Bush wants Religous Groups to operate social programs

[351Cleveland]

Dojobi-

There is NO constitutional issue here. THAT is a fact.

Also, I can state for absolute CERTAINTY that our church helps people on a routine basis. I can ALSO state for an absolute fact that we do not try to recruit people, we do good deeds because we feel that God has called upon us to do so. We ask nothing in return. AT MOST we tell people who we are (church name and denomination). Most times we do not even do that. WE do not STRIVE to do that.. as our church is fond of saying, "It's not about us." We only reply if asked, or if we do a specific deed for a specific person, we leave a note as stated in a previous post. THAT IS IT. How this can be construed as recruitment is beyond me. This is also how I would hope any organization, be it religious or not, would handle these types of projects... anonymously and without need for recognition. Unfortunately there are those out there whose only quest in life is personal recognition.

 

[Doboji]

Cleveland351

I don't doubt that there aren't churches like yours... that don't cause a problem and possess the ability to help people in a very large way. The problem is.. that not all churches or synagogues or whatever are as incorruptable as yours... And without an extensive watchdog system in place... much discrimination will slip through the cracks. What this does is open up a can of worms whereby discrimination can run rampant. This has happened in the past... giving power to religious groups is a very very dangerous thing, throughout human history it has lead to nothing but tragedy. This is why the seperation between church and state exists... religion can indeed be a good thing... and often is... but the problem is that the potential for harm is just too great.

-Max

 

[Doboji]

Texmaster-

Ok enough of the "No facts all opinion" protests... post some hardcore numbers or stop whining.... You state your opinions as fact... you claim their are facts behind them but you neglect to post them...

-Max

 

[yata]

Texmaster, you're spewing out more than you can swallow. Hell if I know what that means. This is a moral judgement. If you think about this long enough you can soften and agree that this is good for the country. That's when you confuse yourself and think that charity is awesome, Big Daddy needs to give you money to "help" others. The fact is that government's role is to give you support, money or education, to help yourself. No parents give money to their kids and tell them to buy sack lunches for others. Charity is a volunteer work. People who do earn enough will choose to contribute. If your religious beliefs prompts you to contribute to your church, then go ahead. Good for you. But getting the government involved is a bad idea. Officials will have to pull hair in implementing the policy, and new people need to be hired to do the monitoring. Have you seen those government documents full of jargons and clauses? Who makes the pie when everyone wants part of it? Hehe.

And please, don't ask people to spoon-feed you to links. Everyone's using this argument to say: where's your facts/links? Even if you have all the facts, they're not going to re-arrange themselves and turn into solutions or insights.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< And the governemnt refusing to give money to programs that work because they have religious members IS descrimination. >>

Why's that? >>



Becuase they are descriminating against their beliefs not the quality of their job.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Because they can do more with more money. >>

Like preach their religion in return for food and shelter >>



Have any evidence that groups like this have denied shelter or food to anyone who refuses to listen or participate?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster-

Ok enough of the &quot;No facts all opinion&quot; protests... post some hardcore numbers or stop whining.... You state your opinions as fact... you claim their are facts behind them but you neglect to post them...

-Max >>



As I stated before, Habitat for Huminaty does better than its governemnt counterparts. Thats your proof. Now prove me wrong.

Post a governemnt program of equal stature thats doing as well. Lets see your hardcore numbers.

 

[Raspewtin]

<< Have any evidence that groups like this have denied shelter or food to anyone who refuses to listen or participate? >>



There is A LOT of social pressure to participate, and the reason they are giving the food is clearly to spread their religious message. They are very straightforward about it, and don't pretend to seperate the two. Nothing in life is free, especially from most of these religious groups who do social programs. Everyone knows it when they are there. To think you can walk into some of these organizations, partake in their social programs without listening to their message is either naive or wishful thinking. I once volunteered in a Rescue Mission (I will not name it specifically) and it was very difficult for someone who did not participate religiously to get the same resources as someone who did. Ask anyone who has used the services of religious groups that provide shelter and food and they will tell you that although they are not forced too, the are essentially required to for social reasons. This is precisely the reason no new legislation along this vein will make it through the Senate.

 

[Doboji]

<< As I stated before, Habitat for Huminaty does better than its governemnt counterparts. Thats your proof. Now prove me wrong. >>



Ok now you're being a moron...

