DOJ Defunds Youth Programs that Reference God

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
DOJ Defunds Youth Programs that Reference God

that's Defunds not to be mistaken for defends.

as in 'cutting off the money'.


The Department of Justice has summarily removed federal funding from two Louisiana youth programs because a local official refused to sign a pledge stating he would require the programs to ban mentions of God



Julian Whittington, the sheriff of Bossier Parish, LA, told Fox News that Obama's Justice Office of Civil Rights de-funded the Young Marines chapter and another youth program over mentions of religion. In the case of the Young Marine program, chartered in 1965, the funding was cut off because the group features an oath that mentions "God." In the other case, it was because a program for at-risk youth featured a voluntary, student-led prayer session as one of its activities.

Sheriff Whittington says that the DOJ withdrew a combined $30,000 from the programs because the groups refused to remove God from their activities. The sheriff said this was evidence of the government's "aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms."


I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation for this
but just the same, many Federal employee and military 'oaths' use "God".....

I wonder what the real reason is here.?

DOJ Defunds Youth Programs that Reference God

I believe Holder himself took an oath of office that ends with "So help me God. "

What's the differences in this case ?




The current oath was enacted in 1884:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Oaths of Office For Federal Officials




edit on Jun-30-2013 by xuenchen because:





posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I believe we need remedial reading lessons for Holder and his Boss. They read the supporting papers and precedent which defines the First Amendment. Somewhere though, they took Freedom OF Religion to mean Freedom FROM Religion.

That's okay....They have a few years of this left and will, I have no question, leave their offices as the most hated individuals to have held them in recent history. Carter was a really nice and well meaning guy by comparison.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


God should be removed from anything to do with the government, that includes the phrase 'so help me God'. The wall separating Church and State is crumbling and we need to not let it fall. Of all the BS that has come out of Eric Holder's DOJ, this is one I can actually agree with. The Federal government has no business supporting groups that reference any God. Our Founding Fathers intended for people to have the liberty to worship or not worship as they pleased, they intended both freedom of and freedom from religion and they were adamant that God had no place government.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by xuenchen
 


God should be removed from anything to do with the government, that includes the phrase 'so help me God'. The wall separating Church and State is crumbling and we need to not let it fall. Of all the BS that has come out of Eric Holder's DOJ, this is one I can actually agree with. The Federal government has no business supporting groups that reference any God. Our Founding Fathers intended for people to have the liberty to worship or not worship as they pleased, they intended both freedom of and freedom from religion and they were adamant that God had no place government.


Right on the money the government shouldn't be funding any sort of religious organization. If these people want money let them ask God for it.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
I believe Holder himself took an oath of office that ends with "So help me God. "

Americans will know better than Pinke, but ...

I believe just about all of those oaths can be taken without reference to the bible, but for Americans who are worried about the country suddenly being set on fire from a lack of religion, and who enjoy advertising their religion because it's popular with the voters ... they're still allowed to use holy books.

It's just not a requirement. Yay!



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




I believe Holder himself took an oath of office that ends with "So help me God. " What's the differences in this case ?

Did he have to pay any money to say this?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by xuenchen
 




I believe Holder himself took an oath of office that ends with "So help me God. " What's the differences in this case ?

Did he have to pay any money to say this?


That and he shouldn't have had to swear an oath that included the phrase or any reference to a God.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Kali, this is an area I've spent considerable time studying both by school requirements in political courses and for my own knowledge. I have never, once, found reference to "Freedom From Religion" in either word or general spirit of meaning. Nowhere. Not Once. Freedom OF Religion? Yes. Religious Icons, Plaques, Monuments and items of guidance in all major U.S. Government Buildings? Yes. Prayers to open the Congress and Supreme Court with the 10 Commandments proudly mounted within the Court Building itself? Yes.

