TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › President's Council on Faith
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President's Council on Faith

post #1 of 25
2/4/09 at 6:12pm
Thread Starter 
This should upset the apple cart.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx

This new council will be made up of religious leaders across the ideaological spectrum.

Their main task will be to provide public policy input on faith related issues ranging from healthcare to poverty. They will meet regularly and discuss their ideas with the President.

Reply
post #2 of 25
2/4/09 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
This should upset the apple cart.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx

This new council will be made up of religious leaders across the ideaological spectrum.

Their main task will be to provide public policy input on faith related issues ranging from healthcare to poverty. They will meet regularly and discuss their ideas with the President.

Why would it? Sounds good to me. I can't wait to see who his "Earth Faiths" representative will be.
Reply
post #3 of 25
2/4/09 at 8:23pm
What happened to separation of Church and State? Why did he call it "a Council of Faith". He's calling church members up to find out what needs to be done, BUT isn't that going completely against the separation principle?

I'm just asking because so many people seem to be against any kind of religion being involved in goverment that I'm confused....
Reply
post #4 of 25
2/4/09 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
What happened to separation of Church and State? Why did he call it "a Council of Faith". He's calling church members up to find out what needs to be done, BUT isn't that going completely against the separation principle?

I'm just asking because so many people seem to be against any kind of religion being involved in goverment that I'm confused....
I'm asking myself the same thing. Didn't people complain when Bush tried to involve faith? Or is that different just because it was Bush?
Reply
post #5 of 25
2/4/09 at 8:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
I'm asking myself the same thing. Didn't people complain when Bush tried to involve faith? Or is that different just because it was Bush?
I think it's different because we aren't all Christians.
Reply
post #6 of 25
2/4/09 at 9:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
I think it's different because we aren't all Christians.
I don't think it matters if there is a violation of the separation of church and state, it would still be unconstitutional.
Reply
post #7 of 25
2/4/09 at 9:26pm
Actually, there is no "separation of Church and State". That was simply a passage from a letter to the Baptists. The 1st Amendment says;
Quote:
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.
Congress simply cannot designate a State Religion, or give any one religion preference over any other(s). Whereas Bush wanted Christian faith based programs, Obama seems to be willing to have representatives from everyone. As long as everyone is included, then all is well
Reply
post #8 of 25
2/5/09 at 5:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually, there is no "separation of Church and State". That was simply a passage from a letter to the Baptists. The 1st Amendment says;


Congress simply cannot designate a State Religion, or give any one religion preference over any other(s). Whereas Bush wanted Christian faith based programs, Obama seems to be willing to have representatives from everyone. As long as everyone is included, then all is well
Mike, you rock. I love how you get to the truth of matters rather than skimming the edges and putting incorrect interpretations on issues.
Reply
post #9 of 25
2/5/09 at 6:08am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
What happened to separation of Church and State? Why did he call it "a Council of Faith". He's calling church members up to find out what needs to be done, BUT isn't that going completely against the separation principle?

I'm just asking because so many people seem to be against any kind of religion being involved in goverment that I'm confused....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
I'm asking myself the same thing. Didn't people complain when Bush tried to involve faith? Or is that different just because it was Bush?


Religion is religion. It has nothing to do with including everyone or excluding anyone. It's a violation of seperation between church and state.

I expect we'll see lawsuits soon.
Reply
post #10 of 25
2/5/09 at 6:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post


Religion is religion. It has nothing to do with including everyone or excluding anyone. It's a violation of seperation between church and state.

I expect we'll see lawsuits soon.
There is no such "separation of church and state" to violate
Reply
post #11 of 25
2/5/09 at 6:26am
Our government is supposed to be representative of all of the people, not just one religious sect. And the council is only to provide input, not establish laws. The fact that Obama is reaching across the spectrum indicates that he is trying to hear all voices. That is refreshing.

