It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Executive Order 13397 Homeland Security & Faith Based Education

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
What in the world does Homeland Security have to do with peoples' faith? I have a big problem with this presidential order. I have long been suspicious of the dept of Homeland Securiy and felt that if not watched carefully they would intrude on our basic rights and it seems that fear was justified. The question now is What can we as citizens do about it. I don't think the issue that we need to concern ourselves with is what the faith is of the person placed in charge but rather the purpose of this new Executive Order and it's supposed place in our society. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative but orders like this may push my vote to the liberal side. I fear for the separation of church and state.




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
agreed - Jesus had and has much compassion for REPENTENT sinners.

But Jesus also had and has no tolerance for lies, false religions, and unrepentent sinners.
Kind of the love the sinner but hate the sin thing.


There is this little story you funnymentalists tend to forget about. There was this woman woho was dragged before Jesus by a mob who intended to stone her for the crime of adultry. He listened to them then knelt and wrote something in the sand (what it was went unrecorded) then told the crowd "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." then one by one the men dropped their heads (and stones) and walked away with their heads bowed in shame. Then Jesus turned to the woman and asked, "Who is here now to judge you?" And she replied "No one my lord." and the part you self righteous always forget, then Jesus said "Neither do I. Go now and sin no more." Jesus said neither do I. And if Jesus would not judge her, who are you, a mere mortal to judge anyone?



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I fail to see anything in this article about "faith based education." I do see an attempt to allow faith based groups (and others) to participate in community relief and charitable events/drives.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Ca-Ching! I thought Republicans were 'fiscally responsible'. Guess not. More beuracracy to the max!

Ca-Ching! This is were ATS puts itself on the map and challenges this in the Supreme Court.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
grover -
1. I am not a fundamentalist.

2. the actual words that Jesus used in a correct translation are:

John 8:10-11:

"Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more"

Jesus did indeed Judge her and he Judged her repentant and hence did not condemn her - and note carefully - He said to her to SIN NO MORE. Jesus did not say that we should accept or tolerate her sin - like modernist heretics would like us to tolerate and accept the sins of homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc...

Dawnstar.

Your preaching to the choir - 1. I do not care about school prayer one way or the other - my kids are homeschooled. If my children did attend school - i would not want some teacher leading my children in prayer - because in all likelyhood it would be a prayer that i would consider heretical - so basically - i am against any type of school led prayer. Now - does this mean that i would sue a school if they said some prayer at a football game or commencement speech - hell no - as long as it is not a constant thing that i believe could effect my childrens faith as i desire to teach it - i can tolerate occasional things.

regarding evolution - what i am opposed to is the complete ommision of any teaching that exposes the myth that evolution is. The theory of evolution has been proven false in many ways and from many sources. Now that being said - i do not think that we should teach Genesis in school either - I simply think that any teaching of our orgins and the orgins of the universe should be left to parents and the philosphy class - and out of science. If science cannot demonstrate a theory in a tangeble way - it is not really science. You compared gravity - i tell ya what - i can demonstrate gravity - just try jumping out of a plane.

regarding the neo-cons - again - your preaching to the choir - in my opinion Bush is a satanist just like clinton and the majority of politicians in the world.

Republicrats and Demicans - both peas in the same satanic socialist pod!

Regarding abortion - i believe that abortion should be illegal - why - because there is no question at all from a scientific or philosophical point of veiw that abortion kills a human being.

Regarding an exception for the life of the mother - i would go along with the South Dakota law - at least what i have read it says.


anyhow - dawnstar - i don't think we are as far apart on these issues as you think.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I fail to see anything in this article about "faith based education." I do see an attempt to allow faith based groups (and others) to participate in community relief and charitable events/drives.


I'm not sure in the "community relief" and "charitable events" element of this program. What I do know is this program is supposed to geared to programs that provide various forms of treatment for a plethera of social problems such as prostitution, drug addiction, etc; for those who cannot afford mainstream treatment.

MY problem is that these religious organizations are going to incorporate their religious views. "You shouldn't do drugs because God doesn't love those who do drugs". "Repent for your sins for you'll be destined for hell if you don't". --or-- "You're a male prostitute? All Fags will burn in hell; therefore, God commands you to stop now" etc; etc; etc. What's worse? These organizations will be using MY TAX DOLLARS to foist these views on the weak.

DISGUSTING


Clearly a violation of separation of church and state.


I am eminently angry at President Bush for this stain upon our nation


[edit on 15-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
He listened to them then knelt and wrote something in the sand (what it was went unrecorded) then told the crowd "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." then one by one the men dropped their heads (and stones) and walked away with their heads bowed in shame.


