the masses and rant all day long.
As do gays who discriminate others as well. You're not alone. As for the Salvation Army, it's faith based..not a mission to proselyze..but a mission to feed, shelter, clothes and help the homeless and the poor, regardless of who they are. As an organization, they believe in marriage between a man and a woman. Just as many other religions believe.
My greatest beef with the faith-based initiatives are that they are biased to start with. Many of them are not on a mission to proselytize.
I work in human services, more specifically with the mental ill. These faith-based non-profit organizations has the rules that comes in conflict with the services I try to provide. The rules will say that we cannot mention abortion, sinful issues, birth control issues and so on to the consumers or lose the fundings.
To me, that is not right. When Bush (or Clinton as you claimed) endorsed the program, I thought it was all right but for the last three years working with human services, we come up with the problems of dealing with these organization who insisted that we follow THEIR rules in order to get some help. To me, that is blackmail, right? But that is how it works. In fact, when I was in DC, I said that it was sort of blackmail, the lady with a faith-based organization shot back, "But it is sort of legalized blackmail," with a smirk on her face.
Now on other hand, I learned in New York Post (pro-Republican tabloid who hailed Bush as God) that some jewish, muslim, hindu and non-denominational groups struggled to obtain the funds from the government and some of them are still waiting while the Christian-affilitated groups breezed through and picked up the hefty funds.
To me, that is alarming. Don't you agree?
R-
If they get government funding to help the community, the poor, homeless, etc...they should be in the position to do so, even if they are faith based. I have no problem with that. But not to proselytize, regardless of the type of religion.
As for working in a faith-based organization, they do have rules you have to follow because you are working there and the rules have changed regarding how recipents use the money. In the past a secular-based rule said that recipients or workers could not call a "chapel" a chapel but an "auditorium" as in the case for the Orange County Rescue Mission in Los Angeles when applied for HUD funding prior to the Faith Based Initiative. They were told that they needed to form a secular nonprofit, ban all religious activity from their facility, and call their chapel an 'auditorium,' in order to get the money. That alone was discrimination against religion.
Now, the Faith-Based Initiative removes the barrier from allowing an organization, a faith-based organization or any other organization to hire someone of their own faith if they choose to do so. Identity is still preserved.
Just as I cannot overtly show my political affiation at work or get into political talks not related to work. Rather, common sense or discretion is mandatory on what can or cannot be said at work. Because I work in an environment where there are rules I agree to go by. I can do whatever I want outside of work. Besides, the faith-based work place where you work did not discriminate you because they hired you anyway. No?
For three decades Congress made an exemption to allow religious liberty, a very important part of the first amendment, the religious liberty right of faith-based organizations to hire according to their vision and mission. What would make an Orthodox Jewish organization lose its identity is if they were told, you can't hire people that share your vision and mission, you should hire several other faiths. The option should include the hiring of same faith. And President Clinton was the first President to sign a law saying you maintain that civil right even when you get federal grants.
As for other non-Christian religious organization not getting their grants is hearsay. Also, what exactly are the religious groups' missions and intents even if they do get the monies? Proselyze? That isn't the mission of Faith Based Initiative. There are rules and guidelines making clear that they do not go about proselytizing or to furthering religious purposes, but that they use the monies to provide the type of social services as intended, not religion. And they can still keep their mission statement saying in the hope that some may reach their "God-given potential and sustain themselves with dignity." Before the Faith Based Intiative, they couldn't mention the word "God" as part of their mission to help the poor, addicted, or homeless, even if it means giving food to those who don't believe in God.
What I said about what Clinton did is true. He was the one who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), not Bush. It was Bush who wanted FMA to strengthen the existing DOMA.
"I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse"." - President Clinton, September 20, 1996.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html
I never said Clinton endorsed the FMA. Not once did I say or even implied that. What I did say is that according to Newsweek reporters that covered the inside campaign going-ons in both Kerry and Bush campaign run, it was learned that Clinton tried to get Kerry to support the ban on local gay marriage. That's it. That's all I said.
Clinton already mentioned at NYU few months ago that he "personally" believed that gays & lesbians deserved the same benefits that the married couples received through the marriage license. But he said that he also *understood* that the majority of the country are not ready for this. He knew that the Republicans will wage a huge campaign to stab him regarding this. He also mentioned that he was under heavy pressures to acknowledge the DOMA by both parties who said that they will discredit his leadership if he refused to acknowledge the majority's wishes.
Why do you think Clinton attempted to issue an executive order to allow gays in the military only to have a huge outcry by Pentagon officials, religious zealots and Republicans who cornered Clinton and forced him to make a compromise with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy?
Clinton tried. But he also understood that the nation is not ready for the change.
Now, about the faith-based initiative, I understand your points. I mean, the initiative sounds good on the paper. But as a person who worked in the human services, it is incredible mind-boggling that people will use the fundings to hijack the policies.
Let's focus on a case: Many said that mental illnesses are genetic. Some said no. It depends, though. I had a client who has a severe mental illness and got pregnant. Do you think any sane couple wanted to have a baby from mentally ill mother? I promise you that the child will be abandoned for years and sail through the foster system.
So the option is to abort. But I personally don't encourage that. But when SHE asked to abort because she does not want to deal with it. That is where the faith-based initiative steps in and things became murky. They forbade it. I have to provide the services to HER needs, not THEIR needs, so of course, I write it down as a "surgery" instead of "abortion".
Voila. But you get the picture ... it's a hassle, really.
R-
Not only Faith based iniatitive sounds good on paper, it actually does work! And Bush had Texas, while as Governor, as a model to begin with. :)
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/policy/FB_Administrative_Presidency_Report_10_08_04.pdf
Post a Comment