Bush's Faith-Based Plan

[KillerMuffin]

It sounds lovely on the surface, doesn't it? Funnel money to all of the respectable religious houses to use to distribute to the poor. Sorry, I suppose that leaves the Mormons out, still a cult you know. Theoretically they would use the cash to fund soup kitchens, halfway houses, children's-men's-women's shelters and the like. Things they are already doing, only with no help from the government. The money would, of course, be prohibited from being applied to worship purposes.

I rather like the idea.

However, does this the lines of separation between church and state are blurring? All religious institutions would receive the same amount of money. What about charities that aren't religious funded? Should they create an atheistic church so they could get money as well?

What do we all think?

And could we PLEASE pontificate without name calling of any other lit member, any particular deity or religion, or any political group particularly Bush, the Democrats, and Liberals? They are the traditionally trashed group on the board. Civility would be nice.

A link if you're interested: http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=86709

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Dead, dead, deadsky..

anything Bush proposes. Everybody is waiting for the next elections to get a mandate. Hell. I don't care who solves the problems. God knows we've put enough money in. I'm desparate for anything. Just one little headline:

"DEMOCRATS DEFINE, FUND, and SOLVE a/any PROBLEM!"

 

[KillerMuffin]

*kicks A_J* We're being civil with this. No Dem bashing. Now play nice darling or no cookies and milk before naptime.

 

[Willing and Unsure]

so the government starts giving money to churches to help the needy, where do they stop though? how do we know as tax payers that none of the money goes to any worship services? should we just trust our government that it isnt... and i have a hard time doing that.. and if the government wants to help the needy, they can, by doing the same thing and not going through the churches.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I apologize, Texan got me going...

please ma'am. may I have another!

 

[Mischka]

Most people follow some religious or spiritual path, so in theory I support the idea of funding faith-based organizations. Almost every religion promotes social welfare and community involvement, so it only makes sense that these same groups would make a concerted effort to practice what they preach.

My greatest reservation does not stem from a concern of violating the First Amendment, but from the inherent flaws of government oversight. Extraordinary amounts of funding will be wasted in bureaucracy - determining who qualifies as faith-based and whether their secular branch is sufficiently separated from the religious side; confirming that their operations follow the multi-volume set of government rules and regulations; filing and maintaining mountains of paperwork; and of course defending against litigation that opposes the idea.

Instead, why not actively promote individual, tax-deductible donations to faith-based organizations? More money will go to their ends, and then we don't face the quagmire of government involvement.

 

[CW]

Sounds good as a headline I suppose.

The opportunities for abuse would be incrediable though. And what about the local non-affiliated 'soup kitchens' or shelters? That they would be passed over would generate a blizzard of resentment,,, not to mention lawsuits and headlines.


I have little concern about the seperation of the church and the state in this case, and more concern about the possible loopholes and potential for abuses.

 

[Texan]

just one little point

Bush's proposal says very clearly that anywhere there is a NON-religious organization that is providing the necessary services, then money would go to the non-religious organization and not the religious organization.

 

[Mischka]

Re: just one little point

Bush's proposal says very clearly that anywhere there is a NON-religious organization that is providing the necessary services, then money would go to the non-religious organization and not the religious organization.

Wonderful. So now we not only have to establish that the faith-based organization is internally divided into secular and spiritual branches, we also have to confirm that a completely secular organization does not provide the same (or sufficiently similar?) service. Again, individual donations make more sense. And to think that a Dem is having to propose lessening government involvement here.

 

[WriterDom]

Bush=bad next question

 

[KillerMuffin]

*kicks WriterDom* Bad boy! We aren't bushbashing today, we're being civil. Shame shame. That's it, no cookies for you.

 

[Mischka]

I've been civil, KM. Do I get a cookie? I've been craving a chocolate chip all day.

 

[Weevil]

May I offer a somewhat different perspective?

I am not in favour of this kind of thing but not because of me thinking religious organizations don't do good work, quite the opposite. I was raised Catholic and the church has a warm(If not central) place ain my heart and the Bush plan puts so much restrictions on the organizations who can receive money that I'm worried about church groups perverting their faith in order to receive this money.

The seperation of Church and State should protect the Church from the State as much as vice-versa

 

[KillerMuffin]

*hands a cookie to Mischka*

That's a very good point EBW. I hadn't thought about it that way.

 

[Weevil]

Do I get a cookie now?

 

[Mischka]

*munch munch* Thanks!

I'll share mine with you, EBW. I shouldn't eat a whole one this close to bedtime anyway.

 

[KillerMuffin]

*hands EBW a cookie*

You'll lose your cookie priviledges if you pull any shenanigans. *shakes finger*

 

[Texan]

Re: Re: just one little point

Wonderful. So now we not only have to establish that the faith-based organization is internally divided into secular and spiritual branches, we also have to confirm that a completely secular organization does not provide the same (or sufficiently similar?) service. Again, individual donations make more sense. And to think that a Dem is having to propose lessening government involvement here.

Mishka, I am definately not in favor of government getting larger. However, when there are already organizations that are trying to meet the needs of the desperately poor, why should the government try to compete with them?

The Bush plan only says that if there is a "Red Cross" or some other non-religious organization providing services in a particular area, then they will not have to compete with every church in the area for funding.

 

[Weevil]

*hands EBW a cookie*

You'll lose your cookie priviledges if you pull any shenanigans. *shakes finger*

I just master them Baby, I never starts 'em.

*Munches happily on cookie*

 

[Todd]

Has anyone actually read the whole faith based initiative proposal that Bush Started up?

I just got finished reading it, took me a week its nearly 750 pages long and its hard reading that much of a computer monitor.

The whole thing though it sounds like its very beneficial to christians and churches, it ain't.

1.> The money can only be used for social works not the procreation of church education, doctrine or prosletization.

2.> The churches must sign an agreement if they accept any funds that from that moment on anything the government says goes.

Point 2 means if the government says ordain gays, even if against that churches doctrine/creed it must comply. If the government says that the church must incorporate a stripper into its services it has to.

So far thanks to point 2, 7 churches have been closed down and bulldozed. Bet that makes the Democrats feel good.

Anyways all this does taking this through its logical conclusion if every church sucumbs and takes this "faith based inititive", it places Georgre W. Bush as the head of the American church. A level coparable to the Pope of the Roman Catholic church.

If it happens its is prophetic.

 

[Mischka]

Todd

Prophetic of what? Does this tie in to your Dark Prince conspiracy theory?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Oooh, I have a headache.

Todd, did it occur to you that the churches don't have to accept the money? It's not for their benefit anyway.

 

[Weevil]

What's so bad about the pope?

Todd why is it you have to end your posts with such idiotic statements?

 

[Todd]

What's so bad about the pope?

Todd why is it you have to end your posts with such idiotic statements?

Did I say there was anything wrong with the pope? no!

Its called a comparative power comparison, The catholic church has a struture in place that this can become compared to as no other denomination has such a hierarchy of power.


~whoosh~ the sound of everything flying under everyones feet while they look for an excuse to flame.

 

[Todd]

Oooh, I have a headache.

Todd, did it occur to you that the churches don't have to accept the money? It's not for their benefit anyway.

2.> The churches must sign an agreement if[/u] they accept any funds that from that moment on anything the government says goes.

~whoosh~ the sound of everything flying under everyones feet while they look for an excuse to flame.