This is a great story. And according to Bart Ehrman, the author of "Misquoting Jesus", it never happened. Saw him on Jon Stewart last night. The book looks very interesting and makes a great case for Jesus being misquoted.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
MY problem is that these religious organizations are going to incorporate their religious views.
...
Clearly a violation of separation of church and state.

I am eminently angry at President Bush for this stain upon our nation


I agree completely. And unfortunately, this is just the beginning, I believe. I passed anger a while ago, but welcome to the inevitable descent of the American way of life. One step at a time.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'm not sure in the "community relief" and "charitable events" element of this program.


I agree with you, put a religious government office with a religious bias director and you are going to have religious views imposed on the people that depend on charity and programs but this time they will be pay by the tax payer.



MY problem is that these religious organizations are going to incorporate their religious views.


Exactly, is easier and cheaper to used tax payer dollars to make pamphlets telling people how to live their lives and to repent in God's names rather than offer them the help they need for their problems.

It has been done before and abuses are always there.

I see it as more Tax payer money down the drain as usual.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Benevolant Heretic

- if you desired to find out the truth about someones character - would you only ask their enemies and only believe their enemies?

Ehrman is a Jew - so it is quite clear that a jew - someone who denies that Jesus is God - and is an enemy of Christ - would desire to attack Him and His teachings. - if you don't believe that Ehrman is a jew - check this out:

www.houseofnames.com...

Regarding his contentions that Jesus is misquoted - it is absurd.

The most ancient translation of the Old Testament is the Greek Septuagint Version and it dates back to the 3rd century before Christ. It was from this that the earliest translation fo the competed bible - the Vulgate was translated - its english version - the Douay-Rheims - is an exact translation of this 3rd century BC work. The Vulgate translation of the New Testament was completed in the 4th century - at a time when even earlier manuscripts still existed - and possibly even some of the original. It is also worth noting that in the 4th century - most of the literate world were able to speak and read Greek, Latin, and in many cases Hebrew as well. So there is no question that if Jerome had errors in the Latin translation - it would have been quickly exposed by a great many people at the time.

This is simply the case of a jew who hates Christ trying to denounce Christianity by attacking it at the source.

People of far greater intelligence than this idiot have tried to debunk the New Testament and, like this satanist - have failed.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
Benevolant Heretic

- if you desired to find out the truth about someones character - would you only ask their enemies and only believe their enemies?


You know what? You are my enemy far more than this Ehrman dude could ever be, even if he tried. I am not a Christian, and in fact I'm not at all crazy about Christianity, even though I was raised a devout Christian. And it's largely because of people like you. Your posts in this thread are bigoted, closed-minded, hate-filled and to me, worthless.

This thread is about religion in government, not the fantasy of some sort of superiority of Christianity.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Dude, Jews ain't the enemy, we kind of slaughtered them a few times becuase we said they didn't recognize the savoir. Of course, I never understood that, the Savoir of the Jews wasn't recognized by the Jews, so how do we know they aren't the right ones? Still waiting...

And still want someone to bet against me that a Good Christian that will ban gay marrige so they can be rounded up and sent to special showers will be appointed. No one will cause they all know that is who will be appointed, just like those put in power at the Supreme Court, they are Bush lovin conservatives, and the bad kind of Bush at that!



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by grover
He listened to them then knelt and wrote something in the sand (what it was went unrecorded) then told the crowd "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." then one by one the men dropped their heads (and stones) and walked away with their heads bowed in shame.


This is a great story. And according to Bart Ehrman, the author of "Misquoting Jesus", it never happened. Saw him on Jon Stewart last night. The book looks very interesting and makes a great case for Jesus being misquoted.

Sometimes the truth inherent in a story transends whether it actually happened or not, and in this case, the truth contained therein is universal.

As for onesharpbroadhead he is unfortuantely a typical case of someone using their religion as a justification for their bigotry and intolerance, as opposed to using it as an inspiration for their compassion and love. Equally unfortunate, he will never see it though it is sprawled large in every posting he has made in this thread.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
well Benevolant heretic was unable to see the point being made - it must have been well beyond his ability to understand.

Regarding the enemies of Chrisitainity - you would have to be blind to think that Christianty does not have enemies - and the chief enemies are and always have been jews and muslems. Think about it - both of these religions claim to worship the same God and both deny Jesus Christ and His Church. Both groups have historically waged wars against Christianity - sometimes from without and sometimes from within.

