Bush wants Religous Groups to operate social programs

[Red Dawn]

<< Got any evidence to back that up or are you just ranting? >>

Why else would he promote such an unpopular program?I mean he's been pushing this for the last 3 months and nobody is jumping on the bandwagon. 2 weeks ago he scolded Big Business for not donating funds to these Religious Charities and so far the response has been a deafening silence.

Face it, America as a whole has no confidence in the man as all he has done is backpeddled and waffled. If they have no confidence is him what makes you think they are going to embrace thise program? Giving money to Tax exempt entities, especially in times of an economic downturn will never take.

 

[UpGrD]

If people think that a religious group already giving food away to the poor (out of there own pockets) will be corrupted by the Gov. reimbursing them for some of there expenses, there fools. Besides this proposal is not for religious groups only. It also will provide money to community organizations. That is where the real benefit is.
I cant see why there is so much opposition to taking the available cash away from the bloated corrupt bureaucrats and giving some to groups that already are providing services (efficiently).
Lets just say it like it is. The left wants nothing to do with this because it will take away some of the power it has. As long as the Left has control over the cash it controls the poor in in turn the poor is dependent on them.
And on another note. The far right for the most part is against this plan. (Jerry Falwell ect...)

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Got any evidence to back that up or are you just ranting? >>

Why else would he promote such an unpopular program?I mean he's been pushing this for the last 3 months and nobody is jumping on the bandwagon. 2 weeks ago he scolded Big Business for not donating funds to these Religious Charities and so far the response has been a deafening silence.

Face it, America as a whole has no confidence in the man as all he has done is backpeddled and waffled. If they have no confidence is him what makes you think they are going to embrace thise program? Giving money to Tax exempt entities, especially in times of an economic downturn will never take. >>




Really. He's been packpeddling huh. He put through his tax plan, he's still fighting for his energy plan and his faith based organizations as well. I dont see the back peddeling here.

And no I do not believe it is an unpopular program since 50% of America attends some sort of religious service every week.

At the very least, its an alternative to the failing governement programs that have been in place for years. Why are you so afriad to try somthing new?

 

[GL]

<< Why are you so afriad to try somthing new? >>



Perhaps he's conservative J/K.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Why are you so afriad to try somthing new? >>

Because I trust religious organizations less than I trust the government.

 

[Lucky]

Actually, only about 35% attend a religious service every week...and if my dad dozing off in church when I was kid was any indication that people that go to church arent all truly religious, the true figure (that has a meaning) is even lower.

the number of people who conform to GWB's religous ideas is not a majority.

 

[Red Dawn]

On top of that, who is going to oversee them to make sure that they are padding their wallets? It's been proven time and time again in history the Religious Organizations are as corrupt as any out there. Are we going to have to create agencies to do that? Hell that's just more beauracacy the tax payers will have to pay for.

 

[Tripleshot]

UpGrD

Please tell us who these &quot;bloated corrupt bureaucrats &quot; are that want &quot; to take the available cash away &quot; from. If those &quot;buraucrats&quot; are stealing tax payer money from the programs that are to serve the needy,I want to kick some major bootay.:|

Please give us names.


BTW, this is the lamest idea shrub has come up with.He wants you to think this is a great plan he and his party invented to &quot;help&quot; the needy. What a crock. The needy know just where to go if they need help. They have been using faith based services for so long it is second nature. The YMCA,the YWCA, Salvation Army,Catholic thrift stores,Mormon store houses,Luthern services,Baptist soup kitchens,you name it,its out there.

Look again. Aside from this plan not getting through congress,even if it did,it would not servive Supreme Court scrutiny.

What this does,if allowed, would let the government into the bean counting room of relegious organizations where they may uncover mis use of tax exempt status. The Churches have enjoyed the position of not having to answer to the government how they deposit and disperse their funds,or how they obtain those funds. That would go out the window if the government gave churches money for a welfare program.The government would tie that to the right to audit the books. That can be selective and abusive.

Red is right.This program is a non starter. Its just photo op opertunuty for shrub,and something the republicans can use for campaigning,if they are dumb enough to try.

 

[tm37]

<< See, thats the problem. The seperation of church and state is not an accident. Do you think religious groups would just provide social services without the hidden agenda of recruiting the people they help into their fold? I would love to believe that notion but reality is that nothing is for free. >>



Ok Here It is THE LAW as writen by our FOREFATHERS->


<< Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof >>



prohibiting Bush is using the group already in place doing chartible work to help people. They do it much better and MUCH CHEAPER than the government equivelent. He is not Doing away with government assistance mearly giving people choices.

