Jim Wallis on How Obama's Faith-Based Initiatives Office Is Shaping Up
Reader Comments
tramadol on-line
cA1ABo Perfect work!
soundtracks
+1
cialis
Great topic. Now i can say thank you
adipex damages sight
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
adipex fat loss drugs
I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!
parkinsons and valium
Great site. Keep doing.
next day tramadol cod
Great site. Keep doing.
seperation of church from state
To be a Christian is to be called out of the world system. To be in the world but not of it. To follow the Bible (God's Word) and not the World (the god of this world Satan.) There can only be one God, so how can you come to accept all the world's gods who do not believe that Jesus is the true son of the One and Holy God? Faith Base Initiative is just a continuation of the Ecumenical Movement started by Vatican II, 1962 by Pope John Paul 23rd. Ecumenism means to merge all religions into one as does Faith Base Initiative. This is a predominantly Catholic undertaking with GW Bush starting it in his first four years of office, entering the White House as a Cabinet Level Office. You say you are for separation of church and state but you have brought it into the White House to make a rule that to get fundings you can't proselatize, yet God's commands His followers to make all men Christians or at least hear the gospel (the good news.) Your mixing God's word with the world system and that is like trying to mix oil with water. It aint going to happen very long. You are wrong in trying to pigeon hole all religions into one. The Masons preach this. The Ecumenical Movement preaches this and now the U.S. Government is preaching it. The next thing the government will be asking is that Christians and all peoples take the Mark of the Beast if they want to buy and sell.
reply to Reality-Based Government
Give us a break, government funded faith based programs have been around for many many decades. The united way, YMCA, Salvation Army, AA and countless other programs have received thousands and thousands if not millions of dollars from both federal and local government. Has the roof caved in? Are there Wiccan, Muslim and atheist dying in the streets due to them being shut out of these services? Well? The silence is deafening. They are not shut out are they?
In fact before modern political correctness many local governments openly and freely supported and benefited from the service of socially conscious clergy of all faiths. This country is supposed to be melting pot of all faiths, races and backgrounds. The real crime here as it was in Communist Russia and still is in China is that people can no longer share their faith; this leads to ignorance and unfounded hatred. I believe those who are against faith-based programs are inadvertently fostering hostility amongst different faith based groups by focusing on their differences rather than the commonalities such as helping the poor and under privileged. It is a crime that under the proposed complete separation of church/mousqe/synagouge/temple and state that the group of children from my daughter’s school would not be able to support local social service programs because she is being taught morals based on the teachings of Christ. A sad commentary about modern society indeed.
Reality-Based Government
I fail to understand the good this will do the American people. Upon what subject would such an office lend its "expertise"? Which religions would be represented...and which will be excluded? Wicca, Islam, Baha'i, Hare-Krishna, Satanism, Scientology; overlooking any of these (or the countless other faiths in existence) would send the message to the followers of those religions that they simply don't belong.
Then, of course, you have the question of how to address the obvious violation of the Establishment Clause inherent in such an undertaking. What do you tell those Americans who have no intention of allowing their tax-dollars go into the hands of individuals and groups whose beliefs directly conflict with their own?
Although this idea was ridiculous when Bush Jr. started his version of it, at least with him it was par for the course. This man was, after all, the President who claimed invading Iraq was the will of god. I expected far more from Obama, however. Whether you voted for him or not, you must admit he seems far better equipped (at least intellectualy) to handle the complexities of running a country than our former Commander in Chief.
Regardless of the intentions behind this endeavor, it is a mistake of humungous proportions. If we decide the idea of allowing a group of people who form beliefs without benefit of evidence or reason should be allowed access to the President's ear, why not also include John Edwards and Sylvia Browne?
I prefer my government to make decisions by applying reason and knowledge to evidence, thank you very much.
