This is bull. If Trinity gets government support, shouldn't St. X get support too?

This is bull. If Trinity gets government support, shouldn't St. X get support too?

 

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

George Bush set up the "grant thing" with his charitable grants movement. I was against that from the beginning and I'm what some on here term "a liberal". So before you castigate and paint everyone in the same place let me assure you not everyone here is happy with churches receiving grants. In fact The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs were not in favor of this relationship and neither was the Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State.

 

Now Aces, your first post hints that Wright's house was built with those grant funds. If possible he could and would be prosecuted. Grant monies from the government often have so many strings attached that you MUST put them where the government says you must on your grant application.

 

Now did those grant monies free up church funds to build his house? Quite possibly.

 

It seems in the rush to "nail Obama" sometimes we don't see or speak the WHOLE story.

I would not expect that government funds were directly used to build Wright's house. That would be as stupid as having pastors deliver racially polarizing rants from the pulpit while somebody from your own congregation was running for president and attempting to win the support of Americans of all races.

I would not expect that government funds were directly used to build Wright's house. That would be as stupid as having pastors deliver racially polarizing rants from the pulpit while somebody from your own congregation was running for president and attempting to win the support of Americans of all races.

 

:creepy: Not sure at all what you are meaning here, at least not getting the inference you are trying to make.

 

The issue on the thread was government grants to churches and in particular Trinity.

:creepy: Not sure at all what you are meaning here, at least not getting the inference you are trying to make.

 

The issue on the thread was government grants to churches and in particular Trinity.

The point is that it would have been stupid of Trinity's management (Jeremiah Wright) to have used federal funds to build a $1.6 million house. However, if it happened it would not be the first stupid thing that Rev. Wright has done. Not even close.

Would you lefties' opinions change if it was Obama whom had approved, or peddled influence, for Wright to get the grants?

 

I, too, have never been to a church that received grants. That would be an interesting list to see.

 

All you have to do is look.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1D61F3BF93BA35750C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

 

That article gives Bush's explanation about the initiative.

 

Here is an article:

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/bushchurch.htm

 

A Philadelphia church appears to be reaping a windfall of government funds following its pastor's endorsement of presidential candidate George W. Bush, claims Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

During the Republican Party's 2000 national convention, the Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, heartily endorsed Bush for president in a satellite television uplink from his church. Since that time, Lusk has repeatedly advocated for Bush's "faith-based" initiative that seeks to fund church-run social service programs.

 

As the president was preparing to speak at Lusk's Greater Exodus Baptist Church on combating AIDS at home and abroad, the Associated Press reported that the church's charitable operation, People For People, has been awarded a nearly $1-million "faith-based" grant.

 

 

So if we think it is tied only to Obama, think again. There are many churches that are trying to answer needs in creative ways but need funding. The government is willing to partner with them on this. The problem as I see it lies in the government's requirements and often strings that go with it.

 

BTW, I again say, What is the big deal here?

The point is that it would have been stupid of Trinity's management (Jeremiah Wright) to have used federal funds to build a $1.6 million house. However, if it happened it would not be the first stupid thing that Rev. Wright has done. Not even close.

 

 

Thanks. Also, see my explanation above about the many churches receiving these funds.

 

As I've tried to point out before, Wright is looking like a nut case, and yet his church has been doing dynamic social ministry in Chicago for years. This is why they received the grants. This is why most all of these churches are receiving the grants.

I'm glad this thread got started.

 

Here is an interesting study done about faith based grants in urban areas.

 

http://www.urban.org/publications/310865.html

 

There's a lot of good stuff out there if people just look for it. Even the truth, once in a while. :lol:

BTW, I again say, What is the big deal here?

Government funding of a racist organization. Most taxpayers do not subscribe to the "white folk's greed runs a world in need" vision of our society. I want my money back.

Government funding of a racist organization. Most taxpayers do not subscribe to the "white folk's greed runs a world in need" vision of our society. I want my money back.

 

The organization is not what is getting funded. The ministry and people who work on that ministry is what is being funded. Trinity might have its name on the logo but the work that the government no longer feels it can do, but wants to do is getting done.

 

You continue to cry: "racist organization" as if everyone involved in Trinity ministries is of the same ilk as Wright. I don't think you can blanket the whole ministering population of the body because of him. (remember you mentioned liberals and "church state" issues and I've already shown you that I am upset with faith based grants and political rhetoric from the pulpit as well.)