If i wanted to learn about Mohammed and his character - would I get a fair assessment from a Rabbi or a Christian Clergyman - perhaps, but most likely - at the very least - these would only point out the bad of Mohammed. It only makes sense.

If i wanted to learn about the Jewish Talmud - would I get a fair account of what it says and teaches from a nut case whitesupremecist racist? - very unikely.


so why would an intelligent thinking person look to a jew who denies that Jesus is God, denies that the New Testament is the Word of God, etc... for a fair account of Jesus and what Jesus said? That is the only point i was making - i didn't realize that this point was soo difficult to understand.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
Regarding the enemies of Chrisitainity - you would have to be blind to think that Christianty does not have enemies - and the chief enemies are and always have been jews and muslems. Think about it....


I'm new to this thread...only read your post, onesharpbroadhead.....

But the chief enemy of Christianity, and all other faith-based religion, is science. The entities you're citing implicitly support the dogma presented in Christianity, the only points of contention are the details. *Yawn* This is just more divide and conquer B.S.....sorry to be so aggresive, I usually tend away from such a presentation, however, I believe that you are missing the point of such a move by the Bush administration.....

Seperation of Church and State.......Freedom of religion........these are basic rights that each American takes for granted. I say take for granted because it is a minority those who actually do the research and find out more about other religions so as to better inflect their own spiritual rhetoric...........

So the fact that a political move has been made to ensure the propagation of faith and spiritual subject matter is baffling to me. Seriously, do we need another outlet for religious involvement? There are literally thousands of churches as well as a heavy influence in the media towards religious points. We already have in place, manifested in many forms, what the Bush Administration has presented........it's redundant!

I swear to God..(
)...why do we need to continually beat into the ground a subject that has for the most part been already covered? As children, we have already been exposed to all of the 'teachings' and have no need for this....

Where the hell is Bill Nye the Science Guy for Adults?!?



[edit on 15-3-2006 by MemoryShock]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Science is no enemy of Christianity.

people who believe that scientists and theories are infallible - well - they could be considered an enemy - but not much of one.

To me science demonstrates the wonders of my Creator and causes me to be in awe at His great power.

But I am not a lemming and i certainly do not believe that science and technology are gods.

Remember it was science who a few years ago told us that eating eggs were horrible for us and now - science tells us that eating eggs are good for us.

What was a scientific fact ten years ago is not necessarily today.

Scientists are people - fallible people who have their own biased motives and preconceived notions - like anyone and everyone else.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
well Benevolant heretic was unable to see the point being made - it must have been well beyond his ability to understand.


You are mistaken. I understood your point completely.

And, grover, yes, the story is more important (and meaningful) than whether or not it really happened. It's a beautiful story.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
Remember it was science who a few years ago told us that eating eggs were horrible for us and now - science tells us that eating eggs are good for us.


Actually......I would argue that the media told us about the eggs. Science contains many variables and what one study might turn up regarding an aspect of eggs may well have a contradictory application as a study performed with a different aspect as the thesis. Then, there are subjective variables that differ with the individual in respect to personal physiology, environment, social structure, etc........

Taking a single news report that has been dumbed down as holy writ does does make a science adherent......I'm glad that you interacted with a point of my post, but I still believe you missed the main one.....which is......

...Why do we need our elected officials to encourage faith in any way, shape, or form? Seperation of church and state includes the abstainance of other people influencing our decisions on such matters......however subtle their influencing may be..........



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Memory Shock

- the eggs thing was just an example that popped into my head and was just meant to illustrate that science makes errors and changes its teachings often.

If you desire - i can post lists of things that science once taught as fact and later refuted - there are many.

It seemed rather self evident to me - so i just used an example that popped into my head.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
Memory Shock

- the eggs thing was just an example that popped into my head and was just meant to illustrate that science makes errors and changes its teachings often.

If you desire - i can post lists of things that science once taught as fact and later refuted - there are many.

It seemed rather self evident to me - so i just used an example that popped into my head.


I understood your use of the example as an analogy.....if you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I used the same terms you did...no specific citations or links. As a result, you can juxtapose corralating terms from different topics and more or less end up with the same statement...simple logic application.....

I do not desire you to provide me any examples of 'where science got it wrong'........one basic aspect of science is to eliminate options and theories. Tedious and disheartening for some, but once you have eliminated a specific idea/avenue, then you don't have to waste time going over it again......which will invariably lead to the 'correct answer'.........

[edit on 15-3-2006 by MemoryShock]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Can you guys start another thread about science vs religion and Christians vs Jews?

This is ATSNN for Christ's sake!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join