If I start a Sufi sect that tries to promote telepathy, can I get government funds?

Or an neo-Aztec symbolic heart-removal-only Sun-worshipping cult, what forms do I have to fill out for taxpayer-funded buckaroos?

…

profitsbeard on June 25, 2007 at 2:05 PM

I’m afraid your entire post is built upon a false premise. No money is going to “religion”, it is going to charitable NGO’s which have a religious affiliation. There are no examples of money for sun-worshipping or telepathy.

The federal government, which of course shouldn’t have anything to do with taxing people for other’s charity, is using agencies who already have a well-established (and well-vetted) distribution channel to more efficiently get charity money where it can do some good.

Until we can do something about government thinking it is in the charity business, at least there is less waste in using middle-man organizations that already know what they are doing, than another government beauracracy trying to handle charitable distributions.

You smell like a lawyer, Tenpenny.

JayHaw Phrenzie on June 25, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Bingo! You pegged me! (But I’m not a lawyer.)

Just go read the dadgum facts about the case. It wasn’t frivolous then, and it shouldn’t be the posterboy or postergirl case for frivolous lawsuits.

…a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…

Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 8:16 PM

You should have seen the original post, before I cleaned it up for HotAir!

And regarding compassion, I have little compassion for someone that makes it through several decades of life and never learns that coffee is hot.

And I have less compassion for lawyers that exploit situations like this. You smell like a lawyer, Tenpenny.

And these morons are paid how much?

I think the old lady should have paid McDonalds a bonus, instead of suing them, that cup of cofee was the hottest thing that’s been in her lap since the great depression.

JayHaw Phrenzie on June 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I think we have a winner for the most tasteless post! Thank you, O’ most wise and compassionate.

SoulGlo on June 25, 2007 at 5:57 PM

I have to agree.

Maxx on June 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Agreed 100%!

.

that connection is missing from this thread. I wonder why?

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Maybe because it was recognized as a tender moment between just you and me.

SoulGlo on June 25, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Kid wasn’t in school.

RushBaby on June 25, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Yes, that connection is missing from this thread. I wonder why?

Update: Who cares about the Supreme Court? The “pants” case is decided!

Am I the only one who whenever hearing a tease for the “pants” suit story, thought it was something about Hillary?

dandy on June 25, 2007 at 11:01 AM”

Amen.

The biggest problem I have with the Bong Hits case is that the school tried to assert authority over actions outside of school (not even where a field trip produces a ‘bubble’ of school authority to surround the students and faculty involved in the off-campus activity).

Is this an original statement from you or are you just quoting some ignorant imbecile? If it is an original statement than I pity you, if not than I pity the fool you are quoting.

Even though Frederick
never got to school that morning, that was only because
he got stuck in his driveway because of the snow. School had
started and the students were released to watch the Olympic
torch pass. And even though supervision of most students was
minimal or nonexistent, the school could have supervised
them more if it chose to, as it did with the gym class and perhaps
the pep band and cheerleaders. Frederick was a student,
and school was in session.

Or an neo-Aztec symbolic heart-removal-only Sun-worshipping cult, what forms do I have to fill out for taxpayer-funded buckaroos?

No government (I first typed “givernment“) money for religions. Any religions.

Or this blind largesse’ll end up feeding dogmatic piranas who want to devour our freedoms and supplant them with Sharia Law.

No thanks.

Feed your own Gods on your own dime.

I’ll use mine for ammo.

but my initial warning still holds true whether the money is appropriated via executive fiat or congessional legislation

No actually it doesn’t, it amounts to a federally sanctioned prohibition. The first amendment makes a very important statement as follows… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of…” What is the the significant pivotal point of this statement? Make no law…The first amendment hangs in its entirety upon those three little words. Congress shall make no law either supporting or prohibiting religion.

Since allowing religious NGO’s to bid on government contracts is not a law establishing any religion it derives then naturally that refusing to allow religious NGO’s to bid on government contracts is a law prohibiting the free expression of religion.

Your initial warning is not only unconstitutional it seeks to change the constitution itself. What you are asserting is that any organization that has a primarily religious affiliation is automatically prohibited from doing business with the US government. This of course is a direct violation of the establishment clause’s “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

“Money goes a long way toward establishing certain ‘government approved’ organizations”,

No it doesn’t, people go a long way to push their own political or ideological agenda’s. It is the secular humanists who are attempting to establish their religion of atheism as the state religion who keep trotting out the first half of the establishment clause while ignoring the second half.

I don’t want the state to have any opinion on religion what so ever. That includes the religions of secular humanism or atheism. I don’t want them providing any establishment for or prohibition against what anyone believes. I want the government to be completely neutral. More importantly that is what the first amendment demands that the government do, take no stance which would permit any law be passed that would establish or prohibit any religion.

A better solution…

A better solution would be for the government to not take the money in the first place, but we also know that neither of these better solutions are acceptable to congress.

Govt. = FUBAR

You get no argument from me on that.

That is the question that springs to mind in the aftermath of today’s decision in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. In allowing a public school to punish a student who unfurled a banner off school grounds based upon a……

Read the facts of the McDonald’s coffee case sometime and see how badly the plaintiff was injured. It wasn’t a case of a little owie. This case got a bad rep because of the subject matter.

Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 11:09 AM

I think the old lady should have paid McDonalds a bonus, instead of suing them, that cup of cofee was the hottest thing that’s been in her lap since the great depression.