“Anti-Christian Bigotry” Most Widespread Hate Crime

[Joshua Adams]

Originally Posted by chick

So, those gay guys being beaten outside of gay bars aren't really victims...

We need to keep our priorities straight and realize that the only victim worth protecting here is the Institution of Marriage™.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

We need to keep our priorities straight and realize that the only victim worth protecting here is the Institution of Marriage™.

What exactly is the Institution of Marriage being protected from?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by chick

So, those gay guys being beaten outside of gay bars aren't really victims...

No, because they were not Christians.

If they were Christians, they would be victims; however, gays are not Christian. So, therefore, they are not victims.

I will pray for you. . . .

--J.D.

[viscousmemories]

Americans United [for Separation of Church and State] Slams Justice Department 'First Freedom Project' For Hypocrisy

“Expecting the Bush administration to defend religious liberty is a little like asking Col. Sanders to babysit your pet chicken,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This administration has repeatedly worked to destroy true religious freedom by merging church and state.”

As part of the new initiative, dubbed the “First Freedom Project,” Gonzales unveiled a 43-page report detailing the department’s intervention in several cases dealing with religion over the past six years. He vowed that the department would do even more in this arena.

Gonzales announced the new effort during a Feb. 20 speech before the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee.

AU’s Lynn said the report documents the administration’s skewed views on religion and government.

For example, Lynn noted that the report speaks frequently about the Justice Department’s commitment to protecting Americans from religious discrimination in the workplace. A few pages later, however, it recounts how the department defended the Salvation Army’s supposed right to take taxpayers’ money to run public social services and still fire staff people who do not agree with its fundamentalist dogma.

Observed Lynn, “Thanks to the Justice Department, the Salvation Army could literally place newspaper ads reading, ‘Help Wanted for Government-Funded Jobs: No Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Liberal Christians, Atheists Or Gays Need Apply,’ and this would be perfectly acceptable to Gonzales. This is a perverse way of supposedly defending our religious freedom rights.”

[D. Scarlatti]

For an administration ostensibly devoted to quelling the tide of "frivolous" lawsuits, it sure likes to invite litigation.*

* Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

[indent]A few pages later, however, it recounts how the department defended the Salvation Army’s supposed right to take taxpayers’ money to run public social services and still fire staff people who do not agree with its fundamentalist dogma.

When has the SA or any other religious organization taken taxpayers' money?

[Javaman]

Google is your friend. It took all of about 10 seconds to find the answer to this. Perhaps you should ask your questions after you looked into it.

[yguy]

Thanks for nothing, Jman.

[Javaman]

Would you like me to answer your question or are you satisfied that the SA receives many millions of taxpayer dollars directly?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Javaman

are you satisfied that the SA receives many millions of taxpayer dollars directly?

Yes, I am, thanks.

Some people think being tax exempt is the same as receiving taxpayer money, which is why I asked.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

Yes, I am, thanks.

Some people think being tax exempt is the same as receiving taxpayer money, which is why I asked.

It is

It means other people have to pay more