PDA

View Full Version : General Politics HR 1388


stevieray
03-31-2009, 09:51 PM
HR 1388 G.I.V.E..already passed the house...and the Senate on the 26th

particpants may not engage in the following activities...religious instruction, conducting worship services, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religous worship or instruction...can't engage in protests, petitons, boycotts or strikes...just to name a few..


religious freedom?

wild1
03-31-2009, 09:53 PM
participants of what?

Simplex3
03-31-2009, 09:56 PM
I'm sure someone will come along and say "I'm not religious so I don't care."

I'm not religious, but I do care.

stevieray
03-31-2009, 09:57 PM
participants of what?

anyone receiving schools loans also must serve three months in G.I.V.E...and no matter your faith..you aren't allowed to bring it up in any form.

Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education

wild1
03-31-2009, 09:59 PM
oh, the Young Pioneers or whatever...

The left will always be hostile toward religion. It causes competition for them. They want unquestioning devotion to the state

Pitt Gorilla
03-31-2009, 10:02 PM
anyone receiving schools loans also must serve three months in G.I.V.E...and no matter your faith..you aren't allowed to bring it up in any form.

Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and EducationWhere does it say that?

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:03 PM
Participants in the government volunteer group?

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:04 PM
Can you say, "Oh God!"

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:05 PM
anyone receiving schools loans also must serve three months in G.I.V.E...and no matter your faith..you aren't allowed to bring it up in any form.

Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education

Isn't it an option you can choose?

Direckshun
03-31-2009, 10:07 PM
Swing and a miss.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:10 PM
This is really quite ridiculous. No, your freedom of religion is not being taken away.

KC Dan
03-31-2009, 10:25 PM
This is really quite ridiculous. No, your freedom of religion is not being taken away.
You are correct. This bill is the beginning to make it mandatory for all to volunteer and provide service to some state sponsored group. This sounds like it could get perverted into forcible service similar to a WWII adversaries beginnings. Not worried yet but keeping my eyes and ears open. Who the hell gave the Gov't the right to demand us to serve? Do we not have freedom.

Direckshun
03-31-2009, 10:26 PM
This is really quite ridiculous. No, your freedom of religion is not being taken away.

I want the government to provide me benefits for promoting my religion!

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 10:30 PM
Mussolini would be proud.

Iowanian
03-31-2009, 10:30 PM
Dear Comrades....Goose Step to your post!

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:35 PM
You are correct. This bill is the beginning to make it mandatory for all to volunteer and provide service to some state sponsored group. This sounds like it could get perverted into forcible service similar to a WWII adversaries beginnings. Not worried yet but keeping my eyes and ears open. Who the hell gave the Gov't the right to demand us to serve? Do we not have freedom.

You don't have to serve.

Amnorix
03-31-2009, 10:36 PM
What the hell are you people talking about?


OpenCongress Summary:
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs, including those for seniors and veterans. It also establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000, and would increase education funding and establish a summer service program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school student who participate.
In its current form, the legislation does not include a mandate requiring service.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show

And going back to the OP


particpants may not engage in the following activities...religious instruction, conducting worship services, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religous worship or instruction...can't engage in protests, petitons, boycotts or strikes...just to name a few..


I haven't seen it but I assume that the bill prohibits funding STATE SPONSORED RELIGIOUS PROSELYTIZING.


So it's the exactly opposite of what some here are suggesting. Instead of some kind of religious ban, it's maintaining the First Amendment prohibition of the state establishing religion.


The paranoia and sheer delusional misreading of facts by some on here is scary.

Amnorix
03-31-2009, 10:37 PM
Mussolini would be proud.

You would prefer that a bill by the federal government funding volunteerism include religious volunteers?

What if they were seeking converts to Islam or Jehovah's Witnesses? That cool with you?

Amnorix
03-31-2009, 10:39 PM
Dear Comrades....Goose Step to your post!

So if the President formed the National Volunteers for Mormon Recruitment, funded with federal dollars, you'd say that THAT is the way to go?

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:40 PM
I hope Glenn Beck does a segment on this and clears it up for everybody.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 10:42 PM
I hope Glenn Beck does a segment on this and clears it up for everybody.

Ya i listen to everything that paid propagandist says. :eek:

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 10:46 PM
HR 1388 “GIVE” Act Could Force Mandatory Service Requirement on All Young Americans

Written by Jennifer Lance

Published on March 23rd, 200946 CommentsPosted in Leader, Policy
Passed by the House of Representatives with a 321-105 margin, HR 1388: the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, dubbed the “GIVE” act, would require the US government to develop a plan to implement a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people”.
Already males ages 18 through 25 living in the U.S. register with Selective Service to keep records in the event Congress and the President authorize a draft. What is the purpose of the service requirement under the GIVE act?

The purpose of the GIVE act is to “To reauthorize and reform the national service laws”, specifically the National and Community Service Act of 1990. HR 1388 reads:

‘(9) recognize and increase the impact of social entrepreneurs and other nonprofit community organizations in addressing national and local challenges;

‘(10) increase public and private investment in nonprofit community organizations that are effectively addressing national and local challenges and to encourage such organizations to replicate and expand successful initiatives;

‘(11) leverage Federal investments to increase State, local, business, and philanthropic resources to address national and local challenges;

‘(12) expand and strengthen service-learning programs through year-round opportunities, including during the summer months, to improve the education of children and youth and to maximize the benefits of national and community service, in order to renew the ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of community to children and youth throughout the United States;

‘(13) assist in coordinating and strengthening Federal and other service opportunities, including opportunities for participation in emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery;

‘(14) increase service opportunities for our Nation’s retiring professionals, including such opportunities for those retiring from the science, technical, engineering, and mathematics professions to improve the education of our Nation’s youth and keep America competitive in the global knowledge economy, and to further utilize the experience, knowledge, and skills of older Americans;

‘(15) encourage the continued service of the alumni of the national service programs, including service in times of national need;

‘(16) support institutions of higher education that engage students in community service activities, provide service-learning courses, and encourage or assist graduates to pursue careers in public service in the nonprofit or government sector; and

‘(17) encourage members of the Baby Boom generation to partake in service opportunities.’.

HR 1388 specifically targets Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) and the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) which Congress expects will reach 250,000 participants by 2014. From school-based service learning programs to focusing on severely economically depressed communities, the GIVE act sounds good until you get to part about the mandatory service requirement for youth. How can volunteerism be mandatory? The Future explains:

Section 6104 of The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act requires that a commission be established to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

Of course I imagine cadres of youth working on environmental projects such as tree planting; however, I can’t get on board with the involuntary servitude. It’s even scarier when you consider Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel coauthored The Plan: Big Ideas for America that calls for compulsory service for Americans ages 18 to 25:

Here’s how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They’ll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we’re hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities’ most pressing needs.