 

[etech]

TS,The needy know just where to go if they need help. They have been using faith based services for so long it is second nature. The YMCA,the YWCA, Salvation Army,Catholic thrift stores,Mormon store houses,Luthern services,Baptist soup kitchens,you name it,its out there.

Very good point. The needy will go to who helps them the most. Giving these organzations a little more money for an infrastructure they already have set up, and as you have pointed out works, seems like an interesting idea.

Thanks for pointing that out TS.

 

[Siva]

<< On top of that, who is going to oversee them to make sure that they are padding their wallets? It's been proven time and time again in history the Religious Organizations are as corrupt as any out there. Are we going to have to create agencies to do that? Hell that's just more beauracacy the tax payers will have to pay for. >>


Yeah and trusting the corrupt politicians with money is any better? I'm only 16 and I've probably done a hell of a lot more working for my church and doing charity than most people in their lifetime. No one is paying me, the only thing that is costing money is the food it takes to hand the homeless, or medicine it takes to cure the sick. That's a lot better than the government worker who makes $50,000+ a year for his so called charity work isn't it? There is no reason that the government shouldn't help those who are out on the street working with those who need it most to help make the world a better place. They don't have to give them money, just providing a clean building with sufficiant seating/cooking facilities for different organizations to share would be a big help to those who spend their time and their money doing charity work.

 

[yellowperil]

These religious groups are private organizations with their own social agenda (independent of the government). When the government funds them, it is essentially endorsing them.

Bush said religious freedom ?is more than the right to believe in God?s love. It is the right to be an instrument of God?s love. Such work is beyond the reach of government and beyond the role of government.?

Um, religious freedom also means the freedom to choose not to believe in God.

?Today I call on the Congress to pass laws promoting and encouraging faith-based and community groups in their important public work ? and to never discriminate against them,? he said.

Bush is misusing the word discrimination. The issue is not about discriminating against faith-based groups, it's about giving them special treatment.

The president?s message was that religious freedom should also mean freedom for religious groups to operate social programs with help from the government. ?America?s founding documents give us religious liberty in principle,? Bush said. ?These Americans show us religious liberty in action.?

Again, religious freedom does not only mean freedom to operate as a Christian. It means you can believe in whatever you wish to believe. 'Freedom for religious groups to operate social programs with help from the government' is B.S. So if the government isn't giving you money to act according to your religious beliefs, you don't have religious freedom?

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Yeah and trusting the corrupt politicians with money is any better? >>

So you think adding more rats will help the solution?



<< They don't have to give them money, just providing a clean building with sufficiant seating/cooking facilities for different organizations to share would be a big help to those who spend their time and their money doing charity work. >>

Let them get donations from businesses and private indivduals. The government has others things they need to deal with first before they start funding Religious Organizations with out tax dollars.

 

[Doboji]

My feeling is Faith based government programs are fine, so long as you have suffecient watchdog systems in place to ensure that faith based organizations do not use federal funding to &quot;advance their faith&quot;.

The problem is, as someone has pointed out, it is financially impractical to fund a watchdog system that would serve adequately for this purpose. Without this watchdog it is highly likely that significant funds will be used to fund religious functions and conversion efforts.

Thus I adamantly oppose any federal funding for faith based programs.

My .02

-Max

P.S. And for those of you in favor... picture Satanic Worshipers of America recieving federal funding to rehabilitate runaway children... picture them taking kids in... feeding and housing them. And of course they're not indoctrinating any ideas on them!... we certainly don't need third party supervision...

 

[minus1972]

I think that the freedom of religion point has been missed here. Freedom of religion doesn't only dictate that a person has a right to choose which religion they follow [if any], but it also states that they cannot have a religion forced upon them by the government. Now, if government programs were eliminated and their funds given to religious groups, that person has to go to the religious group for aide. Say for example that this person is a strong believer in satinism, gothism, or that they're even a devout athiest who feels strongly about his position...should he have to choose between giving up his beliefs [or at very least silencing them] and eating or having a place to sleep?

 

[Tripleshot]

>>That's a lot better than the government worker who makes $50,000+ a year for his so called charity work isn't it?<<

Who are these mystery people making so much money from welfare money? Name them. Lets make an issue of that. That is the basis of shrubs effort to give your tax dollar to church welfare programs,right? If these &quot;buarocrats&quot; are mis using their office,lets correct that problem.

