NEWS: Executive Order 13397 Homeland Security & Faith Based Education

The fact that this is another failed policy of Dubya that he's decided to hide within the Department of Homeland Security (just like Total Information Awareness) should raise all kinds of red flags. It seems he's chosen to dump all of these things under the umbrella of DHS--where there is no oversight of the tax dollars because of national security reasons (yeah). DHS has become the land where the constitution and the bill of rights does not exist.

on the latter arguments...even Mr. Ehrman (an admitted agnostic) stops short of calling the story of adultery a misquote of Jesus. He claims it to be a story that was added later. It is up to the reader of all scripture to be able to "rightly divide the word of truth". The story is very true of the Christ as related to his teachings on judgment also admitted to by Mr. Ehrman. Basically, Christ called for minding your own business when it comes to sinning, sinners and what their sins are...you've got more than enough sins of your own to be sitting around worrying about what your neighbor is doing.--Now, folk can say I misquoted Jesus like the scribes, but He said something to that effect. I'm just too lazy to go get my bible to grab the exact quote.

the fact is this

regardless of what you believe broadhead it really shouldnt influence the law. the FACT of the matter is that if you get rid of an unwanted pregnancy then thats one less unwanted child who wont have to grow up in a living hell and be a product of such an environment which is more likely to lead them to crime and hate then anything else. your moral take on it really doesnt have any basis on the law because the law was meant to use logic not moral basis.

everybodies morals are different, so the law of the land in the land of the free cannot ever be based on morallity. we arent saying you cant have morals, we arent saying you have to accept them personally. but by law, they are entitled to be as free as they choose to up to the point of logical means. such logical means for example means a murder who kills for the fun of it. no logic behind it, it in no way benefits the community as a whole, so its illegal. a man who kids a known murder in self defense, legal.

if it doesnt cause harm to anybody in the community or can be proven to be beneficial to the community then it should be legal. im not going to morally judge the murder, but by logical law, we must sentence him accordingly. the sentence will be a logical one though out by a jury of his peers.

unforunately this may never be accomplished because everyone wants their moral ruling to be the law of the land.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can you guys start another thread about science vs religion and Christians vs Jews?

This is ATSNN for Christ's sake!

Sate yourself......for one, this thread has segued many times with your involvement.......for two....I was responding, with an attempt to get back on topic at the bottom of my post.....two posts ago...for three......the generalized discussion of science vs. religion is actually quite relevant to the source article.....why institute a faith based official when many of the issues facing the American populace today are scientific in nature? From medical issues....health care, prescription drugs and the effect on human physiology to energy concerns and the subsequnet economic influence......from there I could go on a spiel relating misdirection from our political leaders that could/would detail exactly where their priorties are mixed up. A social interaction that is our society incorporates many aspects of the human condition and appealing to the average citizen for faith only sends a red flag to my mind....especially considering the many problems this administration has incurred from the citizenry not taking their word on faith......

Sometimes, a foundation needs to be set......instead of reacting, why not respond and coax a direction that you would prefer to talk? I'm quite capable and more than willing to exit the realm of religious debate.........

[edit on 15-3-2006 by MemoryShock]

grimreaper - your logic is terribly flawed - why? - because we have laws against killing children - if we can make it illegal for someone to kill a baby the moment it is born - we can also make a law to make it illegal to kill a baby the second before it is born.

why is it illegal to have more than one wife?

why is prostitution illegal?

why are certain drugs illegal?

why is certain types of gambling illegal?

why is perjury illegal?

why is anything for that matter illegal?

we must decide what is considered living and what isnt i think thats the main issue with abortion. now moral asside, we should figure out at how many months pregnant could a baby survive with a premature birth. if there is a chance for survival at 5 months pregnant then anytime at 5 months or after it would be illegal to abort that baby because that would be killing then

other then that, all those laws i find flawed. laws should be based on logic rather then moral. why? because everyone has different morals, but logic isnt really that flawed (only when you try to affiliate logic with moral then logic is still messed up). is it logical to kill a law abiding citizen for no reason? no? then its illegal. is it logical to kill a person in self defense? yes, so that shouldnt be illegal. is it logical to have prostitution? well if we can have it so its taxed and such, i believe that it should be legal. theres no logical reason to not allow it.

stop basing laws on moral and things will be much more easier to follow and judge. there wont be so much conflict if its based on logic.

logic - Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that from the very moment of conception a living human being exists and will exist until it is killed or dies naturally.

