Cutting funding for Abstinance only

[ReiperX]

http://www.cnn.com/2..e.suit.ap/index.html

I've never been a big fan of this program, and am glad its losing its funding, at least until the people recieve their funds figure out how to redistribute their money to non religious organizations.

[Gunter45]

"In its federal lawsuit in May, the ACLU complained that the ring was inscribed with a Biblical verse exhorting Christians to remain holy and refrain from sexual sin. It also alleged that group members testified how accepting Jesus improved their lives."

The ACLU fights for NAMBLA and sues an organization that's supporting a positive message because the ring has a Bible verse on it? On the front of the UT Tower, the verse "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" inscribed on it in huge letters. UT gets federal funding. I'm pretty sure AA has federal funding and there are testimonies about how Christ helped them stop drinking.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/24/06 06:33 AM, Gunter45 wrote: "In its federal lawsuit in May, the ACLU complained that the ring was inscribed with a Biblical verse exhorting Christians to remain holy and refrain from sexual sin. It also alleged that group members testified how accepting Jesus improved their lives."

The ACLU fights for NAMBLA and sues an organization that's supporting a positive message because the ring has a Bible verse on it? On the front of the UT Tower, the verse "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" inscribed on it in huge letters. UT gets federal funding. I'm pretty sure AA has federal funding and there are testimonies about how Christ helped them stop drinking.

It is not the government's job to indoctrinate through tax-dollar. It doesn't matter if you think the message is good. Some activist child-molester might dislike the abstinence only program so it is important to respect his beliefs. And if you ask me we need to separate ourselves from old, outdated moral codes and embrace every form of so called "sinful" behavior regardless of how we feel about it.

[TheBlueBullet]

Psh, its not a suprise that the ACLU if fighting against. They fight against anything descent. This isn't about Religous interferance in the Silver Ring Thing. Its because it was a verse from the Bible. If it was from the Quaran (may have spelled that wrong), the ACLU (and alot of people on this forum) would say a god damn thing. Because if we did you would most likely call them a bigot and say that they need to be more tolerant. Its not fair that programs that are dubbed 'christian' are being treated this way. The S.R.T. puts on shows in churches its not in public places. So why are the ACLU all up a fucking fit? Theres more to what they are after than just the "Separation of Church and State" bullshit agrument they always put up.

[TheBlueBullet]

At 2/24/06 11:21 AM, Souta wrote: the ACLU (and alot of people on this forum) would say a god damn thing.

Sorry that should have been.
"wouldn't say"

[fli]

I don't have a problem with money going to religious programs depending on the circumstances.

Several of these religious programs offer free and necessary services to the public such as food and shelter for the poor, clinic bus trips to neighborhoods, and other good things that I approve.

And most of the time its members do this volunteeraily with zero wages. Imagine how much funds would be used to pay volunteers alone?

My thing is if they do it in a certain manner or create circumstances. If Catholic Charities accepts public governmental funds, then they should use it in such a way that is 1.) inclusive to all people, 2.) secular, and 3.) beneficial.

I remember years ago a Baptist church got in trouble because they gave free food, but they would lock the homeless and the poor in until they spent a total of one hour reading the New Testament. They couldn't eat unless they prayed, and etc.

Of course I'm against this, although I do believe any organization should be able to do this... but not with public funds.

Needless to say, they lost their case in court. They're very bitter now, but at least they now run on private donations. They wouldn't compensate on these rules, but hey-- they should be happy that they now have a choice on how they want to run their programs now.