Freedom FROM Religion? Nope. Again, I've never found it even implied in supporting paperwork to the Constitution, much less court precedent decided since. The "From" concept seems a nifty ploy that's pretty new to this nation. About the past 15-20 years for the determined effort to drive God, Faith and Values from damn near every aspect of public life and life in general. The last 5, of course, are in overdrive as if there is a prize for full success by 2016.

....and people say this President is a Muslim. Yeah right..... Those are the last folks to seek Freedom From Religion. The very last. We have a President who claims Faith but wouldn't know the term if he hit him over the head, twice.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Are these 'oaths' that include 'God' all 'laws' ?

Are they acts of government (Federal, State, Local) ?

Who decides what an 'oath' encompasses ?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Indeed... They can give their Oath to God or their Oath to "me". Now, if they're scumbags to begin with, that poses a problem huh? Everyone knows what is meant when a person "swears to God" or ends with "So help me God", but when loyalty and values are 100% self generated? Well now.... That's as subjective as it gets.

I think I'll take the man who gave his Oath the traditional way over the one who figures he's the biggest and best thing in his own little world to seek guidance from. Even the 12 Step Programs require a person seek a Higher Power. It doesn't have to be the God of Biblical definition or Jewish image. It just has to be a power beyond SELF....which is sadly what so many see no problem with now. Worship of Self and all that makes the Self feel better, regardless of others.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The specific words do not exist, you're correct... but they don't need to. Freedom of Religion... which Religion and if you're at liberty to practice any religion, why not free to practice none? Even were it an unreasonable assumption, how does our government go about choosing which religion to give nod to? I mean we clearly have gone with Christian but is that fair? Seems that the only way to be fair is exclude religious connotation all together, yes? Unless of course the thought process is that we should be a Christian nation, then everything is just fine and dandy. Freedom from Religion is not new, these are debates as old as our founding... recent resurgence has everything to do with the infiltration of the Christian Right and their eroding of that wall which was very much intended to be there.

Our Founding Fathers were very vocal on separating Church and State.




posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Freedom FROM Religion? Nope. Again, I've never found it even implied in supporting paperwork to the Constitution, much less court precedent decided since.

Did you overlook the first amendment?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit.



About the past 15-20 years for the determined effort to drive God, Faith and Values from damn near every aspect of public life and life in general. The last 5, of course, are in overdrive as if there is a prize for full success by 2016.

This is just nonsense there is no effort to drive religion from this country. Christians love to cry this when the law stops them from forcing their religious dogma on other people. This country was in no way founded on a religious belief so why should it be run like it was?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I'm not convinced that the Young Marines organization has any religious base ?

"About" from their website;

Who We Are
The Young Marines is a youth education and service program for boys and girls, ages 8 through completion of high school. The Young Marines promotes the mental, moral, and physical development of its members. The program focuses on character building, leadership, and promotes a healthy, drug-free lifestyle. The Young Marines is the focal point for the U.S. Marine Corps' Youth Drug Demand Reduction efforts.

Membership
The Young Marines is open to all youth ages 8 through completion of high school. The only membership requirement is that the youth must be in good standing at school. Since the Young Marines' humble beginnings, in 1958, with one unit and a handful of boys, the organization has grown to over 300 units with 10,000 youth and 3,000 adult volunteers in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Germany, Japan, and affiliates in a host of other countries.
About


Also;

Young Marine Obligation
From this day forward, I sincerely promise, I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon my God, my Country and its flag, my parents, myself or the Young Marines. These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis.

they refer to "my God"......that could be anything in any 'religion' or any lifestyle.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Where are you reading the First Amendment to prohibit any support to a group/entity/organization that has religious affiliation? Oh, they absolutely did forbid the establishment of a State Religion. After all, they were fresh off the experience of the Church of England as literally, a State run religion there.

Freedom OF religion is the freedom to have ANY religion..or even NO religion at all though. Inclusion has been the guiding principle of that for 200+ years of our nation.

