GOP lawmakers question constitutionality of State Department grants to spread atheism abroad

so republicans do not want grants to go to religions to do good works, really, they do realize Christian groups get most of those grants right?

I am all for a bill to prevent it, let's let Republicans pass some bills to prevent it, and we can go from there

 

These specific Republicans that are upset only want grants to go to Christian organizations, no other religion need to apply though.

 

And to mainly favor their version of religion.

 

Neither The SC or any other court has the power to rewrite the English language.
A religion is defined as an institution. Not sim0ly a belief.
IN AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY.

OTOH if the NRA is defined as a charity, cats can become cows. In the end you wind up living in alternative universe.

 

Oh look! A meme! I'm now convinced that a a lack of belief, no organized in any way, is a "religion". Good arguin', fella!

 

Religion can be an institution, even when there are no churches around. However, when it comes to the law, when it comes to something that is protected under our Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority under article 6. The Supreme Court has nullified that philosophical beliefs, the parent of what religion is, is not protected under the 1st amendment.

And again, the venacular definition is not what is important here under the law. What's important is what the Constitution says, and ultimately how the Supreme Court interprets said Constitution.

 

Sorry but no one's Supreme Court can change the English Language.
That is a step towards 1984.

 

BTW as a secularist I don't think ANY government should financially ANY faith. All promotion should be financed from within itself.
Taxpayers' money should be used across the population and other than foreign aid and investment for profit, and not in préférence to à faith. It is instant discrimination to favour one over others.

 

Any law or financing by the US government that respects religions but not the non-religious would be in violation of the 1st amendment. To say that you must belong to a religion to receive protection is clearly a violation.

 

What is wrong with teaching humanism ? and why is this being conflated with atheism .. and what is wrong with teaching atheism .. along with other perspectives as part of general learning on the difference between ethnocentrism - cultural relativism - general anthropology that should be taught to all as part of one's education.

What is meant by "Spread" Spread humanism ?? Spread Atheism ... ?? is someone teaching folks to be humanists ? I would hope so .. is someone teaching folks to be atheists .. as general practice .. No .. so what the fk are you talking about ? Spreading Atheism and conflating this with humanism .

..

 

It is not for any government to promote the spread of any ism.
It is for those institutions to fund themselves.

 

Except the complaints completely misrepresent the facts.

The grants laid out in that document have nothing to do with promoting or spreading any kind of belief, it is about preventing abuse and discrimination against people already in those groups (as identified in some of the supporting documentation).

There are a whole load of similar grant proposals from the same department addressing similar discrimination against various minority religious groups in different parts of the world, sometimes naming specific groups such as Shia Muslims, Hindus and, of course, Christians. Some of them name non-believers and humanists too. There is also one which addresses on-line anti-Semitism, and so obviously specifically refers to Jews.

There is nothing special about this grant other than the focus being on different minority groups (they actually seem to copy-paste a lot of the wording). If this one is unconstitutional, pretty much all of the other ones would be too. Odd how there hasn't been any outcry over any of the previous grants though.

Incidentally, while I'm aware there have been some odd rulings in various US courts, I stand by the simple principle that if atheism is deemed a religion, theism must be deemed a religion too (which would at least eliminate most of these problems in the first place ).

 

Conservatives redefine words to fit their own world view, as in this thread. With their definitions. as an example, it would be harder to help people that need help. Therefore they think taxes will be lower. Separation of church and state when it suits them. No difference, when it suites them.
With the Republicans in charge, they do lower taxes, mostly for well off, but not so much for the rest of us. But never mind the greatly increased spending when the Republicans are in charge, driving up record debts, which they blame in the Democrats the same day when a Democrat President is sworn in..