In fact, Obama and Biden ran on the idea of required community service for our youth:

Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year, and will establish a new tax credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.

I like the idea of a tax credit for public service, but I do not like the idea of mandatory service for our youth. Mandatory requirements do not ensure our youth will develop a sense of lifelong community service, and many churches and high schools already have such requirements for youth.

HR 1388 is currently on the Senate’s calendar. A cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure has been presented in Senate. Although I am in favor of community service, I am not in favor of mandatory service, as the GIVE act could take away our individual freedom. I am also concerned at what the goverment will deem service, like biochemical attack training mentioned in Emanuel’s book. What happens if a child does not complete their mandatory service requirement if the GIVE act passes and one is developed?

http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/23/hr-1388-give-act-forces-mandatory-service-requirement-on-all-young-americans/

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:47 PM
On this board, comparisons to Obama have been made invoking Karl Marx, Paul von Hindenburg in Depression-era Weimar Republic, Beloved Chairman Mao, and now I've seen Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, tonight.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 10:49 PM
On this board, comparisons to Obama have been made invoking Karl Marx, Paul von Hindenburg in Depression-era Weimar Republic, Beloved Chairman Mao, and now I've seen Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, tonight.

Ok and what do all of those have in common?

Iowanian
03-31-2009, 10:51 PM
Obama Jong Il bowl perfect game tonight! Score 320 of possible 300 point first TYYYYYYME!!!

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 10:52 PM
Obama Jong Il bowl perfect game tonight! Score 320 of possible 300 point first TYYYYYYME!!!

I can't wait until we get the "I love the King" holiday, i will feel all warm and fuzzy.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:52 PM
Ok and what do all of those have in common?

They're ridiculous?

Iowanian
03-31-2009, 10:54 PM
Obama Jong Il win nex erection 350Billion vote to twenty-fi.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 10:55 PM
They're ridiculous?

You could have asked the citizens of all those nations this and their response would have been similiar to yours.

Iowanian
03-31-2009, 10:58 PM
I attended a black panther party tonight. I was the only one of my kind there. I listened to their strife and wept to repent the sin of my ancestors.

When I left, I saw a campus parking authority issuing a citation for my AMC Pacer being parked in a handicapped space. Engraged by the agitation of the white devil, I tore the ticket up, threw it on the ground, pumped my fist into the air and shouted "OBAMA PRESIDENT NAAAAW!!" UNITY!! UNITY!!!

Suggesting I'd gone too far, the officer issued that citation again, along with another for littering, another for disorderly conduct, and punched me in the flesh pocket that used to contain my testicles.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:58 PM
You could have asked the citizens of all those nations this and their response would have been similiar to yours.

That is hard solid proof right there that OBAMA IS BENITO MUSSOLINI AND CHAIRMAN MAO ALL WRAPPED UP INTO ONE.

alanm
03-31-2009, 10:59 PM
Mussolini would be proud.I was thinking more in line with the Hitler youth but Mussolini will do just fine. ;)

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 10:59 PM
Chairman Mao president na

Iowanian
03-31-2009, 11:01 PM
oMAOma...

If you need me, I'll be contemplating intellectual over my macbook in the Java barn.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 11:02 PM
Here's the Bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eas.txt.pdf

I can't find a section 6104

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 11:03 PM
That is hard solid proof right there that OBAMA IS BENITO MUSSOLINI AND CHAIRMAN MAO ALL WRAPPED UP INTO ONE.

I know it's hard to stomach that someone you helped get elected is not exactly who you thought he was.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 11:04 PM
I neither voted nor campaigned for Obama.

alanm
03-31-2009, 11:05 PM
On this board, comparisons to Obama have been made invoking Karl Marx, Paul von Hindenburg in Depression-era Weimar Republic, Beloved Chairman Mao, and now I've seen Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, tonight.If I were you Jenson I'd join the Army. You'll be safe there. :D

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 11:08 PM
oMAOma...

If you need me, I'll be contemplating intellectual over my macbook in the Java barn.

Rough weekend? Priest not take you to Adventureland on Sunday?

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 11:10 PM
I neither voted nor campaigned for Obama.

My mistake i thought i remembered you solidly behind him.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 11:11 PM
Here's the Bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eas.txt.pdf

I can't find a section 6104

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr037&dbname=111&

Iowanian
03-31-2009, 11:23 PM
Rough weekend? Priest not take you to Adventureland on Sunday?

Your past couple of years of enlightened flagellation have more than made up for any pain I may have felt o'er the weekend.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 11:23 PM
How do you tell which one is the final one?

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 11:26 PM
Your past couple of years of enlightened flagellation have more than made up for any pain I may have felt o'er the weekend.

I don't use a mac.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 11:50 PM
How do you tell which one is the final one?

Wait until it has been signed by the president i guess, these bills change so much. You remember the 1st bailout was rejected at just a few pages then passed a week later at something like 1200+ pages.

KC Dan
04-01-2009, 12:07 AM
You don't have to serve.
I did my 20 yrs you piece of crap. Practice what you preach (since I served so that you could open your mouth freely) and if you have, I will apologize. If not - STFU

jAZ
04-01-2009, 12:07 AM
HR 1388 G.I.V.E..already passed the house...and the Senate on the 26th

particpants may not engage in the following activities...religious instruction, conducting worship services, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religous worship or instruction...can't engage in protests, petitons, boycotts or strikes...just to name a few..


religious freedom?

Are you stupid?

Jenson71
04-01-2009, 12:13 AM
I did my 20 yrs you piece of crap. Practice what you preach (since I served so that you could open your mouth freely) and if you have, I will apologize. If not - STFU

Uh, what? I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm saying the bill doesn't make people have to serve.

Pitt Gorilla
04-01-2009, 12:18 AM
Are you stupid?I'm guessing more of a liar. Well, that is until he's confronted with it and edits his post.

