slipping mandatory service under the radar?

1) Who are "they?" Where I'm sitting a bare majority of a Congress dominated by the President's party won't even agree to fund a study on the feasibility of a mandatory service requirement. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. A large majority, however, supports federal support for volunteer programs. I agree with the majority. Federal support for volunteer programs is great. Federal imposition of a mandatory service requirement is a bad thing. But there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can have (as we have had for several decades running) federal support for volunteer programs without mandatory service requirements. That's what this bill does and that's why it's a good thing.

2) I agree with you here. Mandatory service is bad. But that doesn't mean that federal support for volunteer service programs is bad. The bill (which is just to study mandatory service, not to actually impose it) should be debated on its own. If anyone tries to slip it into a Backrub Bill, I'll be right with you opposing it. But again, this is no justification for opposing the long-standing federal practice of supporting volunteer programs.
"They" are the authors of the bill. It is implicit in the conversation as we are talking about the bill, why we think it is bad, what they said they wanted, and how they are working towards it with this legislation.

Please, I added to my last post a bit before I read this one and you may want to read it.

This Bill was bad in 1990, it was bad when Bush used it to try to enforce religious indoctrination, and it is still bad when Ds use it to enforce whatever ideas they wish to enforce.

I oppose the government "support" of such organizations in this manner, and I especially oppose it when it incentivizes "Mandatory" volunteerism in the schools in order to gather some of the funding they desperately need. Just because it is a non-profit doesn't mean it is any better to involve the government in selecting the "winners" and "losers" among private organizations than it is to have the government deciding which companies will gain and which will fail.
 
<snip>

The very stark reality is, if this was proposed by Bush you would have nearly had an aneurysm in your rush to discredit and point out the very disconcerting areas of such a "program". Instead, because it comes from somebody on your side, you promote it wholeheartedly and without reservation. A bit of that supposed "famous" introspection from the left should be used in this arena.

Not true. I'll support anything that aids kids in becoming contributing members of society. My own kids will be going through the program. Actually I did agree with bu$h once, he said athletes should not be permitted to use "performance-enhancing drugs like steroids" , and I supported that whole-heartedly.
 
You shouldn't have. You have failed utterly, and only illustrated that you're a totalitarian. Mandatory volunteerism? Peace through war? Freedom Through Slavery? You're pretty big brothery. Have you read 1984? they use a lot of these word games to destroy people's ability to think properly. You're a wreck.

And you wonder why I've criticized your "liberal" use of fallacies. :D
 
Face it folks. We're within months of mandatory all. Lie back and enjoy what you can.

yes he is making plans for all his muslim friends to overrun the borders disguised as mexicans with iraqi wmds it will be horrible and scary

he bought a lot of equipment that he claimed was for our troops but it is actually in the white house basement and on a night when the saudi prince is in town for dinner he will begin the attack

it will be scary and the liberals are helping this by voting in the stimulus package and for kicking god out of our school and letting gays marry, lesbians fine, but not those damn homo boys.
 
Not true. I'll support anything that aids kids in becoming contributing members of society. My own kids will be going through the program. Actually I did agree with bu$h once, he said athletes should not be permitted to use "performance-enhancing drugs like steroids" , and I supported that whole-heartedly.
So, you championed Bush's using the same laws to give money to the churches? You thought it was great because then the kids would take part in the community... even though the approved programs also had a goal of spreading a religion and thought it could be made better by clearly outlining a way to try to make it "mandatory"?
 
Mandatory Volunteerism = slavery.

Christie wants to do her kids a favor and teach them to become slaves. What a horrible mother.
 
So, you championed Bush's using the same laws to give money to the churches? You thought it was great because then the kids would take part in the community... even though the approved programs also had a goal of spreading a religion and thought it could be made better by clearly outlining a way to try to make it "mandatory"?

Excuse me? The money that Bush made available to faith based organizations, were organizations that had already been providing services via donations, i.e. soup kitchens, shelters, drug rehabs etc. I am not saying that I agree with government tax dollars being used in aiding these programs, but they were not proselytizing centers using children.
 
