HR 1388 has sailed through the Senate, and was renamed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, and Act to reauthorize and reform and national service laws
It is found in sec. 1304;

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
......

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Nice! As a participant in Obama's Youth Corps one forfeits all rights guaranteed under the first amendment. Congress understands that they cannot simply suspend the constitution all at once, so they are just going to render it null and void for certain people at certain times, until, before we realize it, it no longer applies to any of us.

Our rights are given to us from God. We loan those rights to our government to do for us as a whole that which we cannot do for ourselves individually. This government has long ago gone well beyond the simple mandate afforded to it by the constitution, and we have allowed it. But, our rulers are not satisfied with the power we have unwisely allowed it to usurp. It now wants the power to tell us what rights we may exercise, when we may exercise them, and under what conditions we may exercise them.

These are already things that Federal employees of all branches cannot do. "They" say it keeps federal employees impartial to politics and just focused on their jobs at hand.

I say it's bullshit.

Thats just wrong. We, as a country, have fought for the freedom to worship, or not. We have fought to be able to speak out and tell our govt how it should vote.

Im pretty sure that bill also says you cant participate in anti-abortion groups or speak out against it

fatbob309 wrote:Thats just wrong. We, as a country, have fought for the freedom to worship, or not. We have fought to be able to speak out and tell our govt how it should vote.

In all reality however this is what we fought for regarding the separation of church and state. The way the fed sees it is that it is a persons choice to be in the employ of the federal government and in doing so will need to continue that separation of church and state. It is sort of a catch 22 for them, but at the same time when the general public has interaction in federal courthouses, offices etc.... they do not want to be inundated with "religious propaganda" which is the spirit of these rules and regs.

Dozzer wrote:In all reality however this is what we fought for regarding the separation of church and state. The way the fed sees it is that it is a persons choice to be in the employ of the federal government and in doing so will need to continue that separation of church and state. It is sort of a catch 22 for them, but at the same time when the general public has interaction in federal courthouses, offices etc.... they do not want to be inundated with "religious propaganda" which is the spirit of these rules and regs.

Orig intent of church and state was to keep the fed out of the church. Not the other way around.

fatbob309 wrote:Orig intent of church and state was to keep the fed out of the church. Not the other way around.

I don't see it that way. Religious rule over the past couple thousand years solely directed public policy. I see it meaning that religion is 100% separate from government. You still see the religious majority rule in the morals of any given government because people are fallible and will resort to and govern based on their specific values. But overall the goal is to keep the church out of state business.

Dozzer wrote:In all reality however this is what we fought for regarding the separation of church and state. The way the fed sees it is that it is a persons choice to be in the employ of the federal government and in doing so will need to continue that separation of church and state.

So any congressman, senator, governor or president can't attend a Church service then?

offroadaz wrote:So any congressman, senator, governor or president can't attend a Church service then?

I don't feel that is in the spirit of any Federal Statute or the constitution. They are just not supposed to promote their own version of "religion" under any premise as a representative of the US Government. What's it called from history which is one of the driving factors of our "separation narrative"? The Doctrine of Two Kingdoms? Something like the purity of both government and religion will be held in tact by keeping them separate and distinctive from each other. I'm paraphrasing of course from what I remember from history and poly-sci classes. I'm trying to remember who first talked about it and I'm thinking it was Martin Luther.

I think Jack should be forced to go to church with Bob and I.
Where do I sign up?

Skatchkins wrote:I think Jack should be forced to go to church with Bob and I.
Where do I sign up?

I went to church with Bob once.

My understanding about the original intent between seperation between church and state (and I wasn't there, but I think Sc00by was, so you may want to ask him...) was to protect religious freedom and to ensure there wasn't a state religion (i.e. the Church of England). Many people came to our country to get rich, escape England, were endentured servants who had to work off their freedom, or had no where else to go so the adventure drove them, but the majority of the New England settlers were fleeing religious persecution from Holland and other countries that had a state church and wouldn't tolerate others. I know over the years this has been increasingly used as a tool to keep God and church out of government completely, promoting a NON religeous agenda (which again, part of our freedom is protecting that too), but just like gay rights and numerous other agendas, it reaches a point to where it goes beyond protection and becomes a social agenda (not saying Jack is driving one, by the way, just saying this has been used to keep the 10 commandments and EVERYTHING God related out of government by twisting it to conform to a personal agenda... nothing wrong with that, we all do it and the founding fathers did it to protect their religious beliefs by seperating it from the the state.) Walking around Washington D.C. a couple weeks ago just reaffirmed for me that it wasn't about not mentioning God in the state... He's all over the buildlings, on the money, and in the text of our founding documents! It really was to keep the state out of church.

All of that rambling being said, I do agree with Jack that it's a reflection of our societal beliefs, and as long as we as a society allow the agenda of a few to drive the actions of the group, then we'll have narrow views like this. Again, same for the gay marriage agenda, the gun control agendas, the literal translation of seperation of church and state (the original way children used to learn to read was by reading the bible... now you can't hardly say Bible in a school without someone over reacting... we didn't raise generatons of God zombies, but we sure did have generations that could read, huh...). If we want to change something, vote. Be active in your community. Organize like minded people. Be bigger, faster, stronger that the opposing point of view... and change the world around you.

We don't have a sad and literal seperation between church and state because a few activist people worked hard to get a literal translation of the law the last 50 years... we have a sad and literal seperation between church and state because most people don't care and it just isn't that important to them to take action or feel strongly about it enough to raise their voice as loud as the other people bitchin'.

My 2 cents. Sorry for the rant, but I DO feel strongly about God needing to be in the government and in our society. I feel strongly for Christmas nativity scenes on town squares and the Bible at least being allowed in schools. I vote accordingly and work in my local community for these things. I start where I can affect change the most: my life and my family. Thaks for listening.