One of the reasons why I like Obama and voted for him was his open-mindedness. This positive action supports my opinion of him.
Reply
post #12 of 25
2/5/09 at 6:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Mike, you rock. I love how you get to the truth of matters rather than skimming the edges and putting incorrect interpretations on issues.
Yup, me too!
Reply
post #13 of 25
2/5/09 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually, there is no "separation of Church and State". That was simply a passage from a letter to the Baptists. The 1st Amendment says;


Congress simply cannot designate a State Religion, or give any one religion preference over any other(s). Whereas Bush wanted Christian faith based programs, Obama seems to be willing to have representatives from everyone. As long as everyone is included, then all is well
I stand corrected. I believe it was a letter from Thomas Jefferson? He was quoting someone who used those words before him in his letter.
Reply
post #14 of 25
2/5/09 at 8:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
I stand corrected. I believe it was a letter from Thomas Jefferson? He was quoting someone who used those words before him in his letter.
You are indeed correct. I was thinking that it was Madison, but I just looked it up and found that I was wrong. Madison did use the term, but Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists that included the phrase
Reply
post #15 of 25
2/5/09 at 9:21am
As a person of no faith, I think this is a good idea. Religious leaders are usually close to their communities, they see what their church members are going thru Gives a sort of "every man" view to problems.
Reply
post #16 of 25
2/5/09 at 9:44am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiemae1277 View Post
As a person of no faith, I think this is a good idea. Religious leaders are usually close to their communities, they see what their church members are going thru Gives a sort of "every man" view to problems.
Isn't that what we elect representatives to do?
Reply
post #17 of 25
2/5/09 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Isn't that what we elect representatives to do?
I personally can't remember the last time I saw an elected rep actually out in the real world day to day, they're to busy being government officials

and like someone else mentioned, this council isn't actually going to be making laws, only advising the president
Reply
post #18 of 25
2/5/09 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Isn't that what we elect representatives to do?
Katiemae is right. Elected officials dont really know whats going on down on the street. Now if they was to really read there mail they might have a better idea but since its all handled by staffers and flunkys they have no idea. All the staffers do is tell them about the really important letters ,like who sent money
Reply
post #19 of 25
2/5/09 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
Yup, me too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Mike, you rock. I love how you get to the truth of matters rather than skimming the edges and putting incorrect interpretations on issues.
Oh, why thank you

The part I find most interesting is him saying the "ideological spectrum" and not the "religious spectrum". That would seem to indicate that he intends to include the various non-theists on his counsel.
Reply
post #20 of 25
2/5/09 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleeko View Post
Katiemae is right. Elected officials dont really know whats going on down on the street.
I had an elected official show up one time at a protest we were having when they tried to build a power plant in the middle of a residential area. The entire neighborhood, with a petition in the thousands, was against it. The elected official sided with the power company. The mayor, who signed the agreement with the power company didn't show up. After a multi-year battle, during which time the power plant was built, they lost the legal battle we filed against them and had to tear it down.

When elected officials actually show their face, they side with who ever has the most money. Sometimes the people win over them.
Reply
post #21 of 25
2/5/09 at 4:03pm
Thread Starter 
Whether they actually do their jobs or not, that's their duty - to listen to their constituents. My representatives might not visit my town, but they hear from me on a regular basis, along with others in our community.
Reply
post #22 of 25
2/5/09 at 4:10pm
I'd be the most hated person in Congress. I'd call all of them out on the floor of the House or Senate and rail on them for a few hours at a time. I'd have fun, though.
Reply
post #23 of 25
2/6/09 at 8:09am
It might be a politicians duty to listen to the people but the reality is, they listen to who can bring them votes or money or both. Everybody else they probably just keep the really good ones for when there bored and need a laugh
Reply
post #24 of 25
2/6/09 at 8:20pm
Even if the elected leaders were all down in the trenches, skimming the streets, they would most likely only bring to the table concerns of religious groups that reflect their personal views

Having a counsel that "covers the ideological spectrum" would ensure that all the groups that have no members in Government are represented. Assuming of course, that the counsel actually does cover the ideological spectrum. Of that, we've yet to see.
Reply
post #25 of 25
2/9/09 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
I'm asking myself the same thing. Didn't people complain when Bush tried to involve faith? Or is that different just because it was Bush?
I heard (on the radio - can't remember the source) that Obama most likely will change the name to something like the community organizations that he's been so heavily involved with - that it will develop into that kind of organization.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › President's Council on Faith