KC Dan
04-01-2009, 12:26 AM
Uh, what? I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm saying the bill doesn't make people have to serve.
Yep, you're right. I went off but in my defense (lame I know) I am very sensitive to persons (including myself) that have or could have sacrificed their lives for this country. I find it abhorrent that my country would force their citizens to serve and I really don't want to see that happen. People should serve their country because they want to not because some stuffed shirt and tie Ivy leaguer says they must.

stevieray
04-01-2009, 12:34 AM
I find it abhorrent that my country would force their citizens to serve and I really don't want to see that happen. People should serve their country because they want to not because some stuffed shirt and tie Ivy leaguer says they must.

very few are called to serve..just like firemen, police, etc

Jenson71
04-01-2009, 12:35 AM
I think a mandatory service program should be tested in a state first before it's ever made a federal law. I agree that forcing people into what is essentially volunteer service defeats the whole purpose. But I don't have a problem with encouraging it through federal student loan credit.

|Zach|
04-01-2009, 12:35 AM
Great thread.

bowener
04-01-2009, 01:20 AM
Yep, you're right. I went off but in my defense (lame I know) I am very sensitive to persons (including myself) that have or could have sacrificed their lives for this country. I find it abhorrent that my country would force their citizens to serve and I really don't want to see that happen. People should serve their country because they want to not because some stuffed shirt and tie Ivy leaguer says they must.

Im just curious, what is it that makes you so terrified and or aggitated by "Ivy Leaguer[s]?"

I am not one, but if I have the brains to succeed as an Ivy League student, why shouldnt I do so? And who is to say that the highly educated do not know better than those who are less or uneducated?

Why is America such an anti-intellectual nation? If you are smart, can kick ass when it comes to using your brain and reasoning skills, you are a pussy and suck. BUT, if you can get an average score on the ASVAB and tote a gun, you are a man.

This isnt aimed so much at you KC Dan, sorry if it seems that way, just wanted to quote part of what you said.

Also, if people fear a socialist government, they really should become educated on the differences of that and communist Russia, or China, and how those differ far from what Marx stated in his philosophy (and not the manifesto which is a pile of proagandist shit).

Programs such as SOCIAL security (before it was raped and robbed by other government programs or looted to cover debts) worked good. Had it been left alone and allowed to work as it was originally intended, I doubt many here would complain about it at all.

Nightfyre
04-01-2009, 01:51 AM
Im just curious, what is it that makes you so terrified and or aggitated by "Ivy Leaguer[s]?"

I am not one, but if I have the brains to succeed as an Ivy League student, why shouldnt I do so? And who is to say that the highly educated do not know better than those who are less or uneducated?

Why is America such an anti-intellectual nation? If you are smart, can kick ass when it comes to using your brain and reasoning skills, you are a pussy and suck. BUT, if you can get an average score on the ASVAB and tote a gun, you are a man.

This isnt aimed so much at you KC Dan, sorry if it seems that way, just wanted to quote part of what you said.

Also, if people fear a socialist government, they really should become educated on the differences of that and communist Russia, or China, and how those differ far from what Marx stated in his philosophy (and not the manifesto which is a pile of proagandist shit).

Programs such as SOCIAL security (before it was raped and robbed by other government programs or looted to cover debts) worked good. Had it been left alone and allowed to work as it was originally intended, I doubt many here would complain about it at all.

Not to nitpick, but social security was looted from the get go. The federal budget is actually a giant ponzi scheme.

KC Dan
04-01-2009, 10:15 AM
Im just curious, what is it that makes you so terrified and or aggitated by "Ivy Leaguer[s]?"

I am not one, but if I have the brains to succeed as an Ivy League student, why shouldnt I do so? And who is to say that the highly educated do not know better than those who are less or uneducated?

Why is America such an anti-intellectual nation? If you are smart, can kick ass when it comes to using your brain and reasoning skills, you are a pussy and suck. BUT, if you can get an average score on the ASVAB and tote a gun, you are a man.

This isnt aimed so much at you KC Dan, sorry if it seems that way, just wanted to quote part of what you said.

A - not terrified of "ivy leaguers"
B - you should
C - Who's to say that they don't know better
D - Never insinuated that, that is ridiculous

Der Flöprer
04-01-2009, 10:21 AM
I'm sure someone will come along and say "I'm not religious so I don't care."

I'm not religious, but I do care.

Kind of like, I'm not a smoker so I don't care. Then what happens is everyone who is affected will be happy to throw it back in their faces when something happens they do care about. Soon enough, we've spited each other out of all of our freedoms.

Brock
04-01-2009, 10:32 AM
What's the problem with this?

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:36 AM
What's the problem with this?

The root problem is that the government is giving people money that it forced other citizens to give up. What is being complained about is that the government has taken the next step and is demanding how you can and can't behave with that stolen money.

Amnorix
04-01-2009, 10:40 AM
The root problem is that the government is giving people money that it forced other citizens to give up. What is being complained about is that the government has taken the next step and is demanding how you can and can't behave with that stolen money.

Actually, that's pretty much got nothing to do with the GIVE program, but I suppose you can rant about whatever you want.

Brock
04-01-2009, 10:41 AM
The root problem is that the government is giving people money that it forced other citizens to give up. What is being complained about is that the government has taken the next step and is demanding how you can and can't behave with that stolen money.

Aside from the taking of the money, which I agree is wrong most of the time, the government cannot, or at least should not, be funding religious practice.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:46 AM
Aside from the taking of the money, which I agree is wrong most of the time, the government cannot, or at least should not, be funding religious practice.

Why not, they fund everything else. If supporting 'art' that nobody will purchase is a good use of my money why isn't religion?

Brock
04-01-2009, 10:46 AM
Why not, they fund everything else. If supporting 'art' that nobody will purchase is a good use of my money why isn't religion?

Because the constitution says so.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:49 AM
Because the constitution says so.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government can take my money by force and give it to a guy to take black and white photos of himself with a bullwhip shoved up his ass? Or is that considered 'general welfare'?

Brock
04-01-2009, 10:52 AM
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can take my money by force and give it to a guy to take black and white photos of himself with a bullwhip shoved up his ass? Or is that considered 'general welfare'?

Where does it prohibit it? It does prohibit making laws with respect to the endorsement of religion. I'm not disagreeing that funding those kinds of things are stupid, but it's not illegal.

KC Dan
04-01-2009, 10:54 AM
Where does it prohibit it? It does prohibit making laws with respect to the endorsement of religion. I'm not disagreeing that funding those kinds of things are stupid, but it's not illegal.
So, in your estimation, would the funding of "volunteers" to volunteer at a local food bank that happens to be run by a local church be prohibited?

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:59 AM
Where does it prohibit it? It does prohibit making laws with respect to the endorsement of religion. I'm not disagreeing that funding those kinds of things are stupid, but it's not illegal.

It wouldn't be unconstitutional for a state to do it, but it pretty clearly states all non-enumerated powers are reserved to the states and the people. The unfortunate 'general welfare' clause allows all kinds of crap. Also, the Constitution prohibits the creation of a state religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The way I read that this law isn't constitutional. They are prohibiting the free exercise of religion based on your acceptance of government assistance. I'm sure they will get around the issue because you aren't *required* to take the assistance, but it is an awfully dark grey area in my opinion.

