Church is forbidden by Obama for his youth volunteers

This is why I'm not in favor of the government giving money to religious groups...

Because in this era, with government money, comes government control.

It's not worth it.

 

No doubt the wording and the direction of this measure is designed to discourage one's expression of faith or religion while participating the the corps..... However, I do believe there are constitutional grounds which prevent it from being the broad sweep of control and censor which some are painting with their brush of concern (and well placed I might add). No doubt, the very fact that this bill identifies that there are some limits.... means that there will be ..... and those limits are as yet unspecified in little more than ambiguous terms.... which leaves open the question of the rights of the individual vs the complaints which may be lodged by others who wish to curb or oust a person because of their failth or religion.

As I said early.... during the school day, students and teachers have periods of time when they can exercise their rights without infringement and periods in which they can't according to the present interpretation of our law. There is wisdom in knowing when it is allowed and the guidelines, and when it is not allowed.... if one wishes to fully exercise their opportunity for Christian witness in a lawful and orderly manner. I would encourage all who are reading this to become familiar with Liberty Council and read the guidelines which they have published based upon court cases and guidelines set forth by the Department of Education.

Pastors and SS teachers, and particularly those of youth groups.... would do well to inform those of their congregation regarding these guidelines....... as it not only lets one know where the boundaries are by which they may lawfully come under attack.... but even more important.... under what conditions their liberties may be fully exercised without infringement... or they have a constitutional complaint and case.

 

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Tim, it is all one statement which has to be read in its entire context. What I bolded is clarifying who is being restricted and that describes people in charge, those that would be in a church or organizations leadership. Not the average Christian who attends church, and might witness on a personal level in their private lives.

 

I have. Please answer my question.

 

First of all you should accept the fact that the government should not support religious groups. Why would we want them to? With support comes control. I don't want the church to be controlled by the state. Have you watched the series on TV on Henry VIII. He's a great example why we should never mix church and state.

If you didn't accept government funding of the church you shouldn't have joined Americorps. Go to New Orleans as a Christian not an employee of the government and share your faith.

 

As far as I can tell, the faith based initiative was put in place by executive order.
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_...nd_Community_Initiatives#Under_George_W._Bush


Under George W. Bush

OFBCI was established by President George W. Bush through executive order[2] on January 29, 2001, representing one of the key domestic policies of Bush's campaign promise of "compassionate conservatism." The initiative sought to strengthen faith-based and community organizations and expand their capacity to provide federally-funded social services, with the idea having been that these groups were well-situated to meet the needs of local individuals. As Texas governor, Bush had used the "Charitable Choice" provisions of the 1996 welfare reform (which allowed "faith-based" entities to compete for government contracts to deliver social services) to support faith-based groups in Texas.

The office was briefly led by Don Willett, an aide from Bush's tenure as governor of Texas who was later appointed a justice on the Supreme Court of Texas. The first person named as director of the OFBCI was John DiIulio, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor. DiIulio later left the office and became a critic of the Bush administration.

Critics of the OFBCI, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union, assert that it violated the Establishment Clause by using tax money to fund religion.

For fiscal year 2005, more than $2.2 billion in competitive social service grants were awarded to faith-based organizations. Between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, the total dollar amount of all grants awarded to FBOs increased by 21 percent (GAO 2006:43[3]). The majority of these grants were distributed through state agencies to local organizations in the form of formula grants (GAO 2006:17[3]).

Safeguards on faith-based organizations

Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.

* They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
* Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
* FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3]).

 

While I don't agree with Tims concerns over this, I think what you posted about Bush is apples and oranges to Tims point about what Obama was demanding.

 

Telling people they can not go to worship servies, or teaching(sunday school, other classes in church) is evil and from satan, and here christians makes excuses for it.
easy to tell which side their on.

 

It doesn't say that people can't go to church. I also would like to see some clarification about SS teachers, I expressed that same concern earlier. Personally I don't like this as law but lets please be honest in our criticism, it does not tell people that they can't go to church.

 

Tim, I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this. I still think if you read the entire sentence in context, that is clearly not the meaning. Even when pulled out of context as your doing one could argue that is not what it would mean.

 

Suppose the hurting person is of another faith like JW. Or reverse it and say the person doing the rescue is a Muslim and the person being rescued is a Christian. The government via Americore could be held liable if harassment or other type charges were later filed. I never take these laws to mean you can't practice your religion, what they mean is if someone complains the Government can say we told you not to do it. It simply covers their backs...

 

It means you can't engage in these practices while doing official Americore duties and representing the Government. You are free to worship and teach when off duty. Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution but their concern is separation of Church and state while you are acting in an official capacity.

 

Tiny...

Either you or the writer of this article must really have it out for Obama, Obama has nothing to do with this bill. It was sponsored Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and 37 other representatives and passed the house with a bipartisan vote of 321-105.

Obama has nothing to do with this until it passes the Senate and makes his desk...

 

I am not so sure that is all this is saying, and that is why I don't like it. IMHO if you read the wording it would not allow a minister to participate, and maybe even a SS teacher. That does concern me and I would love to see some clarification. However jumping to extremes about people not being allowed to go to church just diminishes the real argument and unfortunately would make most people just tune out any serious criticism of the bill.

Read the wording again, I don't see how this language is limited to how you are describing it.

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

 

Like you I like to put my own two peepers on the words before I draw conclusions. I was going by what those clauses usually mean. I looked up the bill as in the congress and this is really strange, I don't find this section in the bill...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111Nnupe1::

Section 1304 has a different title and subsection 125 was repealed...

 

The government doesn't control what you do off duty, just while representing them...