Your logic that a human being should be able to be legally killed whenever it cannot sustain itself is absurd. A baby at any stage in its life cannot sustain itself - be it in the womb or out of the womb. Most children, handicapped, ederly, infirmed, mentally disabled, etc... cannot sustain themselves and are dependant on other human beings to sustain them - just like an unborn baby depends on its mother.

Your logic - if followed through - apart from "morals - as you call it" - would allow for the murder of anyone who cannot sustain themselves apart from another.

My logic is consistent - ALL INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE should be protected and honored equally under the law - be they born, unborn, old, young, sick, healthy, etc...

My beliefs are based on logic and the implications of logic.

We know - I REPEAT KNOW that unborn babies are human beings - they are just in a different stage of devolpement than we are at this time - we were once the same as the aborted child, we were just lucky enough to have survived the most dangerous place for a human being today - THE WOMB!

What this boils down to is whether or not we should legally protect those who cannot protect themselves.


It is a slippery slope whenever we devalue human life - and we KNOW where it leads from history.

Hey, the BIBLE DISAGREES WITH YOU!

According to the bible, a human doesn't get their SOUL until they take their first breath! SO abortion isn't murder! Go Abortions!

Devin S. - please -

1. Even if Scripture did not say that life began at the moment of conception - we know scientifically that it does. Common sense and reason tells anyone that from the moment of conception until death - we have a human being in various stages of development.

So we do not even need to bring Scripture into the debate at all on whether or not abortion should be legal.

2 - However - since YOU brought up the bible - NOT ME - i will address your ignorance of Scripture.

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations."

Luke 1:41:
"And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. "

Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21. An infant under the age of one month is considered to be worth less than an adult Leviticus 27:1-8, Numbers 3:15,28,34,39,40,43. Also, God once punished David by killing his newborn son (II Samuel 12:14-19); so apparently the right-to-life of the infant is zilch.

Sanctity of life, born or unborn, is denied in many places. Two examples: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling....” I Samuel 15:3, “they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” Hosea 13:16

A lot of the discussion on abortion has to do with “illegitimate” pregnancies. An adulterous woman is to be killed Lev.20:10; with no mention of an exception if she is pregnant. And “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even unto the tenth generation..” Deut. 23:2. So according to the Bible neither the fetus nor the born child is worthy of much consideration.

Some quotes that anti-abortion people use out of context: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..” Jeremiah 1:5 This is claimed to show that the “soul” starts at conception. But reading the entire chapter it's clear that the god is talking specifically to Jeremiah, not to the entire human race, as he is telling him that he was born to be a prophet.

“...he hath blessed thy children within thee.” Psalms 147:13. Again, this is supposed to mean that human life begins before birth; that a fetus is the same as a child. But read the rest of the psalm, and see that thee refers to the city of Jerusalem, not pregnant women!

Sorry, I can quote scripture to, a church going man for more then 2 decades! Mwahahahahaha!!!!!

so you believe that an unwanted child should still be born even though the mother may very well just leave it somewhere or just simply discard of it after its born?

your still thinking in a moral sense, you believe killing is wrong. as a personal belief thats fine, but as a law to a person who doesnt want to give birth you arent one to say. when it comes down to it the child is not wanted, and in a logical sense, if the child is not wanted and cannot yet experience, then theres no sense in keeping it alive. unless you go out and say ill adopt the child then id rather not put the child in such a situation. unless you grew up without parents your whole life, or a majority of it knowing your parents did want you i doubt you know what its like to feel that.

would it be logical to cause a person so much pain because you morally felt that we should keep it alive?

grimreapers logic is bizarre at best -

If the standered for killing children is whether or not their parents wanted them - then you better start another holocaust - cause 6 million is only gonna scratch the surface.