 

If I said all of Corbin, or Belfry or Danville was racist because of some racists that are present there and vocal, would that not be a gross misrepresentation of those communities and all they do? The same is true here IMO.

The organization is not what is getting funded. The ministry and people who work on that ministry is what is being funded. Trinity might have its name on the logo but the work that the government no longer feels it can do, but wants to do is getting done.

 

You continue to cry: "racist organization" as if everyone involved in Trinity ministries is of the same ilk as Wright. I don't think you can blanket the whole ministering population of the body because of him. (remember you mentioned liberals and "church state" issues and I've already shown you that I am upset with faith based grants and political rhetoric from the pulpit as well.)

 

If I said all of Corbin, or Belfry or Danville was racist because of some racists that are present there and vocal, would that not be a gross misrepresentation of those communities and all they do? The same is true here IMO.

I think the loud cheering for the racist rants speaks volumes about the Trinity congregation. If they did not believe in the message they would not cheer its delivery and they would not return week after week to hear the same old message.

I think the loud cheering for the racist rants speaks volumes about the Trinity congregation. If they did not believe in the message they would not cheer its delivery and they would not return week after week to hear the same old message.

 

Again, the loud cheering is not everyone there. Just as the loud jeering I might hear in any of the towns I mentioned or others. You speak in the terms of "everyone there is guilty" and that is fallacious.

 

There was at one time loud cheering at lynchings of blacks in our country. Does that mean everyone in the USA at that time were racist dogs? Everyone in the community? When locals burned and murdered the town of Rosewood, Florida, did that make everyone there a murdering Racist?

 

Why paint those off camera or in the balcony as such if you didn't see them or know what they are doing?

The organization is not what is getting funded. The ministry and people who work on that ministry is what is being funded. Trinity might have its name on the logo but the work that the government no longer feels it can do, but wants to do is getting done.

 

You continue to cry: "racist organization" as if everyone involved in Trinity ministries is of the same ilk as Wright. I don't think you can blanket the whole ministering population of the body because of him. (remember you mentioned liberals and "church state" issues and I've already shown you that I am upset with faith based grants and political rhetoric from the pulpit as well.)

 

If I said all of Corbin, or Belfry or Danville was racist because of some racists that are present there and vocal, would that not be a gross misrepresentation of those communities and all they do? The same is true here IMO.

 

 

While I see your point, I think there is some validity to Aces. Using your example of a city, if the Mayor was spewing racist comments over 20 years and the populace was re-electing him year in and year out, I think it would be fair to conclude that a majority of the populace was at least "OK" with those comments. Applying that to Trinity, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) Rev. Wright's diatribes against the Caucasion race in America had been going on for quite some time. The fact that the members had not left the church or had him removed as the leader of the church has to likewise indicate some approval of or acquiescense to his message by a large segment of the church membership, does it not?

As you all know, all these Rev. Wright things and such really don't affect my ideas about Obama (although I will admit that his quote on white mans' greed runs the world that AcesFull quoted in another thread is disturbing).

 

But do other churches receive this much money? And is there any criteria for deciding which churches get grants and how much?

 

Aside from Obama, this seems weird.

Again, the loud cheering is not everyone there. Just as the loud jeering I might hear in any of the towns I mentioned or others. You speak in the terms of "everyone there is guilty" and that is fallacious.

 

There was at one time loud cheering at lynchings of blacks in our country. Does that mean everyone in the USA at that time were racist dogs? Everyone in the community? When locals burned and murdered the town of Rosewood, Florida, did that make everyone there a murdering Racist?

 

Why paint those off camera or in the balcony as such if you didn't see them or know what they are doing?

It's strange how the racism bar has changed now that an African-American is running for president. I remember a time when it was a scandal to belong to a country club that had no minority or female members. It was simply assumed by liberals that anybody who belonged to such an organization supported the club's racist attitudes.

 

Now, in the case of Trinity, people sitting in the pews for decades as pastors delivered racially charged sermons, either cheering wildly or sitting silently (I heard no groans or jeers, did you?), we are supposed to assume that most of those members are just guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

I am sorry, I just don't buy it. There is no excuse to remain a member in an organization that actively promotes a racist agenda and tolerates the kind of sermons delivered by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger.