Bush wants Religous Groups to operate social programs

[Red Dawn]

<< 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. >>

Then let the people give the money directly to these organizations instead of relying on the government to do it. Why corrupt them with government beauracracy?

 

[Russ]

<< Then let the people give the money directly to these organizations instead of relying on the government to do it. >>



And, what money would they be giving? As long as Federal Piggy is taking it, there is no incentive (or money, for that matter) for them to give directly.

Only someone blinded by their hatred of all things religious could possibly argue that the government is more effective at helping, then most private organizations. The assertion is ludicrous and foolish.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Texmaster]

<<

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

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



Based on what?

 

[Texmaster]

<<

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



Perhaps he's conservative J/K. >>



LOL that was good

Inaccurate but funny.

 

[hungrypete]

<< If the government wants to promote good works by religious groups, provide more tax benefits to compel people to donate to the church of their choice. >>



Excellent idea. Church and state *should* be seperate, unfortunately that's not the way it is.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< And, what money would they be giving? As long as Federal Piggy is taking it, there is no incentive (or money, for that matter) for them to give directly. >>

Tax Write Offs.



<< Only someone blinded by their hatred of all things religious could possibly argue that the government is more effective at helping, then most private organizations. The assertion is ludicrous and foolish. >>

Or a person who can see how Federal involvement with these Private Organizations could corrupt them. Sorry, if according to you my mistrust of Religious Organizations equals Blind Hatred of all things religious then fine, I have no problem with that. Since I am not religious they mean nothing to me and I don't want my tax dollars going to them.

 

[Texmaster]

<< 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. >>



Where did you get your stats? My number came from NPR and Fox News 2 vastly different formats and sometimes agendas.

And dont make the mistake of taking your experience and generalizing it to all people.

What do GWB's religious ideas have to do with it? You do know that this is faith based organizations not just Christian based.

 

[Red Dawn]

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

Based on what? >>

Based on the history of Religious organizations being corrupted and detrimental to mankind in general.

 

[Capn]

Best numbers around around 40% for weekly church attendance and 65-70% for membership of a church or synagogue. Surprisingly, these numbers really aren't that different than back in the 60's.

 

[Texmaster]

<< 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. >>




LOL Lots of opinion very little fact.

The fact is that government run programs waste money and have not improved over the years they have been in place.

The other fact is religious based groups in general have a better record of helping and less corruption.

You call it a crock but I dont see you offereing an alternative just a predictable rant.

If these organizations are doing well for people why not try them instead of wasteing more money or is that what you would prefer? I know I dont.

Do you really think there are secret mind control devices in faith based help institutions to convert people to a certain religion? LOL

And if they did that under Bush's plan, they would be denied government money.

I've actually volunteered in a few soup kitchens run by religious people and the closest they get to converting people is singing a hymm or two during dinner and guess what, most enjoy it not because its religious but because its uplifting and hopeful. But lemmie guess that would &quot;offend&quot; you wouldn't it? LOL

Let go of your bias and hatred towards religion.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< 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 >>

Excuse me, but this system works perfectly in this country I live in. It might be more profitable to work in the US, but if you're unable/too old to work, the Netherlands is still the best place to be.

We've been doing pretty well using this system, I'd say.

[edit]: and there's nothing which keeps anyone from doing something for those who need help. It's not like if the Government takes care of weaker individuals, other inhabitants suddenly are unable to anything to help those who need help too.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< 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. >>



So we do nothing? Not a very good alternative.

 

[Killrose]

The thing to remember here is that these charitable organizations already exist, in nearly every city, in every state. By giving them extra funding now, we would be helping needy people instantly, with no waiting.

Now if your worried about who gets these funds, and how they are going to be used, then maybe a tax credit up to a certain limit should be created so that you or I can make a limited donation to which ever group we support, be it &quot;Chistians for yummy crunchies&quot;, or &quot;Lesbians for lunches&quot;.

I don't think there is going to be much in the way of skimming, fraud, new cadilacs, ect. If it's not happening now, then it's not going to get much worse. I also think only established organizations that have been providing assistance for 10 years or more should receive funds. This would pre-empt newly formed groups with fraud in mind.

J.W. only wants to include these organizations in receiving some funding. Not make them exclusive to it.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

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

Based on what? >>

Based on the history of Religious organizations being corrupted and detrimental to mankind in general. >>



thats pretty broad Can you be more specific?

I know of the History in the Dark ages yes but what eveidence do you have of that kind of corruption in the US?

 

[Doboji]

<< I've actually volunteered in a few soup kitchens run by religious people and the closest they get to converting people is singing a hymm or two during dinner >>



Yes that would be offensive if in order to get help I'd have to listen to hymns about God if I didnt believe in god... how would you feel if there was a Satanic soup kitchen, and all the workers sang satanic chants during the meals.

Just think about it.

Imagine a teen counselling service that helps teens that believes group fornication is a gift from satan, and that we should embrace it as often as possible. Of course the organization doesnt talk about this to the teens as part of the program. But they do believe in it.

-Max

 

[Tripleshot]

Texmaster

Hey dipsh!t.Who are you talking too? You pull my post and critique it with your friggin opinion and try and slam my opinion? Get a clue, turkey. I favor the government staying the hell out of the institutions that have been reliably doing this job forever. Shrub wants to take your tax dollar and direct it to the organizations that don't need it and didn't ask for it.

>>Let go of your bias and hatred towards religion. <<

You ignorant pius ass. I never displayed a bias or hatred to religeon,but if you tell me yours,I may start.

