Bush doesn't intend to eliminate the separation of church & state?

Man.....if I could get you lefties to adopt that statement as your mantra, I'd stop eating meat, and start voting Democrat.

 

You beat me to it.

 

Among other things, this is good ol boy pork barrel politics. If you preachers tell the folks to vote Republican, than I will give you some government money.

Just think of all the cases where the Christian Coalition has passed out Republican literature ( I think they've largely stopped this after being caught doing it) or urged the people to vote primarily on the issue of abortion.

 

You (and Ref) mistakenly group me with people on the "left" with whom I don't share political ideology.

I find it more interesting that the conservative administration sees no problem with expanding government into religious institutions.

 

Yeah...kinda like Al Gore campaiging in black churches. Both sides do it...stop whining when a Republican does it too.

 

Look, I don't understand what all the fuss is about here. Right now, we have a massively inefficient system, where you separate church, industry, and government. Why? I mean, they're all trying to do the same thing, so we should COMBINE them all into one big McGodKingdom Incorporated. Instead of donating to your church, paying taxes, and getting pay from some company, you would just have one big transaction per year! That would be so cool.

And there would just be one simple evaluation mechanism. Your economic viability, your citizenship, your immortal soul? All stamped grade A or inferior by the same organization! ...

(I started off kidding ... I think.)

 

Sorry for my confusion on your political leanings.

Why not have government administer some of their programs utilizing the relatively cheap and efficient means of service delivery already existing in the nation's religious orgs? What we have done thus far has been a gigantic failure in terms of helping the most people and doing it with minimal waste. So long as there are regulations on what can be done by the church in the delivery of services, this could enable the government to do the same level of service with less in the way of resources.

 

Actually, there is every chance Wiccans or Pagans might. Hare Krishna's have a non-profit food pantry in Houston. The Church of Scientology supports a number of homeless efforts. Moon's church has some outreach programs in the New York area from what I've read.

Ok, maybe Church of Satan is stretching, but the rest are legitimate. In fact, there are some rather large Pagan communities in some cities and Scientology is a very large organization.

But, it points out the inherent problem. If you are not willing to give it to EVERYBODY, you can't give it to ANYBODY. That's the way it works.

 

Glynch, the churches that encourage people to vote Republican over abortion or whatever reason will do so regardless of the pork barrel. They don't need to be bought.

I've seem this idea expressed quite a few times here and other places. But, I have to wonder if it is really true. Why are religious organizations well-situated to give charity? I think they have an uncommonly strong motivation, but I don't think their situation is perfect.

On the good side, Christianity (this applies to other religions to some extent or other as well, but I'm ignoring them for now because I'm oh-so-much more familiar with Christianity) has some pretty direct divine commands to do charity work: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, etc. Plus, they have a dose of condemnation for those who don't lift a finger to help. This makes a church a good base of operations because leadership has a sincere interest in running a good program (they even have religious demands to be 'good stewards' of what God has entrusted to them) and they have a rich base of volunteers who bring a religious zeal to providing service to the needy. In that regard, churches are pretty unbeatable.

However, it is not the main mission for the church to provide to the needy. Their primary focus generally is the salvation of souls: gaining converts and helping congregants mature in their faith. Providing for the poor is secondary to this mission. When the government is handing out money in such a program, public welfare is paramount. So, you should not give the money to an entity who believes charity is important but secondary. If a conflict of interest arises between the salvation of souls and providing for the poor a church will choose salvation but the government would choose the poor. The partners the government needs in this venture are groups who share the same interests -- charities that are exclusively charities, that exist only for the provision of charity and no other reason.

That doesn't mean religious organizations don't have a place in this. There are many organizations that are expressly religious and yet not churches (like Boy Scouts, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, YMCA (still?), etc.). These are the groups ideally situated for helping the less fortunate. Christians who need an outlet for charity can go to these organizations. Keeping them seperate though ensures that everyone's priorities are straight and there is no conflict of interest.

 

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, it's just something I've noticed in recent years that disturbs me.

Why are people who disagree with "conservative" points of view increasingly referred to as "the Left"... as in "the Left is always saying this and that... " or "you people on the Left are constantly saying... " or "the Left is at it again" or "you lefties..", and so on.

Today I was listening to Rush Limbaugh while waiting to pick up my daughter from school. A woman had called and was talking disparagingly about the anti-war protesters, lumping them with Pro Choice advocates and other people "...of the Left", and praising Rush. He replied, and this is very close to what he said... "They're shallow... they're just shallow... Democrats, the Left... are not deep like we are. They just don't think deeply about things."

I would put an eye-rolling "smilie" or two after that, but they are used so much and so dismissively around here that they're getting pretty meaningless.

I usually vote for Democrats, but I vote for a Republican if I like them and agree with their views. I am "liberal" on social issues, but I believe in having a strong defense, and think we should be making our armed forces more powerful while spending our tax dollars wisely doing it (which we aren't, imo). Does that mean I'm "of the Left"? To a lot of people, I guess it does.

I also think we are losing many of the freedoms we have... gradually. (Did you know you can be stopped on the highway now and be searched without a warrant or "just cause"? And this was being done before 9/11?) Is Bush responsible for everything regarding what I consider to be the chipping away of our freedoms? Of course not. But he is speeding it up, imo. It's not this one policy regarding giving Federal money to churches that he wants. It's that it's just another in a series of erosions of our freedoms. They are adding up, and at some point more of you will notice.

Just remember. When they are gone they'll be hard to get back.