I know, I know, in 1947 the Supreme Court decided that sentence means more than it says on the surface.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 11:00 AM
So, in your estimation, would the funding of "volunteers" to volunteer at a local food bank that happens to be run by a local church be prohibited?

I volunteer at my company five days a week. Then they give me money. Since I don't have a job I shouldn't have to pay taxes. Why didn't I think of that earlier?

Velvet_Jones
04-01-2009, 11:06 AM
I want the government to provide me benefits for promoting my religion!

I hope this is the stupidest thing I will read today. Get a grip dude.

Brock
04-01-2009, 11:12 AM
So, in your estimation, would the funding of "volunteers" to volunteer at a local food bank that happens to be run by a local church be prohibited?

I don't think so, and I don't think that's what they're saying anyway. They're saying this corps of volunteers cannot be used to build churches, IMO.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 11:20 AM
I don't think so, and I don't think that's what they're saying anyway. They're saying this corps of volunteers cannot be used to build churches, IMO.

I think that's exactly what some people are going to decide it says. We can't have a national program that meets the individual expectations of 300M people.

Garcia Bronco
04-01-2009, 11:26 AM
This law is unconstitutional right out of the box.

Especially this amendment:

<TABLE class=simple-table><TBODY><TR><TD>H.Amdt49</TD><TD>Pass</TD><TD>Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Sully
04-01-2009, 11:46 AM
So if I'm reading this thread correctly, some are under the impression that the only way religion is truly free is if the country sponsors its activities and proslytizing?

Cannibal
04-01-2009, 11:48 AM
I don't know about all the other bullshit in this thread, but in my opinion, religion and government should not mix anywhere, anytime... period, end of story.

Garcia Bronco
04-01-2009, 11:49 AM
So if I'm reading this thread correctly, some are under the impression that the only way religion is truly free is if the country sponsors its activities and proslytizing?

I don't think so. The house amendment to the bill has ambiguous language that violates freedom of speech and religion. It's more or less thought control. It could be argued that members practicing their constitutional right to redress the Government with grievances could be acting as an agent for said organization. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Sully
04-01-2009, 11:58 AM
I don't think so. The house amendment to the bill has ambiguous language that violates freedom of speech and religion. It's more or less thought control. It could be argued that members practicing their constitutional right to redress the Government with grievances could be acting as an agent for said organization. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

It's a voluntary deal, right?
When you sign up for the military, or many companies, you give some FoS rights. How is this different?

Calcountry
04-01-2009, 12:11 PM
This bill is the beginning to make it mandatory for all to volunteer and provide service to some state sponsored group.The simultaneous assertion and denial of a given proposition is a "contradiction" by definition.


Mandatory (not=) volunteer.

This is precisely the kind of shit that Obama regulary gets away with when he reads his teleprompter.

Calcountry
04-01-2009, 12:12 PM
I want the government to provide me benefits for promoting my religion!I want the gubment to give me a check too.

Calcountry
04-01-2009, 12:14 PM
On this board, comparisons to Obama have been made invoking Karl Marx, Paul von Hindenburg in Depression-era Weimar Republic, Beloved Chairman Mao, and now I've seen Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, tonight.Well, He's fugged up man!

Iowanian
04-01-2009, 12:17 PM
I'm all for public service and volunteerism. The thing about Volunteering, is, its based on it being YOUR IDEA. I encourage people to pitch in all of the time and DO think its a good character builder for young people. In theory, I don't hate the idea.

I DO hate the politics of this bill.


Now, here is where I differ(as posted before). I think the govt should leave people who are already on a path alone. If you're working full time, in the military, or educating yourself and gaining skills, they should leave you be.

To me, these programs need to be directed at people who ARE NOT contributing. High School dropouts, couch potatoes who lack ambition etc...but then again, I think the military is a good option for those that won't find another on their own.

Calcountry
04-01-2009, 12:17 PM
That is hard solid proof right there that OBAMA IS BENITO MUSSOLINI AND CHAIRMAN MAO ALL WRAPPED UP INTO ONE.How do you like 70 days of Marxism so far?

Let's see, Bill of attainder against private citizens. Attacking private citizens for expressing their first amendment protected rights.

Oh, and finally, firing an employee of a privately held publicly traded company.

Nice.

I can't wait for his State of the state address. All Hail.

Pitt Gorilla
04-01-2009, 12:23 PM
I hope this is the stupidest thing I will read today. Get a grip dude.You didn't read the OP?

Garcia Bronco
04-01-2009, 12:24 PM
It's a voluntary deal, right?
When you sign up for the military, or many companies, you give some FoS rights. How is this different?

You do not give up your right to FOS or FOR to join the military. You can't critcize your chain of command or violate national security, but when you are off-duty you can say what ever the hell you want. Same thing with a company. A company is different in the sense they aren't the US Government, but this is the US Government.

Dave Lane
04-01-2009, 12:44 PM
HR 1388 G.I.V.E..already passed the house...and the Senate on the 26th

particpants may not engage in the following activities...religious instruction, conducting worship services, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religous worship or instruction...can't engage in protests, petitons, boycotts or strikes...just to name a few..


religious freedom?

Hallelujah brother praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster on high! Yay!!!

Dave Lane
04-01-2009, 12:45 PM
I'm sure someone will come along and say "I'm not religious so I don't care."

I'm not religious, but I do care.

Why?

Dave Lane
04-01-2009, 12:46 PM
You are correct. This bill is the beginning to make it mandatory for all to volunteer and provide service to some state sponsored group. This sounds like it could get perverted into forcible service similar to a WWII adversaries beginnings. Not worried yet but keeping my eyes and ears open. Who the hell gave the Gov't the right to demand us to serve? Do we not have freedom.

Don't take the money if you don't want to volunteer. Easy as that.

Fish
04-01-2009, 12:50 PM
I'm all for public service and volunteerism. The thing about Volunteering, is, its based on it being YOUR IDEA. I encourage people to pitch in all of the time and DO think its a good character builder for young people. In theory, I don't hate the idea.

I DO hate the politics of this bill.


Now, here is where I differ(as posted before). I think the govt should leave people who are already on a path alone. If you're working full time, in the military, or educating yourself and gaining skills, they should leave you be.

To me, these programs need to be directed at people who ARE NOT contributing. High School dropouts, couch potatoes who lack ambition etc...but then again, I think the military is a good option for those that won't find another on their own.

You hate the politics of the bill, yet you're suggesting that the government should make a decision on who is and who is not "contributing" and what to do with those who are not? Do you really want the government to define things like who is a model contributing citizen?

