Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by LadyEagle, Oct 18, 2004.
Michael Peroutka is a Christian and he does not check his Christianity at the door when he enters the world of politics.
The latter part of your statement is debatable.
Care to back that statement up, Gershom?
Is turning away from the needy a Christian principle?
Is giving to the needy in the US Constitution?
I am sorry, Gershom, that you do not consider voluntary, private charity to be at least equal, if not truly superior to, forced charity by the government.
I clicked and got a can not find document.
It's in the Bible. We're talking about Christianity and whether or not this candidate "checks his christianity in at the door when he enters the world of politics." You obviously missed that point in your haste to reply.
That's not the point, Ken. The other side could argue the same about abortion. You say the President has an obligation. Well, as a Christian, he has one to give to the needy as well.
President Bush’s “Faith-Based Initiative” Un-Godly, Un-Christian, Un-Biblical And Un-Constitutional
August 05, 2004
Printer Friendly E-mail this page
Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,
President Bush’s continued pushing of his so-called “faith-based initiative” --- which is really nothing more than a program to entice churches to get on Federal welfare --- is un-Christian, un-Constitutional and a disgraceful example of pork-barrel politics at its worst and most dangerous.
In his recent address to the Knights Of Columbus in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Bush used his talk to announce $188 million in grants to help “religious” charities compete for Federal funds. He said his goal was to end “unfair discrimination” against “faith-based” charities by the Federal Government. He pointed out, however, that the recipients of these Federal funds will not be allowed “to proselytize.”
In other words, for example, Christian groups who receive these Federal funds are forbidden to practice the “faith” upon which they are “based!” They are forbidden to proselytize, to preach the Gospel --- which our Lord commands (Matthew 28:19-20).
Instead of trying to, in Mr. Bush’s words, “level the playing field” by trying to get “faith-based” groups on the Federal welfare --- there should be no such “field” at all, none, for anybody. Instead of trying to get Christian groups ON Federal welfare, he should be getting non-“faith-based” groups OFF of Federal welfare.
Nowhere in the Bible does God’s Word allow any civil government to fund “faith-based” groups. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any authorization for the Federal-funding of “faith-based” groups.
And in purely practical and political terms, for any Christian group to receive Federal welfare would involve them in a bureaucratic nightmare, wrap them in miles of Federal red tape and lead to such things as IRS audits and much, much more Federal intrusion.
In addition, while Mr. Bush said in his talk that his “faith-based” welfare program would apply to “all faiths, Christian, Jew or Muslim,” it will NOT be limited to these faiths. It will only be a matter of time before some judge somewhere rules that “faith-based” means the Wicca/witch “religion,” Satan-worshippers, those who practice voo-doo and, literally, only God knows what other “faiths.”
The Lord Jesus Christ says we must “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Amen! But neither Scripture nor our Constitution say that “Caesar” is allowed to give money to “faith-based” organizations. And those Christian groups who seek and receive Federal welfare reveal that, ironically, they have no faith because they do not believe that God can provide for their needs.
For God, Family and the Republic,
That's not the point, Ken. The other side could argue the same about abortion. You say the President has an obligation. Well, as a Christian, he has one to give to the needy as well. </font>[/QUOTE]You don't know that Peroutka doesn't give to the needy. Charity is a personal issue for a Christian and has no place in government.
But what about "checking your Christianity in at the door in the world of politics?"
Y'all being hypocrites for Peroutka? Blast Bush for his lack of Christianity, but when it comes to Mr. P it's a different set of standards?
It's called a red herring. Pick one thing unrelated to the original post and start a tangient of confusion away from the original concept. Perhaps Ken could have explained it better than not "checking Christianity at the door," but the principles and morals are there on any issue, and furthermore, the desire to get back to the US Constitution. Our Founding Fathers would freak if they saw what abuses of power are being carried out today in all three branches of our federal government.
Call us hypocrites if it makes you feel better, Gershom, but our candidate will not invite Muslims to come to the White House and touch their foreheads to the floor in prayers to allah and furthermore, our candidate will not profess to be a Christian and then share "communion" (Eid) with those who worship false gods.
A Christian principle is to not steal. The government taking money by force and giving it to another person, if another person did that to you, Gershom, is called stealing. Simply voting to authorize the government to do it doesn't make it moral.
That's not the point, Ken. The other side could argue the same about abortion. You say the President has an obligation. Well, as a Christian, he has one to give to the needy as well. </font>[/QUOTE]He does not have the right to give MY money away in the name of charity. What you evidently fail to understand is that federal money is OUR money.
It's done to us every week. Look at you pay stub. Anyhow, we're not just talking monetary giving. What about cutting off foreign aid by ceasing funds and military support? Is it a Christian principle to cut off the needy?
Demanding that foreign aid be ceased altogether is NOT Christian.