Please see below link, then comment. Bush signs order opening 'faith-based' charity office for business Can anyone explain this to me? What happened to the separation of church and state? What if you're not religious...should your tax dollars go to a "faith-based" organization. My main concern is the separation of church and state, does it not apply to government or GWB??? rH
And yet another reason I didn't want Baby Bush in office. ------------------ Ceo of the Walt Williams fan club. Web site coming soon atheistalliance.org
because i don't believe that the groups won't try promoting their respective faiths. Plus who's going to regulate where and when and for whom the money is spent on? it's bad enough that churches are tax-exempt, this is just a slippery slope towards government sanctioned religion. ------------------
I suspect there are things that religious groups (or religous affiliated groups) do better than the government. If there is a Muslim group that has a "Meals on Wheels" program that runs well, I see nothing wrong with providing government assistance to help them out. As an example, there was an ABC special Saturday night (John Stossel). He profiled a woman who has done great things with providing meals to the needy (I am not sure if she was affiliated with a church or not). She had to jump through hoops to get her kitchen in compliance with codes even though they did not apply to her. If she were "relgion-based" and the government could help her out by relaxing the codes as they applied to her, that would be great. As long as all religious organizations get treated equally AND the help these organizations provide IS NOT limited to their memberships I'm all for it. If a Baptist sponosrs flu shots at their place of worship, let the government help. If the Catholics run a shelter for the homeless, let the goverment help. Obviously the faith-based charity office would need to be vigilant and open about their aid, but if a religious organziation can provide help to the needy better than the U.S. government, then there should be no harm in the government providing them a helping hand. ------------------
This does not surprise me at all. I knew this radical right wing stuff would happen. We have another 4 years of all this mess until we can get the real president in the white house. ------------------ http://www.democrats.com
bobrek: I agree that some of these faith-based organizations are very helpful and worthy of the support. They are in the trenches helping many of those in need. The only problem is that there have been widespread reports of faith-based organizations in Texas and Florida (in particular) where the requirement of using the shelter was going to regular prayer meetings, attending church and professing your acceptance of Jesus as your savior. In some cases, they were the only shelter within 10 miles making some homeless situations worse. Second, many non-Christian faith-based ministries have been rejected when asking for government aid. There are some provisions that allow organizations to receive some aid already and it is common knowledge that a number of Jewish and Hindu outreach programs have been denied money based on religion. This is an interesting topic because I think many faith-based organizations can do a lot to lessen the burden for taxpayers when helping those less fortunate. Unfortunately, right now there is very little control in place to regulate the way these organizations are run. I learned about this about a year ago when I read a couple of interesting stories on the suggestion by Bush at the time that this would be a good idea. One organization that was denied aid was the Hare Krishna Temple in Houston in Oak Forest. They have been providing free vegetarian meals every Sunday for years and a food and clothing pantry as well. They applied for some financial aid to help with some of their needy and were turned down because they were deemed a "cult" by those making the decisions. Hare Krishnas are a denomination (for lack of a better word) of the Hindu faith. Honestly, I wouldn't have had a problem with them being denied on the basis that they were tied to a specific CHURCH (or temple in this case), but that wasn't the reasoning. I would be all for this type of thing IF... 1. The regulations regarding the funding were tough including making it a violation to require that those using the services to commit to a particular religious belief. 2. The organizations were not specifically tied to a church. The problem here is that they are already recieving monies from the member of the church and it would make it too easy to divert funds from the needy to the church workers. 3. Strict financial recordkeeping requiring that the organizations account for how they spend their money. In other words, an outreach program can mean providing clothes, food, medical attention, etc, but does not mean door to door canvassing in poor neighborhoods to talk about their religion. 4. Non-faith based religions receive priority. Many of them are not nearly as well-supported as those attached to a religious faith because the churches help to support the religious organizations but not the non-religious one's. Places that do not have a religious affiliation should receive the lion's share of the help and be first in line. If they could satisfy all of those requirements, I probably would be fine with it. I can't imagine feeding the hungry at a Christian shelter would somehow destroy the boundry between church and state. But, without strong regulation, they could very quickly land themselves in court over the whole thing costing taxpayers a whole hell of a lot more. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
The seperation of church and state was put in place to guard against religious persecution. There is no reason that the government should not be allowed to help support relgious organizations. It is when only one organization is supported that you run into trouble. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
what's to prevent these groups from pocketing the money to spend on new pews, bibles, robes, etc? this type of program is just asking for abuse and corruption. plus, how many religious organizations are there in this country and who decides who gets the money and who doesn't? ------------------
