Posted on 09/13/2006 9:56:53 AM PDT by oxcart
TACOMA, Wash. — A group is suing the federal government over grant money that went to a marriage counseling center, saying the Bush administration's initiative to support faith-based organizations has been used to unconstitutionally promote a fundamentalist Christian agenda. ADVERTISEMENT Click to learn more...
The Northwest Marriage Institute received $97,750 last year from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court.
On its Web site, the institute quotes several Bible verses, including one that urges wives to win over their husbands with a "quiet spirit." It also says wives should serve their husbands and make them happy as a way of honoring God.
"This program trains people in how to make their marriages conform to one narrow interpretation of faith," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "The federal government has no business forcing the taxpayer to subsidize that."
The 13 plaintiffs, residents of western Washington, want the grant money returned, with interest, and an injunction to prohibit further federal funding of the Marriage Institute.
Bob Whiddon Jr., the Marriage Institute's director, said Tuesday he had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment beyond saying that his organization has followed rules for spending the grant money.
The Marriage Institute's Web site says its services are available to people of all faiths.
(((PING)))
Rev. Barry W. Lynn is as religious as a Satanist, in fact he is worse.
Does that mean I can sue to get tax funding back from left-wing groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood or NPR and thousands of others? If we can earmark our taxes I suspect liberal causes might end up with the short straw.
Anyone remember what Christ gave up for the church? Sacrificing His very life in order for the Church to survive and prosper?
I wish the know-nothing Athiest Liberal morons, and the few men who quote no more than "wives, obey your husbands" would wake the heck up, open a Bible, and come to terms with what those lines mean, because ignorance of these two simple lines is allowing complete morons of the Left to lie about Christ and His followers.
Agnostic? Fine, walk your road and get back to me. But by the very descriptive, A-theists are working against God, and they care nothing for the good done in His name. Like most of the Democratic Party, they would undure any amount of others suffering, cause others any cruel destruction, put up with any pains caused to others, if only it advances their attacks on that which they curse.
Contrary to popular belief, reading a Bible doesn't have some miraculous effect of making one Christian. Reading the Bible completely actually helped me lose my faith. So in a way the religious are correct -- reading the Bible improved my life.
But by the very descriptive, A-theists are working against God
That would be anti-theist, "anti" meaning against. The "a" in atheist means "without."
Do you have a problem with husbands loving their wives to the extent that Christ loved the church? Does this degree of devotion reflect negatively upon Christianity?
Absolutely correct. I only began reading the Bible after I had been led to Christ by the human example of a friend who treated me then with the abject kindness, love and care that Christ showed his followers. Very few come to Jesus on the basis of reading a book; that is why Christ sent out "fishers of men" to show by human example exactly what following Him looked like. I was inspired by something greater than myself as to what Christ looked like in practice. And everytime I see somebody at my church work at Habitat, or go to serve at a soup kitchen, or in one instance to teach a group of Sudanese refugees to drive so that they can get jobs and support their families, I see Him.
As said, my post was mainly to propose reading and understanding the base document before spouting off about what it says.
Beyond that, thanks for correcting a point of English that I was flat out wrong on. I certainly want to be correct on what I use as facts when I am writing on how others should undertake to argue theirs.
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 12:30.
He who is "without God" is, by definition, not with him and, ergo, against Him.
I'm sorry. I misconstrued the suggestion to read the Bible as "Read it, you'll convert," which is the context I usually see it in. As far as "Read it before you comment on it," I completely agree.
I also agree on taking things out of context. However, I have seen a lot of instances where people read-in too much in order to create a context that really doesn't exist in the text. But your example is quite clear.
"For he that is not against us is on our part." Mark 9:40.
"And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." Luke 9:50.
Too bad for him the narrow interpretation just happens to be the correct one.
Matthew 7:13-14: Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
"The issue is that Bush is funding this administratively, without a congressional appropriation."
It seems to me the issue is whether Bush is treating faith-based organizations differently (and better) than non-faith-based organizations. If he is running a special slush fund for faith-based organizations and there is no similar fund for other organizations, then perhaps an argument exists that he is discriminating unfairly. But if a president can legally fund organizations outside the normal appropriations process and he has happened to fund faith-based groups as opposed to, say those funded by the Clintons, then what's the beef? Especially if he is spreading those funds to other organizations at the same time.
I have a problem with Lynn and other plaintiffs who challenge every penny that might benefit a faith group if that faith group is following the rules set out properly.
I always thought the government was supposed to be blind to religion in its official lawful capacities. IMO, a law (or a presidential action that is effectively a law) that specifically gives money, rights or preference to a religion or religious group would be "respecting an establishment of religion," but then so would one that excluded religious organizations.
IOW, doing anything but allowing religious groups to get the money would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.
It would seem so. If all parties are treated equally, there ought not be a problem, as you say. Lynn argues that any recognition of religion is a de factor endorsement of that religion but that argument isn't carrying much weight with the courts nowadays.
No kidding. Every time some marxist group challenges a moment of silence, a student saying a prayer at a high school graduation, we can count on Lynn to be front and center on FOX, CNN, et al. Who is this guy, an office front and a fax machine? Who supports him? Where is his "church"? Whenever he appears on FOX I change channels because his BS has not changed in a decade.
Probably because that position doesn't make much sense. You have to recognize something in order to exclude it where others are allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.