It's also correct to suggest the State is not in the business to advance any one Faith over another ...which it doesn't. The 10 Commandments that stand inside our Supreme Court Building are a Christian symbol, but hold the values common to civilized society the world over. Nowhere do they state WHICH God may be the specific God referred to, as it should be. Even among Christians, that's not the same thing all the time. Ask Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland on that one.


Point being though, this creative reading of "From" instead of the actual word used in rationale to present the Freedom Of Religion is totally ignoring the context and the whole setting as well as men involved. Our Founders were men of Faith. Most, shared Faiths...though not all. They pretty well all had some though. The idea they ever intended things like the public square to be stripped of all religious symbols the PEOPLE chose to display in their free practice of religion is absurd though ..and really? A warped reading of what actually exists to study here.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Good! I agree with Holder & the Justice Dept. on this 100%. We should not be funding any religious functions whatsoever and IMO, the term "under God" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance in our public schools as well, returning the pledge to it's original content.

Furthermore, I agree with everything that Kali and Buster have stated regarding this issue. Good, Good, Good!



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The 10 Commandments that stand inside our Supreme Court Building are a Christian symbol, but hold the values common to civilized society the world over. Nowhere do they state WHICH God may be the specific God referred to, as it should be.


I have heard this argument for many, many years. I've even used it myself frequently, until recently.But I put some real thought into the issue, and saying that no SPECIFIC god is designated seems a little... disingenuous to me now.

When using an exact word for word quote from the religious text of a religion that stipulates there is only -ONE- god,
do you really have to specify that god's name? Isn't it obvious? Similarities between religions are entirely subjective, but it's hard to misinterpret an exact quote, right?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




It's also correct to suggest the State is not in the business to advance any one Faith over another ...which it doesn't. The 10 Commandments that stand inside our Supreme Court Building are a Christian symbol, but hold the values common to civilized society the world over. Nowhere do they state WHICH God may be the specific God referred to, as it should be. Even among Christians, that's not the same thing all the time. Ask Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland on that one.

Mohammed and Moses are also in the Supreme Court Building which is Islamic and Judean faiths. Imo no religion should be present in the Supreme Court Building simply because people get the wrong idea that our laws are based from a single faith when they are not.




Our Founders were men of Faith. Most, shared Faiths...though not all.

No they were not. For the most part many of them were deist.
edit on 30-6-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 

I'd have to disagree on the implication of a specific God because the word God is used. Creator is also used which is somewhat generic. More to the point though, our founders were religious men...but not of the SAME religion. In fact, in a couple examples, quite different. So, to have quietly implied a specific Faith or Sect's 'God' would have started a little religious fight right there on the spot. Hence...why I think it's based upon a far more inclusive and generic reading.

Past U.S. Presidents from George Washington to Present - By Faith

Some love to make a habit of saying we aren't a Religious nation and that's horse crap. 80+ % of our nation adheres to one Faith or another, covering every belief system in the world. We are, in that way, what the Founders intended. Religious in nature but not in specific to any one direction as to single it out for favor.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Buster.. Actually, yes, our founders were all religious men, to the last of them. I don't know of an agnostic of the bunch for the time period.Now I could be mistaken and NONE is a very big word...so I'm sure someone will correct my error if an error that is. However, the above is just the quick link reference for the Founders and their religious Faith of record. I can certainly support the point in far more detail and breadth to the level and dedication of Faith if we want to get that deep into it.

Sorry..but we were founded on values of a religious origin. Not a specific faith, and that is the point. Freedom *OF* Religion and your right to practice any or none is what you are promised as a Right. Freedom FROM Religion is growing a thicker skin to avoid the temptation of violating other people's right of Freedom of their own Religion while you may pursue a freedom of none, yourself.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well, now you kinda turned the meaning of my post around a little there. I didn't say it was disingenuous because of the word 'god', I said it was disingenuous because the entire 10 commandments display is a direct quote from a SPECIFIC religious text. An entire page of quote- not just one word.

In my opinion, using a specific quote from a specific religion to portray the intent of the entire justice system crosses the line.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join