Dave Lane
04-01-2009, 12:51 PM
oMAOma...

If you need me, I'll be a contemplating intellectual over my macbook in the Java barn.

Well we know at least this part is false :)

Fish
04-01-2009, 01:07 PM
You do not give up your right to FOS or FOR to join the military. You can't critcize your chain of command or violate national security, but when you are off-duty you can say what ever the hell you want. Same thing with a company. A company is different in the sense they aren't the US Government, but this is the US Government.

I don't interpret this as requiring volunteers to give up their right to FOS or FOR. As I'm understanding it, they're saying that if you volunteer, the service and work you do as a volunteer can't be used for religious purposes. Because in doing so, the government would be directly supporting a specific religious institution. And the government doesn't want to give preference to a specific religion, since we are free to practice any and all religions.

As in.... when you join the military, you don't give up your FOR. You're free to believe what you want while in the military. But at the same time the military doesn't directly support your specific religious institution in any way. The military can't donate your time and labor to the church, even though they let you hold those religious views while you're there. Same goes for volunteering here. You can believe in your religion, but you can't expect the government to donate your services to your religion while you're volunteering.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 01:09 PM
Why?

Because none of this stuff is any of the government's business. They shouldn't be anywhere near any of this.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 01:10 PM
Don't take the money if you don't want to volunteer. Easy as that.

...and it's official. The leftists have not changed the very definition of the word "volunteer".

Garcia Bronco
04-01-2009, 01:55 PM
I don't interpret this as requiring volunteers to give up their right to FOS or FOR. As I'm understanding it, they're saying that if you volunteer, the service and work you do as a volunteer can't be used for religious purposes. Because in doing so, the government would be directly supporting a specific religious institution. And the government doesn't want to give preference to a specific religion, since we are free to practice any and all religions.

As in.... when you join the military, you don't give up your FOR. You're free to believe what you want while in the military. But at the same time the military doesn't directly support your specific religious institution in any way. The military can't donate your time and labor to the church, even though they let you hold those religious views while you're there. Same goes for volunteering here. You can believe in your religion, but you can't expect the government to donate your services to your religion while you're volunteering.

And what I am saying is it can be argued that you represent that organization when practicing you FOR and FOS outside of that. Like the McCain/Feingold act. It treats even the smallest groups as political parties that must register with the Government and pay a fee to practive their rights to FOS. It was intended as financial reform for political candiates, however it's being applied in a completely different manner.

Chief Henry
04-01-2009, 03:34 PM
Define volunteer.

Adept Havelock
04-01-2009, 05:18 PM
Define volunteer.

volunteer

• noun 1 a person who freely offers to do something. 2 a person who works for an organization without being paid. 3 a person who freely enrols for military service rather than being conscripted.

• verb 1 freely offer to do something. 2 say or suggest something without being asked. 3 freely enroll for military service rather than being conscripted. 4 commit (someone) to an undertaking.

— ORIGIN from French volontaire ‘voluntary’.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/volunteer?view=uk

:shrug:

penchief
04-01-2009, 07:16 PM
The left will always be hostile toward religion. It causes competition for them. They want unquestioning devotion to the state

You're funny. Most righties here label me a lefty and none of what you say applies to me.

banyon
04-01-2009, 09:01 PM
This law is unconstitutional right out of the box.

Especially this amendment:

<TABLE class=simple-table><TBODY><TR><TD>H.Amdt49</TD><TD>Pass</TD><TD>Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

This Amendment?:

this amendment changes this part of the U.S. Code from this:SEC. 125. [42 U.S.C. 12575] Training and technical assistance

(a) Training programs

The Corporation may conduct, directly or by grant or contract, appropriate training programs regarding national service in order to‑‑

(1) improve the ability of national service programs assisted under section 12571 of this title to meet human, educational, environmental, or public safety needs in communities‑‑

(A) where services are needed most; and

(B) where programs do not exist, or are too limited to meet community needs, as of the date on which the Corporation makes the grant or enters into the contract;

(2) promote leadership development in such programs;

(3) improve the instructional and programmatic quality of such programs to build an ethic of civic responsibility;

(4) develop the management and budgetary skills of program operators;

(5) provide for or improve the training provided to the participants in such programs; and

(6) encourage national service programs to adhere to risk management procedures, including the training of participants in appropriate risk management practices.

(b) Technical assistance

To the extent appropriate and necessary, the Corporation shall make technical assistance available to States, Indian tribes, labor organizations, organizations operated by young adults, organizations serving economically disadvantaged individuals, and other entities described in section 12571 of this title that desire‑‑

(1) to develop national service programs; or

(2) to apply for assistance under such section or under a grant program conducted using assistance provided under such section.

To this:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
`SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

`(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

`(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

`(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

`(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

`(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

`(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

`(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

`(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.

`(8) Providing a direct benefit to–

`(A) a business organized for profit;

`(B) a labor organization;

`(C) a partisan political organization;

`(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

`(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

`(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

`(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

`(b) Ineligible Organizations- No assistance provided under this subtitle may be provided to the following types of organizations (including the participation of a participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle in activities conducted by such organizations) or to organizations that are co-located on the same premises as the following organizations:

`(1) Organizations that provide or promote abortion services, including referral for such services.

`(2) For-profit organizations, political parties, labor organizations, or organizations engaged in political or legislative advocacy.

`(3) Organizations that have been indicted for voter fraud.

`(c) Nondisplacement of Employed Workers or Other Volunteers- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not perform any services or duties or engage in activities which–

`(1) would otherwise be performed by an employed worker as part of his or her assigned duties as an employee or by another volunteer who is not a participant in an approved national service position; or

`(2) will supplant the hiring of employed workers or work of such other volunteers.’.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-01-2009, 09:49 PM
Now in HR 1444

H.R. 1444 - They're not even trying now...

(H/T - Michelle Malkin)

Some of you may remember my post on H.R. 1388 a few days ago.

Well, it turns out that it has not only passed both House and Senate, but has even been re-named to honor Ted "swimmer" Kennedy.
(apparently, Orrin Hatch thought it would make a nice present)


Now, while all of the parts that tie "Volunteer Requirements" to "grants" remained in 1388 - they did remove something before getting the abomination passed.




Between being first officially "reported" to the House and being voted on by the full House, bill managers stripped one whole section of the measure that created a Congressional Commission on Civil Service, thus removing the section that contained the language cited above concerning "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" and a possible requirement for "all individuals in the United States" to perform such service. The section could be restored during the Senate-House conference committee meeting.

A new, separate bill containing that language has since been introduced in the House.