But the other part of my post nailed you to the wall. There was more to my post that just the c word.

And have we spent the last several pages discussing the salient points of your post?

Or have we been discussing how your use of vulgarity distracted from any real point you may have made?

Vulgarity is the last resort of the weak-minded.
 
Excuse me? The money that Bush made available to faith based organizations, were organizations that had already been providing services via donations, i.e. soup kitchens, shelters, drug rehabs etc. I am not saying that I agree with government tax dollars being used in aiding these programs, but they were not proselytizing centers using children.
Regardless, it was the exact same law they seek to change that he used to deliver the cash.

The real question was: "You think it could only have been IMPROVED by making it MANDATORY?" Nor was the question for you or an attack on faith based organizations.

I used that example because the vast majority of lefties complained where the money was going, to faith based organizations. Nowadays, we are speaking to the "let's try and make it mandatory" crap.
 
Regardless, it was the exact same law they seek to change that he used to deliver the cash.

The real question was: "You think it could only have been IMPROVED by making it MANDATORY?"

It does matter Damo and here is why; you often make these kinds of broad brush statements about Christians or religious orgs. Making a clarification becomes necessary because it is unfair for you to do so.

I do not want church's getting any kind of financial aid from our government for a couple of different reasons. First and foremost is because it allows the government to have a "say" in the affairs of the *Church. This is what Jefferson was wishing to avoid when he penned his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Secondly, a church that becomes politically involved loses sight of their divine purpose which is the care of the saints and the sharing of the gospel. This said, I also believe that the individual, no matter his faith, has a right and responsibility to be involved with the political machinations of their country.

Faith based organizations are different from the church. Their goals are usually to provide creature comforts; a warm bed, a hot meal, rescue from drugs etc. I am not sure that it is any less wrong for them to apply for grants to meet these needs than it is for secular groups who are able to apply for aid to do so.

*Tax exemptions, in their own way, serve to protect a church by detering them from being a pulpit for political candidates or policy. (Unless the church is supporting a democrat’s policy or candidate that is.)
 
So, you championed Bush's using the same laws to give money to the churches? You thought it was great because then the kids would take part in the community... even though the approved programs also had a goal of spreading a religion and thought it could be made better by clearly outlining a way to try to make it "mandatory"?

You really have a way of putting words in people's mouths. What does this red herring have to do with supporting bu$h's position of steroid use?

bu$h's own appointee to the Office of Faith-based Initiatives, David Kuo, said the office was a calculated political tactic used to appeal to Christian conservatives and that all the talk about faith, etc. was simply lip service. Would you care to discuss that, instead of telling me what I championed or what I believe?
 
Last edited:
And have we spent the last several pages discussing the salient points of your post?

Or have we been discussing how your use of vulgarity distracted from any real point you may have made?

Vulgarity is the last resort of the weak-minded.


And that would make zoom, weak minded.
Thanks
 
It does matter Damo and here is why; you often make these kinds of broad brush statements about Christians or religious orgs. Making a clarification becomes necessary because it is unfair for you to do so.

I do not want church's getting any kind of financial aid from our government for a couple of different reasons. First and foremost is because it allows the government to have a "say" in the affairs of the *Church. This is what Jefferson was wishing to avoid when he penned his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Secondly, a church that becomes politically involved loses sight of their divine purpose which is the care of the saints and the sharing of the gospel. This said, I also believe that the individual, no matter his faith, has a right and responsibility to be involved with the political machinations of their country.

Faith based organizations are different from the church. Their goals are usually to provide creature comforts; a warm bed, a hot meal, rescue from drugs etc. I am not sure that it is any less wrong for them to apply for grants to meet these needs than it is for secular groups who are able to apply for aid to do so.

*Tax exemptions, in their own way, serve to protect a church by detering them from being a pulpit for political candidates or policy. (Unless the church is supporting a democrat’s policy or candidate that is.)
Again I was making the argument that they made at that time directly back to them.