But take a good look at this so called plan of his. If you can deduct from your income tax &quot;charitable contributions&quot; don't you think that would go away when all the charity will be from your 1040? Hint...corporations get a big tax benifit from that deduction. Looks like shrub will scuttle that and corporations and tax payers will get it without the KY jelly.

All you feel good christians better take a damn hard look at this deal. The leaders of your church damn sure are,and best I can see,not one of those organizations is getting on board.

The only ones who are are the blind mice that follow shrub and hang on his every breath for sustinence. They are incapable of thinking for themselves. Shrub is their master.

 

[Elledan]

Just let the Government take care of the weaker individuals in society. It's always a bad idea to leave such important things to unreliable organizations, especially faith-based ones.

 

[msp1518]

Sorry, but I have to laugh out loud at that statement. The only truly unreliable organization is the government. The more it spends, the worse the situation gets. The more it buts in, the more our society tanks.

 

[Tripleshot]

Just let the Government take care of the weaker individuals in society

The government does nothing for these people now. Whats different? The needy go to faith based organiztions as it is. That is all thats there. Do you know of any government agency in your community that is providing shelter,clothing,food,medicene. You don't. I have friends that work in offices answering needy peoples questions as to where to get help. They are told by these government workers to locate Saaly May or Catholic assistance. Those organaizations take care of the short term problem only.

Try thinking of doing something meaningful. Get to the root of the problem. Try imploring your government to institute some plan to rid our streets of the homeless and needy. Lets try and find meaningful employment for them so they can house and feed themselves.

Oops. Sorry.I forgot who I was talking to. To do anything like that requres compassion. Republicans have none.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< The only truly unreliable organization is the government. The more it spends, the worse the situation gets. The more it buts in, the more our society tanks. >>

Right, and with the Government getting involved with these religious organizations you can bet that corruption and mismanagement will soon follow.

 

[Czar]

Then I ask, is there even one reliable organization in the world??

 

[Elledan]

<< Just let the Government take care of the weaker individuals in society

The government does nothing for these people now. Whats different? The needy go to faith based organiztions as it is. That is all thats there. Do you know of any government agency in your community that is providing shelter,clothing,food,medicene. You don't. I have friends that work in offices answering needy peoples questions as to where to get help. They are told by these government workers to locate Saaly May or Catholic assistance. Those organaizations take care of the short term problem only.

Try thinking of doing something meaningful. Get to the root of the problem. Try imploring your government to institute some plan to rid our streets of the homeless and needy. Lets try and find meaningful employment for them so they can house and feed themselves.

Oops. Sorry.I forgot who I was talking to. To do anything like that requres compassion. Republicans have none. >>

Have you any idea how the system in the Netherlands works? Obviously you're only familiar with the system in the US, which is a POS.

And republican? Me? I guess you're wrong again

 

[Tripleshot]

Then I ask, is there even one reliable organization in the world??

Yes. Yourself! Take care that your own house is in order. That is what you are primarily responsible for.

We pay taxes to insure that our government provides for the needs of the society we live in. They have a mandate to provide for domestic tranquilty. Lets make sure the government does that.

 

[Russ]

<< It's always a bad idea to leave such important things to unreliable organizations, especially faith-based ones. >>



Strangely, the USA got along just fine relying on these &quot;unreliable&quot; organizations for the first 3/4's of it's history. A period, BTW, when we had fewer poor per capita then we do now.

I will NEVER understand the mentality that would rather send a dollar off to DC, have most of it siphoned off and a few pennies get back to the people that you claim you want to help, rather then use that dollar directly so that most of it goes for it's intended purpose.

Of course the latter would require involvement, and effort. Much easier to let Federal Piggy do the work for you.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Kosugi]

Tominator,

I consider myself well read on the intent of the Founding Fathers. The separation of Church and State was, after freedom of speech, at the forefront of their minds. Either that, than the authors of the 8 or so books I have read on this subject are incorrect, and you are correct.

The Founding Fathers did not expound on the issue, but simply state that the government will not recognize or deny special rights to churchs.

Over the years, challenges to the intent, usually by zealots, have been brough forth, and almost all have been defeated by the supreme court. Regardless of whether there were more liberals or conservatives on the bench at that time.

It has nothing to do with liberals. The separation of church and state is a core value of the United States, and because of it, the United States is one of the most religiously diverse and tolerant in the world.