Did you hear your internal reading-voice deepen on that last sentence?


"A new, separate bill containing that language..."

That's a polite way to put it - but how about this instead:

The whole section was lifted - in its word-for-word entirety - and reintroduced as if it were a brand-spanking-new piece of legislation, rather than the unendurable, cast-off by-blow that it really is.

Behold!

H.R. 1444: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act

Identical in every single way to the 1388 text - they didn't even rearrange the section numbers:


(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

And make no mistake - both laws being passed will have exactly the same effect as if it had remained one law, their details, intent and design so neatly dovetailling the way they do.
(what a coincidence!)


There is one significant difference, though.

Apparently out of gratitude for having 1388 named after him, Ted Kennedy actually put his name on 1444.


1388 is enough to light-torches-and-raise-pitchforks over, but at least it still uses the grant-money-carrot to lure you in.

1444 sets up "Mandatory" for everyone.



H.R. 1444 - Because Freedoms lost to the Collective come more easily in smaller bites.

http://www.e3gazette.com/2009/03/hr-1444-theyre-not-even-trying-now.html

banyon
04-01-2009, 10:02 PM
Now in HR 1444

H.R. 1444 - They're not even trying now...

(H/T - Michelle Malkin)



http://www.e3gazette.com/2009/03/hr-1444-theyre-not-even-trying-now.html

I think you might want to dig deeper than Michelle Malkin for legislative analysis.

Here is the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1444

All it does is establish an advisory (and powerless) Commission. This is presumably to stay informed about how the bill 1388 that they just passed is functiong.

If you can find some language in my linked bill that is so terrifying, I'd like to see it.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 08:43 AM
This Amendment?:

this amendment changes this part of the U.S. Code from this:SEC. 125. [42 U.S.C. 12575] Training and technical assistance

(a) Training programs

The Corporation may conduct, directly or by grant or contract, appropriate training programs regarding national service in order to‑‑

(1) improve the ability of national service programs assisted under section 12571 of this title to meet human, educational, environmental, or public safety needs in communities‑‑

(A) where services are needed most; and

(B) where programs do not exist, or are too limited to meet community needs, as of the date on which the Corporation makes the grant or enters into the contract;

(2) promote leadership development in such programs;

(3) improve the instructional and programmatic quality of such programs to build an ethic of civic responsibility;

(4) develop the management and budgetary skills of program operators;

(5) provide for or improve the training provided to the participants in such programs; and

(6) encourage national service programs to adhere to risk management procedures, including the training of participants in appropriate risk management practices.

(b) Technical assistance

To the extent appropriate and necessary, the Corporation shall make technical assistance available to States, Indian tribes, labor organizations, organizations operated by young adults, organizations serving economically disadvantaged individuals, and other entities described in section 12571 of this title that desire‑‑

(1) to develop national service programs; or

(2) to apply for assistance under such section or under a grant program conducted using assistance provided under such section.

To this:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
`SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

`(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

`(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

`(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

`(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

`(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

`(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

`(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

`(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.

`(8) Providing a direct benefit to–

`(A) a business organized for profit;

`(B) a labor organization;

`(C) a partisan political organization;

`(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

`(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

`(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

`(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

`(b) Ineligible Organizations- No assistance provided under this subtitle may be provided to the following types of organizations (including the participation of a participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle in activities conducted by such organizations) or to organizations that are co-located on the same premises as the following organizations:

`(1) Organizations that provide or promote abortion services, including referral for such services.

`(2) For-profit organizations, political parties, labor organizations, or organizations engaged in political or legislative advocacy.

`(3) Organizations that have been indicted for voter fraud.

`(c) Nondisplacement of Employed Workers or Other Volunteers- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not perform any services or duties or engage in activities which–

`(1) would otherwise be performed by an employed worker as part of his or her assigned duties as an employee or by another volunteer who is not a participant in an approved national service position; or

`(2) will supplant the hiring of employed workers or work of such other volunteers.’.

Yes. It's unconstitutional. It can violate the first amendment.

banyon
04-02-2009, 09:19 AM
Yes. It's unconstitutional. It can violate the first amendment.

Do you have any particular reason why?

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 09:37 AM
Do you have any particular reason why?

It's right there in your bolded piece. The 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.

This amendment effectively prohibits these things.

jAZ
04-02-2009, 10:58 AM
I'm guessing more of a liar. Well, that is until he's confronted with it and edits his post.

I mean, my god. Religous freedom?

4 brain cells are required to comprehend that the US Gov't paying people to recruit people to Islam is a horrible idea. If you want to be a missionary, go raise the funds from other private citizens like everyone else.

banyon
04-02-2009, 11:34 AM
It's right there in your bolded piece. The 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.

This amendment effectively prohibits these things.

No, it prohibits people who are receiving taxpayer funded grants for national service from being an organized religious entity. It's pretty easy, no one is forced to take or apply for the grant, so it doesn't abridge anyone's anything who doesn't volunteer themselves for that designation.

This type of rule has been in effect for decades for most types of government grants. It was just Bush II had tried to skirt that rule a bit with giving money to faith based charities which was playing to his base.

Nightfyre
04-02-2009, 11:53 AM
No, it prohibits people who are receiving taxpayer funded grants for national service from being an organized religious entity. It's pretty easy, no one is forced to take or apply for the grant, so it doesn't abridge anyone's anything who doesn't volunteer themselves for that designation.

This type of rule has been in effect for decades for most types of government grants. It was just Bush II had tried to skirt that rule a bit with giving money to faith based charities which was playing to his base.
This. You people need to learn to read and stop running around like chickens with your heads cut off until you do.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 12:34 PM
No, it prohibits people who are receiving taxpayer funded grants for national service from being an organized religious entity.

It doesn't matter if they are taking money or not. The Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's what this amendment does in the bill. There are no contingencies in the first amendment on the exercise of religion. There are no contingencies on petitioning our governments.

Nightfyre
04-02-2009, 12:43 PM
It doesn't matter if they are taking money or not. The Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's what this amendment does in the bill. There are no contingencies in the first amendment on the exercise of religion. There are no contingencies on petitioning our governments.

Its not abridging the rights of individuals, but of specific organizations who take federal monies. People who spend federal monies for religious organizations are in fact abridging the rights of the taxpayers monies whom they are spending.

banyon
04-02-2009, 12:45 PM
It doesn't matter if they are taking money or not. The Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's what this amendment does in the bill. There are no contingencies in the first amendment on the exercise of religion. There are no contingencies on petitioning our governments.

How are you going to reconcile your absolute literalist view of the free excercise clause with the establishment clause? After all there can be NO law establishing religion of any kind, and forcing your tax dollars to prop up a church would certainly qualify.