 

[351Cleveland]

This thing is so often misconstrued/misinterpreted/misrepresented it isn't funny. First, he is not advocating that religious organizations take over programs, all he is saying is that we should not discriminate based on religion (geez, heard tha somewhere before) what programs get federal funds. I fail to see how supporting Habitat for Humanity (which is run by a religious organization) is a bad thing (and that is just one example).

As far as recruiting... I would be willing to bet that people would &quot;become religious&quot; as a result of these programs but not as a result of an active effort of recruiting. many times in my life, the conversion to religion was based on people seeing what GOd provides through his people. In my church we have events where we go around and help people out, without inveitation. In the fall we rake leaves. All we do is leave a note: This service provided by the members of >church name<. THAT is how most people are converted.

So when you say that people might be compelled to join the church (whatever church that may be) from attending/benefiting from the services of a religious organization that uses federal funds, I say of course. When you say they will be RECRUITED, I think you are trying to place evil where evil does not exist.

 

[Capn]

I've never heard of a satanic soup kitchen or group fornication teen counseling center, but that's just me. I can understand why people are hypersensitive regarding religious issues, but that does not mean those issues are rational. I think this could be a very good idea if implemented in the *right* way.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< I know of the History in the Dark ages yes but what eveidence do you have of that kind of corruption in the US? >>

Jim Jones and Jim Bakker right off the top of my head.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< I've actually volunteered in a few soup kitchens run by religious people and the closest they get to converting people is singing a hymm or two during dinner >>



Yes that would be offensive if in order to get help I'd have to listen to hymns about God if I didnt believe in god... how would you feel if there was a Satanic soup kitchen, and all the workers sang satanic chants during the meals.

Just think about it. >>



I am. My hunger would overcome some petty quirk. And no one is forcing you to listen.

Nice try but it doesn't hold up. You can take the food and leave if you want or sit away from the music. Unless you have worked there you can't understand.

 

[Doboji]

<< I've never heard of a satanic soup kitchen or group fornication teen counseling center, but that's just me. I can understand why people are hypersensitive regarding religious issues, but that does not mean those issues are rational. I think this could be a very good idea if implemented in the *right* way. >>



To me singing hymns to Jesus is as bad as signing satanic chants. And suggesting group fornication is as bad as suggesting no birth control and the idea of sex only for reproduction. The point is... be prepared that if you're not going to discriminate against religion YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RELIGION. And any relgious group that applies for aid must be given equal consideration. Are we prepared to do this?... I think not.

-Max

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster

Hey dipsh!t.Who are you talking too? You pull my post and critique it with your friggin opinion and try and slam my opinion? Get a clue, turkey. I favor the government staying the hell out of the institutions that have been reliably doing this job forever. Shrub wants to take your tax dollar and direct it to the organizations that don't need it and didn't ask for it.

>>Let go of your bias and hatred towards religion. <<

You ignorant pius ass. I never displayed a bias or hatred to religeon,but if you tell me yours,I may start.

Go play on the freeway,loser.:| >>




LOL my my arn't we testy?

Cant stand to take a little criticism huh. Your opinion just doesn't hold up to fact.

My opinion as you call it has the facts on its side when it comes to who has been successful and who hasn't. Your willing to trust the government who has proven it can't do the job nearly as well as other religious groups.

It is my opionion that these groups should get the money yes.

The difference between you can me is that the facts support my stance.

Didn't ask for it? LOL I doubt that very much. Got any proof?

I'd rather have the group that does the best job get the money period. You on the other hand are fine and dandy with the government wasting money. There is a difference.



<< You ignorant pius ass. I never displayed a bias or hatred to religeon,but if you tell me yours,I may start. >>



Do you always call someone pius who voices a different opinion?

And your pathetic comment about protesting a religion just because you dont like what they have to say is extremely petty. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Texmaster]

<< This thing is so often misconstrued/misinterpreted/misrepresented it isn't funny. First, he is not advocating that religious organizations take over programs, all he is saying is that we should not discriminate based on religion (geez, heard tha somewhere before) what programs get federal funds. I fail to see how supporting Habitat for Humanity (which is run by a religious organization) is a bad thing (and that is just one example).

As far as recruiting... I would be willing to bet that people would &quot;become religious&quot; as a result of these programs but not as a result of an active effort of recruiting. many times in my life, the conversion to religion was based on people seeing what GOd provides through his people. In my church we have events where we go around and help people out, without inveitation. In the fall we rake leaves. All we do is leave a note: This service provided by the members of >church name<. THAT is how most people are converted.

So when you say that people might be compelled to join the church (whatever church that may be) from attending/benefiting from the services of a religious organization that uses federal funds, I say of course. When you say they will be RECRUITED, I think you are trying to place evil where evil does not exist. >>




Great post. Well said.

 

[Doboji]

<< Unless you have worked there you can't understand. >>



There you go making assumptions again.... I have done charity work in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

It's easy to simply say walk away when it's someone else... but try being excluded over and over and over again.... and see if you don't feel discriminated against.... imagine if they played religious hymns at the DMV or at voting booths... unacceptable... seperation from church or state saves people from having to put up with this kind of hassle.

Unless you've been discrimated against in this manner you can't understand just how big a deal it is.

-Max

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< I know of the History in the Dark ages yes but what eveidence do you have of that kind of corruption in the US? >>

Jim Jones and Jim Bakker right off the top of my head. >>



Oh I see you are including televangelists who only ask to give to the church. They dont actually run anything like a hospital or soup kitchen.

Can you name ONE organization that Bush is looking to give money to thats corrupt?