Obama Youth Brigade

[white avenger]

Has anyone here heard anything about this?

Obama Youth Brigade: Church Attendance Forbidden

A friend just sent me an e-mail about it. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I would never try to force anyone to share my beliefs. On the other hand, the idea of an organization supported by my tax dollars that FORBIDS any sort of religious activity very disturbing.

(I had hoped that I would be able to at least give Obama a full year in office before I said "I told you so," but it looks like I'm gonna have to change my plan)

 

[Miss Universe]

It's only 3 months..

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in "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." That means no church attendance or witnessing.

His goal is one million youth!

The youth of today are less into organised religion, and instead there's mass celebrity/media worship, and this leads to greed and ignorance. I think it would be quite refreshing to see one million kids giving religion a go.

 

[Blondie Bear]

So anyone taking federal money for student loans would have to give 3 months to this, and they wouldn't be allowed to engage in any political or religious activities. Interesting. I wonder what the ultimate goal of that is? If it were just religious, we could say it's an attempt to keep Christians and/or other religious groups out of schools, but the politics part has me confused.

 

[BillyidolwannaB]

Wtf? He's trying to turn people off religion? Is that what its saying?

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------

This is an outrage! How can they get away with something like this? Pfft, i got my theories but this ain't the place for them.

 

[Friendly Lurker]

"The Voice: Advancing Christian Life and Culture" might not have the most impartial take on this...

 

[Mr. Pointy]

Sounds like typical media hype to me...I'm surprised it's taken so long for them to start on Obama. Like Friendly Lurker says, you have to look closely at who is reporting it 🙂

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in “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.” That means no church attendance or witnessing.

...no, it doesn't mean that at all...unless this is written in a peculiar form of English that I'm not familiar with...good grief!

 

[Willowsgirl]

So anyone taking federal money for student loans would have to give 3 months to this, and they wouldn't be allowed to engage in any political or religious activities. Interesting. I wonder what the ultimate goal of that is? If it were just religious, we could say it's an attempt to keep Christians and/or other religious groups out of schools, but the politics part has me confused.

I wonder to. I'm confused why organizing and trying to influence the vote is a bad thing. I think people are suppose to be doing this. I don't agree with the religion thing either. I am not a very religious person, but I believe people have right to believe what they want, as long as they aren't trying to focus anyone else to believe the same thing.

Also, at the end of the article, if I am reading it right, it appears that this stuff has been repealed. I am just misreading that part? I hope not, because that is NOT the change I voted for.

/me hates politicians

 

[Blondie Bear]

^ As far as I understood it, that section was repealed, but then added back in further down the bill.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

...no, it doesn't mean that at all...unless this is written in a peculiar form of English that I'm not familiar with...good grief!

I think I'm fluent in the same English as you. Where does it say that you can't participate in religious services?

The pertinent section as ammended:

(7) Engaging in religious instruction,

Instructing others.

conducting worship services,

Conducting sevices.

providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship,

Again, instructing others.

constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship,

Providing facilities to instruct others or conduct services.

or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.

Converting others. And just for clarity's sake:

pros⋅e⋅lyt⋅ize
  /ˈprɒsəlɪˌtaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pros-uh-li-tahyz]
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -ized, -iz⋅ing.
to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.

Source: proselytization definition | Dictionary.com


So. What the bill is actually saying - or at the very least, what I read it as saying - is that you cannot use your position under the scheme to promote any religious or political agenda. Unless Section 132 changes the meaning completely (which I can't really be bothered checking, and I doubt it will) there is nothing about a prohibition of personal practice. Well, except from the "Thou Shalt Not Protest" clause. That's of much more concern to me.

However, I'm not sure that "A participant in an approved national service position" is the kids. That sounds to me like the people who run the organisation, not the people who are using it. I'd need to read the relevant section establishing that position before I could make a judgement on that.

So, basically, I think that people have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. This reads to me as a protection against abuse of the system rather than any kind of mandatory religious prohibition.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Here's the full text of the law (according to this website, it's been passed and signed). I'll let our resident law student look it over. 🙂

Text of H.R.1388 as Enrolled Bill: The Edward M.... OpenCongress

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Ta Blondie. Let's take a look at what it actually says.

Right, a part of the amendment they conveniently forgot to quote in the original article:

"˜(8) Consistent with section 132, providing a direct benefit to any--

. . .

(E) organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless the position is not used to support those religious activities.

So, there is a prohibition against using the position to provide a direct benefit to any religious group, or indeed any party, business, or labour union. That's quite different from not allowing people to practice their religion.

I wasn't able to find the relevant section on what exactly a national service position, as this bill only amends another. I'm not used to the US legislation and how to find it either. But I'm pretty much satisfied that the bill is definitely not saying what that blog thinks it is.

 

[Blondie Bear]

That's the major issue I have with legislation in general. The cross-referencing. You can't figure out exactly what a bill is saying unless you have the ENTIRE U.S. Code spread out in front of you (and that sucker is HUGE). Hence why nobody bothered to read the PATRIOT Act.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

That's the major issue I have with legislation in general. The cross-referencing. You can't figure out exactly what a bill is saying unless you have the ENTIRE U.S. Code spread out in front of you (and that sucker is HUGE). Hence why nobody bothered to read the PATRIOT Act.

Which is why I love our Law databases over here. Everything's still cross-referenced, but if you have access to one of the databases, all the cross-referencing is done via hyperlink. It's very useful when you have an act like this that's an amalgamation of emendations.

 

[Blondie Bear]

It also makes it way too easy for people to jump to conclusions as the author of that article did. You have to either read very carefully or be a lawyer to figure out what, exactly, is going on in there. I can't entirely blame the author for freaking out, though he probably should have read more closely before writing about it. 😉

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

It also makes it way too easy for people to jump to conclusions as the author of that article did. You have to either read very carefully or be a lawyer to figure out what, exactly, is going on in there. I can't entirely blame the author for freaking out, though he probably should have read more closely before writing about it. 😉

I could understand if it wasn't clearly stated right there in the section they themselves quoted. This stinks to me of intentional misinterpretation. They're using the necessary complexity of the language against the public, and hoping that no-one will actually bother to really read it without the preconceptions that they are proffering. It's a cheap shot against Obama that people will remember. They won't, however, remember the post that is never made about how they were "mistaken".

 

[Mr. Pointy]

I could understand if it wasn't clearly stated right there in the section they themselves quoted. This stinks to me of intentional misinterpretation. They're using the necessary complexity of the language against the public, and hoping that no-one will actually bother to really read it without the preconceptions that they are proffering. It's a cheap shot against Obama that people will remember. They won't, however, remember the post that is never made about how they were "mistaken".

BB members picked up on that straight away...nothing gets past us 🙂 Comes from associating with all those evil lawyer chicks 😉

 

[StuckinTraffic]

We have similar databases available on a subscription basis. I believe LexisNexis is the most widely used, but there are others. It's not necessary to have the entire US Code laid out in front of you. There wouldn't be room for YOU if you had that, because that thing IS huge. And getting bigger by the minute, apparently.

 

[Roofie]

"The Voice: Advancing Christian Life and Culture" might not have the most impartial take on this...

I was going to say the same exact thing! Things are never as cut-and-dry as they seem to be, especially when getting your sources from an obviously biased news source.