Also, should we free all of the people who were in prison on charges of conspiracy to commit murder? I mean they were punished for speaking right, and there can be NO law abridging speech too, right?

Over 200 years, we figured out that a literalist interpretation of the Constitution, while neat to idealists, doesn't work very well in practice.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 01:06 PM
How are you going to reconcile your absolute literalist view of the free excercise clause with the establishment clause? After all there can be NO law establishing religion of any kind, and forcing your tax dollars to prop up a church would certainly qualify.


Only if you are under the delusion that federal funds in this case create a state established religion. Which it doesn't. Especially if other religious groups can apply for the funds. Now you see the problem with the Federal Government taking these monies from the citizens and offering these funds in the first place. The Constitution is a contract to restrain Government. You literally just said that the contract is good until I feel like it should be changed to fit my beliefs. Which at that point it's no longer a contract, never was a contract, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 01:08 PM
Its not abridging the rights of individuals, but of specific organizations who take federal monies. People who spend federal monies for religious organizations are in fact abridging the rights of the taxpayers monies whom they are spending.

And it can be argued that those individuals within those organization exercising there legally protected personal beliefs are representing the organization. It happens everyday in our country.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 01:14 PM
And you guys still have mitigated freedom of speech or right to petition the government. The amendment to the bill is unconstitutional.

Jenson71
04-02-2009, 01:15 PM
Only if you are under the delusion that federal funds in this case create a state established religion. Which it doesn't. Especially if other religious groups can apply for the funds. Now you see the problem with the Federal Government taking these monies from the citizens and offering these funds in the first place. The Constitution is a contract to restrain Government. You literally just said that the contract is good until I feel like it should be changed to fit my beliefs. Which at that point it's no longer a contract, never was a contract, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law to establish a religion."

Nightfyre
04-02-2009, 01:17 PM
And it can be argued that those individuals within those organization exercising there legally protected personal beliefs are representing the organization. It happens everyday in our country.

They can do so, so long as they aren't doing so in a manner affiliated with the organization receiving the grant.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 01:23 PM
The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law to establish a religion."

Correct. It does not say that. What is your point.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 01:24 PM
They can do so, so long as they aren't doing so in a manner affiliated with the organization receiving the grant.

And you are assuming no one will make the argument. And they will. Same reason people get DUI's and lose their jobs, even though they weren't representing the company at the time. It'll happen

Jenson71
04-02-2009, 01:29 PM
Correct. It does not say that. What is your point.

Then suggesting that only when federal funds are being used to establish a religion is a law unconstitutional, as you did, is not a correct view.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 01:41 PM
Then suggesting that only when federal funds are being used to establish a religion is a law unconstitutional, as you did, is not a correct view.

If the amendment is worded as above it violates the constitution. It doesn't matter what the actual intent of fund recipent is. The Federal Government cannot dictate to you or anyone else what they can believe with respect to speech or religion or tell you you cannot petition the government. By adding the amendment at all they establish and sponser a state religion and it's called atheism.

KC native
04-02-2009, 01:44 PM
If the amendment is worded as above it violates the constitution. It doesn't matter what the actual intent of fund recipent is. The Federal Government cannot dictate to you or anyone else what they can believe with respect to speech or religion or tell you you cannot petition the government. By adding the amendment at all they establish and sponser a state religion and it's called atheism.

Atheism isn't a religion. There is no United Church of Athiests or anything of the sort.

Nightfyre
04-02-2009, 01:46 PM
And you are assuming no one will make the argument. And they will. Same reason people get DUI's and lose their jobs, even though they weren't representing the company at the time. It'll happen

And the argument would be taken to court and shot to shit. Are you dense? Seriously.

banyon
04-02-2009, 01:49 PM
Only if you are under the delusion that federal funds in this case create a state established religion. Which it doesn't. Especially if other religious groups can apply for the funds. Now you see the problem with the Federal Government taking these monies from the citizens and offering these funds in the first place. The Constitution is a contract to restrain Government. You literally just said that the contract is good until I feel like it should be changed to fit my beliefs. Which at that point it's no longer a contract, never was a contract, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

So, they can appropriate as many of your tax dollars as they want to fund a Muslim missionary project here in the United States?

And No, your contract analogy fails, as contracts have to be analyzed and negotiated all of the time with certain things being implicit and certain things being explicit. Both are comprised of human language, which is quite different from something like binary code and is subject to interpretation.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 01:57 PM
Atheism isn't a religion. There is no United Church of Athiests or anything of the sort.

Atheism is a system of beliefs which is certainly a religion. You don't have to have a church to have a religion. It doesn't have to be organized, nor does it require a super natural belief in a supreme being.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:00 PM
And the argument would be taken to court and shot to shit.

You have no grounds on which to say what a court will do with something like this.

Nightfyre
04-02-2009, 02:01 PM
You have no grounds on which to say what a court will do with something like this.

You're right. Decades of precedent and actual understanding of the laws would be tossed out the window at your whim.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:01 PM
So, they can appropriate as many of your tax dollars as they want to fund a Muslim missionary project here in the United States?

And No, your contract analogy fails, as contracts have to be analyzed and negotiated all of the time with certain things being implicit and certain things being explicit. Both are comprised of human language, which is quite different from something like binary code and is subject to interpretation.

Except we are talking about the contract that enforces all contracts. And there is little interpretation on the first amendment. It doesn't say "maybe sometimes"

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:03 PM
You're right. Decades of precedent and actual understanding of the laws would be tossed out the window at your whim.

Legal precedent is garbage. The law hasn't changed in over 200 years. You are actually using intpretations of the law to define the law and oppsed to the law itself. It's the fundamental flaw of the lawyer religion.

Nightfyre
04-02-2009, 02:04 PM
Legal precedent is garbage. The law hasn't changed in over 200 years. You are actually using intpretations of the law to define the law and oppsed to the law itself. It's the fundamental flaw of the lawyer religion.

Right. And 9/11 was an inside job.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:04 PM
Atheism isn't a religion. There is no United Church of Athiests or anything of the sort.

Oh and btw

http://www.atheistsunited.org/

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:06 PM
So, they can appropriate as many of your tax dollars as they want to fund a Muslim missionary project here in the United States?

No. Naming a particular religion in a law violates the establishment clause.

KC native
04-02-2009, 02:16 PM
Atheism is a system of beliefs which is certainly a religion. You don't have to have a church to have a religion. It doesn't have to be organized, nor does it require a super natural belief in a supreme being.

