Donatio Bushi

30 thoughts on “Donatio Bushi”

  1. What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.

  2. Agreed. I certainly don't mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.

  3. Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested inthis (as we all should be).However, I'm still more supportive of Obama's stance on this compared toBush's (and I'm not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather thanresorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don't ask, don't tell” relationship withlegalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of theplaybook of conservatives… don't take the money if you don't want theobligations.For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from thefederal monies if they aren't allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit. I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make upfor the shortcomings if there is value.Of course this isn't a black and white issue and there are more shades ofgray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and wherefederal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the supportthey need from their respective communities of faith to keep things goingrather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions ondiscriminations.

  4. What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.

    1. Agreed. I certainly don’t mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.

  5. What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.

    1. Agreed. I certainly don’t mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.

  6. What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.

    1. Agreed. I certainly don’t mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.

  7. What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.

    1. Agreed. I certainly don’t mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.

  8. I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.

    1. Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in
      this (as we all should be).
      However, I’m still more supportive of Obama’s stance on this compared to
      Bush’s (and I’m not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather than
      resorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationship with
      legalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of the
      playbook of conservatives… don’t take the money if you don’t want the
      obligations.

      For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)
      who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from the
      federal monies if they aren’t allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit.
      I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make up
      for the shortcomings if there is value.

      Of course this isn’t a black and white issue and there are more shades of
      gray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,
      we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and where
      federal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the support
      they need from their respective communities of faith to keep things going
      rather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions on
      discriminations.

      1. I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.

    1. Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in
      this (as we all should be).
      However, I’m still more supportive of Obama’s stance on this compared to
      Bush’s (and I’m not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather than
      resorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationship with
      legalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of the
      playbook of conservatives… don’t take the money if you don’t want the
      obligations.

      For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)
      who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from the
      federal monies if they aren’t allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit.
      I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make up
      for the shortcomings if there is value.

      Of course this isn’t a black and white issue and there are more shades of
      gray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,
      we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and where
      federal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the support
      they need from their respective communities of faith to keep things going
      rather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions on
      discriminations.

      1. I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.

    1. Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in
      this (as we all should be).
      However, I’m still more supportive of Obama’s stance on this compared to
      Bush’s (and I’m not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather than
      resorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationship with
      legalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of the
      playbook of conservatives… don’t take the money if you don’t want the
      obligations.

      For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)
      who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from the
      federal monies if they aren’t allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit.
      I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make up
      for the shortcomings if there is value.

      Of course this isn’t a black and white issue and there are more shades of
      gray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,
      we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and where
      federal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the support
      they need from their respective communities of faith to keep things going
      rather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions on
      discriminations.

      1. I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.

    1. Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in
      this (as we all should be).
      However, I’m still more supportive of Obama’s stance on this compared to
      Bush’s (and I’m not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather than
      resorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationship with
      legalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of the
      playbook of conservatives… don’t take the money if you don’t want the
      obligations.

      For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)
      who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from the
      federal monies if they aren’t allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit.
      I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make up
      for the shortcomings if there is value.

      Of course this isn’t a black and white issue and there are more shades of
      gray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,
      we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and where
      federal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the support
      they need from their respective communities of faith to keep things going
      rather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions on
      discriminations.

      1. I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.

  9. What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.

  10. Agreed. I certainly don't mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.

  11. Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested inthis (as we all should be).However, I'm still more supportive of Obama's stance on this compared toBush's (and I'm not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather thanresorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don't ask, don't tell” relationship withlegalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of theplaybook of conservatives… don't take the money if you don't want theobligations.For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from thefederal monies if they aren't allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit. I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make upfor the shortcomings if there is value.Of course this isn't a black and white issue and there are more shades ofgray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and wherefederal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the supportthey need from their respective communities of faith to keep things goingrather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions ondiscriminations.

  12. I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.

Leave a Reply