outlaw The posted URL for the article discusses some of the items you mention. There are not a lot of details yet since the Faith-based office was just created today. There are still a lot of guidelines/regulations to be drawn up. A couple of quotes from the article: "Bush aides said safeguards would be in place to make sure the religious groups do not use the money to proselytize. "This will not be funding religion," Fleischer insisted. "It is not the religious aspect of what they that is getting funding, it is the community service aspect. These are not going to be programs that preach religion, these are faith-based programs that help people improve their lives." " FYI, Fleischer is the White House press secretary. ------------------
As long as these religious groups don't attempt to force you to convert they should be supported in their efforts to help people. ------------------
Of course, it is easier to say you will not give money to people who preach than it is to police it but I'll take them at their word for now. There is always a danger inherent in doing this. Frankly, outlaw, there is danger inherent in supporting ANY group with a specific philosophy. Every group that receives government funding has some type of slant that could potentially make them a target. Like I said, I believe very strong safeguards must be in place but at least these organizations are doing something. That is the main issue at hand. I will be the first one to hammer this practice if we find out that the programs involved are attempting to convert people, but, for now, I really don't see the problem. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I remember hearing regular missionary reports in my Methodist church as a kid. Our church would donate money for missionary work, so a missionary would come back every once in a while and tell us how it was going. They were working with natives in Brazil. And sure, they were giving them medicine and trying to teach them how to farm, but they were also converting them to Christianity. Evangelism is a primary tenet of Christianity. Christians believe that those who do not accept Christ as their savior are damned, IIRC. Can a Christian organization help the needy without evangelizing? Isn't that almost hypocritical? For a Christian, isn't converting someone the best way to help him? Isn't saving someone from eternal damnation more important than feeding him? We have judicial challenges when a school district has a prayer over the PA before a football game, when a school district posts the 10 Commandments. What if the nearest or only federally funded shelter near someone is a church? The difference is: Children have a right to a "freedome of religion" public education, but the homeless do not have a right to "freedom of religion" public assistance? Q: What is the competition for charity? A: Government aid, private secular charities, and private religious charities. Q: What is the competition for education? A: Public schools, secular private schools, religious private schools. disclaimer: I hate to single out Christianity (but I did anyway . I did notice that Muslim and Jewish reps were also present at the anouncement.
Let's see, he's been on the job 10 days, and he's nominated a racist (Ashcroft) to be this country's top cop and is now trying to skirt the Constitution by blurring the line between church and state. OUTSTANDING!!! ------------------ "ON-BEE-TAH-BULL!!", Hakeem Abdul Olajuwon, alumnus, University of Houston
An excerpt from: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Bush_faith010129.html During the campaign, Bush initially appeared to endorse the idea of sending government funds to the Nation of Islam, whose leader Louis Farrakhan has made disparaging comments about Jews. Later, a spokeswoman said Bush misunderstood the question and that the group would be unlikely to qualify for federal money. Aha. Now it begins. Now, I have no particular love for the NOI, but if they can be excluded due to an anti-Jew stance, will other religions with similar views be subject to the same standards? Will Southern Baptists and Catholics be excluded due to their anti-gays stance? Not bloody likely. This whole business pushes the boundaries of constitutionality, and will undoubtedly see the inside of a federal courtroom before long. I'm looking forward to it, it's been quite a while since we've had a good religion v. sanity case.
jamcracker: I remember having missionaries come to my church (and school because I went to Lutheran schools) and recall the same thing. Although, I will say this. Mother Theresa was Catholic but was far more concerned for the health of those she cared for than the well-being of their souls. "You cannot to great things," she once said. "You can only do small things with great love." Granted, she is a rarity, but not all Christians evangelize when they are trying to feed people. I totally get your concern which is why I think that there is a tremendous need for regulation. The biggest question I have is why, all of a sudden, to faith-based charities get the benefit over non-faith-based charities? Why not take the money you would have given to the church group and give it to an organization not affiliated with a church? I think I just want the needy to get help. Obviously, I don't want them forced into beliefs, but I do want them fed and cared for and sometimes that requires sacrifices that make me uncomfortable. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
SPG - You misrepresent the Catholic stance on gays. Gays are accepted in the faith without question. Participating in sex outside of marriage is not acceptable in the Catholic faith regardless of if you are gay or straight. In other words, being gay is not considered a sin, but participating in out of marriage sex (adultery) is. ------------------
I just saw this in the Chronicle. It's an example of the kind of program that may be helped with Bush's inititives: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/809588 ------------------
You were expecting parity in this administration? ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
well since gay marriage isn't recognized in the Catholic Church isn't that a Catch-22? this is that whole hate the sin love the sinnner crap. As an Ex-Catholic and as a gay person I am confident in saying that the Vatican and the whole religion is NOT accepting of homosexuals. ------------------