Ok, so explain to me how atheism is a religion if it doesn't fit the definition of a religion (definition is included because I know you're a lazy asshat)

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Mr. Kotter
04-02-2009, 02:20 PM
Legal precedent is garbage. The law hasn't changed in over 200 years. You are actually using intpretations of the law to define the law and oppsed to the law itself. It's the fundamental flaw of the lawyer religion.

You may think legal precedent is garbage, the fact remains that, it evolved from English common law. As such, stare decisis is part of the legal system established by our government through Congress and the Constitution...which established our court system.


FWIW, I agree some judges and jurists use the process to legitimize politically motivated actions....nonetheless, to dismiss it entirely is misguided, at best IMHO.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Right. And 9/11 was an inside job.

Yup.

KC native
04-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Oh and btw

http://www.atheistsunited.org/

Wow, you found one example of an athiest organization. What did you do? Google Atheism and find the first link that most resembled what you're trying to prove? Still doesn't prove your point that Atheism is a religion.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Ok, so explain to me how atheism is a religion if it doesn't fit the definition of a religion (definition is included because I know you're a lazy asshat)

Here's a few you left out:

-something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice

-a system of beliefs

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:23 PM
You may think legal precedent is garbage, the fact remains that, it evolved from English common law. As such, stare decisis is part of the legal system established by our government through Congress and the Constitution...which established our court system.


FWIW, I agree some judges and jurists use the process to legitimize politically motivated actions....nonetheless, to dismiss it entirely is misguided, at best IMHO.

The further you get away from the source the more distortion will occur. To use interpretations of laws and opposed to the laws themselves is also a flawed approach.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-02-2009, 02:24 PM
Atheism=the worship of ones own self, therefore if you take public money you MAY NOT use the terms I, Me or My.

KC native
04-02-2009, 02:27 PM
Here's a few you left out:

-something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice

-a system of beliefs

Ah, you claim it's a religion because you want to play semantics and rely on a point of the definition that's clearly not the common usage of the word. Atheism isn't a religion. When you can present one unifying set of beliefs that all atheists believe in then you might be able to make that case. As of now, you are falling short.

Edit: I didn't leave that out. I went with the first link of a google search. It took me a few minutes before I found those two points you say I left out.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 02:41 PM
that's clearly not the common usage of the word. Atheism isn't a religion. When you can present one unifying set of beliefs that all atheists believe in then you might be able to make that case.


Common usage or not(which is a debate o its own), it's still the definition of the word and atheism whether organized or singular fallls under it's definition. If you want to rail on Christians, Catholics, and th elike....just use their proper names. Also the 4th line in the definition you provided also envokes atheism.

banyon
04-02-2009, 03:01 PM
And you guys still have mitigated freedom of speech or right to petition the government. The amendment to the bill is unconstitutional.

All of these guys have mitigated freedom of speech and right to petition the government as well, just not on behalf of their organization and that they are not to spend money lobbying with that organization for more tax dollars with the tax dollars we just provided them.

If you can't see why that's a sensible policy...

banyon
04-02-2009, 03:02 PM
No. Naming a particular religion in a law violates the establishment clause.

Did you decide whether we are to let the Godfather out of jail or not?

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 03:10 PM
All of these guys have mitigated freedom of speech and right to petition the government as well, just not on behalf of their organization and that they are not to spend money lobbying with that organization for more tax dollars with the tax dollars we just provided them.

If you can't see why that's a sensible policy...

And I am saying that it can be argued that even when they are making the petition as an individual the organization will be included.

KC native
04-02-2009, 03:13 PM
And I am saying that it can be argued that even when they are making the petition as an individual the organization will be included.

And everyone else is saying you're wrong (which you are).

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 03:15 PM
And everyone else is saying you're wrong (which you are).

It can, and I'd bet good money it will be argued exactly as such. Either way it's still unconstitutional.

jAZ
04-02-2009, 03:51 PM
It doesn't matter if they are taking money or not. The Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's what this amendment does in the bill. There are no contingencies in the first amendment on the exercise of religion. There are no contingencies on petitioning our governments.

Not one person's rights to exercise religion is abridged by this.

Or did I miss the reinstitution of slavery with this program.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Garcia Bronco
04-02-2009, 03:56 PM
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Yes you are. Please take a few moments to read the posts and the rational discussion that took place before you submitted a post.

banyon
04-02-2009, 06:36 PM
And I am saying that it can be argued that even when they are making the petition as an individual the organization will be included.

Do you think the Mafia or the Crips ought to be allowed to make campaign contributions or petition the government as an entity?

BucEyedPea
04-02-2009, 07:16 PM
I had to look this up.


Passed by the House of Representatives with a 321-105 margin, HR 1388: the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, dubbed the “GIVE” act, would require the US government to develop a plan to implement a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people”.
It's fascism. There is no Constitutional authority for the central govt, the Feds, to force mandatory service by young people.
That's involuntary servitude. The 13th Amendment did away with that. Jack booted thugs! http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6282/brownshirtjackbootsea0.gif

BucEyedPea
04-02-2009, 07:21 PM
They come for my kid...to the courts I go. All the way to the Supreme Court.

BucEyedPea
04-02-2009, 07:32 PM
The GIVE act says the state owns your kids.


"We should be owned, as soldiers are by the army, and our pride would rise accordingly." ~ William James, The Moral Equivalent of War

From one of The Corporation for National and Community Service (www.nationalservice.org) founding documents.

Says all.

jAZ
04-02-2009, 09:41 PM
Yes you are. Please take a few moments to read the posts and the rational discussion that took place before you submitted a post.

Been very busy lately, sorry. But if a thoughtful disucssion has emerged from a deeply, hugely, unbelievably flawed premise, then that's lucky.

But it doesn't change the deeply, hugely, unbelievably flawed premise from being based on a foundation of stupid.

I hate when someone does what I've done, which is interupt a good discussion with terse comments. There's plenty of thought behind my point, but I only have time to cut to the chase at the moment.

That chase is: 1) Voluntary program, 2) Paying federal employee to evangelize for Islam is a ridiculous suggestion, 3) Pay your own way if you want to preach the gospel.

The question of religious freedom is wildly off the mark.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2009, 10:40 PM
Great thread!

Jenson71
04-02-2009, 10:49 PM
Legal precedent is garbage. The law hasn't changed in over 200 years. You are actually using intpretations of the law to define the law and oppsed to the law itself. It's the fundamental flaw of the lawyer religion.

The fact that people are in here discussing differing points of view on what the Constitution means is proof that the 'lawyer religion' is legitimate.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2009, 10:51 PM
Can I join your plaintiff's side, Garcia? I'm convinced it's one of the most rock solid cases ever to grace the courts.