If the standered for killing somone is because they might suffer - you better just kill everyone - cause there are none who escape some sort of suffering in this life.

you actually have no logic at all - you emote - you don't THINK!

so - go ahead and FEEL it is ok to murder whoever you FEEL is not worthy of life.

i dont feel that way, i wouldnt abort my child, i wouldnt abondon it as such. nor would i want a child to go through its entire life without a family. if its born or past the certain point where its brain is fully functional then we put them up for adoption. but if right from the get go they arent wanted and it doesnt even have a brain yet, why put it through the pain, knowing well that it will go through it because of your own moral beliefs, then telling it that it cant kill itself because it will go to hell.

How in the heck did this thread ever get off on this tangent? The posts on abortion, the bible, etc., have no place on this particular thread.

Devin S. -

Your Exodus quote is speaking of a woman who miscarries after being struck by a man - and refers to the punishment - It does not claim that it is ok to kill the unborn child.

Your Leviticus quote has nothing to do with abortion at all.

Your quote about God killing Davids newborn son - again - has nothing to do with abortion - newBORN son - God also killed all the first born of Egypt - so does that mean that the bible says its ok to kill all firstborn people - come on!

Your other quotes about God commanding that man woman child, etc... be killed - is clear evidence that God views them all the same - and defeats your purpose. Not one quote you gave says that a human being does not get its soul until it takes its first breath - NOT ONE!

Yet you hypocritically proclaim that stating what Scripture CLEARLY teaches about humanity - you claim is quoting out of context.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Could we get this back on topic!?!

This is ATSNN for Christ's sake!

From one who said it best.........

Attention on deck!

To date, there are two accounts that sit dormant because the people could not refrain from derailing threads.

I really hate separating people from their accounts, but I will do this in order to promote the overall health of the board.

Understand, ATSNN is MY baby, and I WILL take any more thread derailment as a personal thing.

I suggest all read and comply. I am NOT joking!

I think that you are alll missing the big picture here, and that is the rise of a super powerful False church! One which uses the name of Jesus freely-like Bush so often does, while the higherlings persecute the real christians!

Prepare for a wake up call!

In response to the questions about whether a Wiccan could be the head of the department:

"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision." - to ABC NEWS, June 1999, regarding Ft. Hood's decision to allow Wiccan rituals

If anyone is surprised that this is happening now(at this time), perhaps you'll remember:
What we are going to do in the second term is to make sure that the grant money is available for faith communities to bid on, to make sure these faith-based offices are staffed and open. But the key thing is, is that we do have the capacity to allow faith programs to access enormous sums of social service money, which I think is important."
--George W. Bush, January 11, 2005.S. military to promote it." - October 15, 2000

Lastly, if anyone thinks that this will not be a Christian-centric department, with the goal to force "one religion" down the American peoples throats:
"We share common goals and a common faith."
--George W. Bush, addressing the Christian Coalition's "Road To Victory" convention

The thing that bothers me the most about this thread, is the very responses I have read. The fact that accounts have been banned because we can't keep our particular "religions" out of the mix and not discount another's is the very reason why we should all be lucid of the ramifications that this new "Department of Faith" is going to bring.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by kirain]

Onesharp started it Thomas!

Did not
Did to
nuh uh
you were in my room
you were in my room first
was not
was to
Mods!!!

Anyways, back on subject, as the quotes provided prove, Bush is not going to be appointing Muslims or Jews or Buddists or Hindu's or Scientologists or Witches or Druids or Mormons or anyone else that doesn't believe Gays are evil and need to be stopped, like the President does.
In the future...
"Gee, you don't have a cross in your front yard, you are going against the 38th Amendment, jail time for you!"

Added the scariest of the quotes.
Lastly, if anyone thinks that this will not be a Christian-centric department, with the goal to force "one religion" down the American peoples throats:
"We share common goals and a common faith."
--George W. Bush, addressing the Christian Coalition's "Road To Victory" convention

[edit on 16-3-2006 by DevinS]