You are mistaken as to my motivation, causation, and even my objection.

I never objected to his giving money to faith based organizations (although I would have objected strongly to mandatory and still think that the government shouldn't choose the winners and losers in such organizations to begin with), I was pointing out to a person who likely had that they objected to a different use of the same law by directly showing them their own bias towards this form and implementation.

What I asked her, was what if Bush had made it "mandatory" would it have made it "better" in her opinion, and whether she was one who objected to Bush giving money to the Faith Based organizations. (The portion of my question that spoke to "religious indoctrination" was a portion of the current law as written, not of one of my objections. I expect the religious to evangelize, it is their purview and their right. If they don't I wonder as to their "caring" at all about me or mine. In short, if they don't try to save my soul how much could they possibly care about my life?)

The reality is many who objected to that idea (faith based charities getting the money), are now promoting the idea that they should be "mandatory" when they are used to promote their own ideas. IMO, this is a bad idea regardless of the ideas promoted, for reasons I outlined earlier in the thread, and it should be pointed out to them that at some point they too will be a minority, and mandatory service may not have the same appeal to them when it promotes the ideas of another.
 
Again I was making the argument that they made at that time directly back to them.

You are mistaken as to my motivation, causation, and even my objection.

I never objected to his giving money to faith based organizations (although I would have objected strongly to mandatory and still think that the government shouldn't choose the winners and losers in such organizations to begin with), I was pointing out to a person who likely had that they objected to a different use of the same law by directly showing them their own bias towards this form and implementation.

What I asked her, was what if Bush had made it "mandatory" would it have made it "better" in her opinion, and whether she was one who objected to Bush giving money to the Faith Based organizations. (The portion of my question that spoke to "religious indoctrination" was a portion of the current law as written, not of one of my objections. I expect the religious to evangelize, it is their purview and their right. If they don't I wonder as to their "caring" at all about me or mine. In short, if they don't try to save my soul how much could they possibly care about my life?)

The reality is many who objected to that idea (faith based charities getting the money), are now promoting the idea that they should be "mandatory" when they are used to promote their own ideas. IMO, this is a bad idea regardless of the ideas promoted, for reasons I outlined earlier in the thread, and it should be pointed out to them that at some point they too will be a minority, and mandatory service may not have the same appeal to them when it promotes the ideas of another.

This is what I responded to: "So, you championed Bush's using the same laws to give money to the churches? You thought it was great because then the kids would take part in the community... even though the approved programs also had a goal of spreading a religion and thought it could be made better by clearly outlining a way to try to make it "mandatory"?"


No money was given to church's by Bush so that kids could would be going out and spreading religion. Is this something you made up or that someone else said? I admit to being perhaps unaware of another conversation?
 
This is what I responded to: "So, you championed Bush's using the same laws to give money to the churches? You thought it was great because then the kids would take part in the community... even though the approved programs also had a goal of spreading a religion and thought it could be made better by clearly outlining a way to try to make it "mandatory"?"


No money was given to church's by Bush so that kids could would be going out and spreading religion. Is this something you made up or that someone else said? I admit to being perhaps unaware of another conversation?
What you responded to was not made in a vacuum, there was a whole conversation that took place, and it was one point of the conversation. Pretending that is the whole of my opinion ignores the past, pretends there is not a future, and then makes a case against an argument I have not made. It's a fallacy in itself.

In short, you argue a straw man.

One more time. The law as written here specifically, in this particular case, states that if any portion of the organization spreads religion (a church) then they can't have any of the money. I am suggesting that a person who likely objected to it before (Christiefan), and for the reason I outline many lefties did argue against Bush's usage of the law, is now championing it. I was wondering if she championed it as strongly then as she does now, and does she think that the only improvement could be to make it mandatory.

Now. You can either read the whole of the conversation, take the preconceived notion out of your head when it comes to me, and then participate or you can pretend that I am against your religion. One would show wisdom, the other silliness beyond measure.
 
Back
Top