You said...

Habitat for Humanity does better than it's government counterparts
Apples are better than Bananas

HOW ARE THEY BETTER.... FACTS MAN... SHOW SOME FACTS AS TO WHY THEY ARE BETTER.

-Max

 

[Siva]

This money is better spent going to faith based organizations, then helping welfare moms mooch more money and not work, or fund &quot;planned parenthood&quot; crap, or even go to some foreign countries that don't need it. I think the US needs to work on fixing everything that's wrong with it first, and faith based charities, hell and non-governement run, volunteer based charity would be a good place to start. Until you've walked the streets, fed the poor, etc... you don't understand how badly the government works when it comes to aiding the poor.

eledan, maybe your system in the netherlands works, but its awfully hard to maintain such a system when you are dealing with massive amounts of people. Micromanagement isn't as easy and its just not feasible.

 

[Doboji]

<< Until you've walked the streets, fed the poor, etc >>



I just love how people make assumptions about how much charity work people have done.



<< fund &quot;planned parenthood&quot; >>



What exactly do you see wrong with this organization recieving federal funding?

And again this debate isn't about who can spend the money best. It's about religious freedom, it's about one of the cornerstones of our country. The same argument applies to the prayer in schools debate. Seperation of Church and State is an absolute necessity to protect our children and ourselves from religious persecution.

-Max

 

[Red Dawn]

Sorry,I do not want my money going to organizations run by religious zealots period! Let them get it from the private sector.

 

[AaronP]

I say, if these groups do a better job of using our tax money to help those in need than how it was used before, than more power too em.

Hey, a LOT of religious groups help people just for the sake of helping those in need, they don't have some kind of perverse agenda of converting people or crap like that. Some groups do and those are the ones to watch out for.

There is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. There IS freedom of religion. And I don't think this agenda of BUsh's impedes freedom at all.

 

[AaronP]

uhh Kosugi, the thing that was on the forefront of the founding fathers minds was TAXES! THey revolted because their taxes were too high. It was much less idealistic than freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

 

[Doboji]

Seperation of Church and state is garunteed by the United States constitution's first amendment. Specifically it refers to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)written by Thomas Jefferson. To summarize the document states that No human should be allowed to force his religious ideals on anyone else, and that no person should be made to pay money to a faith they donnot believe in, nor worship at a church they don't follow.

This is exactly what the faith based initiatives program does, it forces me to spend my money on a faith that I donnot believe in. This is unconstitutional, and one of the reasons why this nation was founded in the first place.

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

-Max

 

[soapdish]

Hey You Corrupt Greedy Christian RatBags...


If I wanted you to have my money, I'd give it to you. You aren't a government. You don't provide defense. You don't make the roads better. You don't provide insurance, or help in housing. You don't deserve my fvcking money.


That's the fact, Jack.


You whiney ass conservatives sit around and bitch about federal welfare programs, but when you and your piss-ass churches get a chance to go on the Dole, you line up around the corner with your half wit arguments why you need the money.


Hey, I don't like paying the government, but I do. I certainly don't want even one red cent of my taxes to go to religious organizations who are left to their own recognizance. Believe me, when all the dough starts rolling in, you will see the true colors of these people. Religion has always been more about making money than saving peoples souls. Don't like a double-barrel of the truth -- Deal with it.

 

[Tiger]

The actual first amendment. Nice try Doboji.



<< Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. >>



How is this proposed program &quot;establishment of religion&quot;?

Thanks Mods.

 

[Killrose]

I think that a homeless, hungry person is going to let any preaching, and surmoning go right over his head as he/she is busy slurping face down in the soup bowl.

Sure, people in a desperate situation are going to be more &quot;vulnerable&quot; to preaching than some fat ass liberal in front of his computer would be, but hey, dollar for dollar, more will get fed for far less than if we relied soley on a govmnt run programme.

I have never done any volunteer work in a religious organizations soup kitchen, and i'm sure the level of surmoning changes from place to place, and i'm most certain that it happens. But is it really so &quot;dangerous&quot;?

I know the local soup kitchen has no religious back ground requirement for people who want to donate time helping to prepare meals. You could be the most left wing/athiest liberal and still help out.

 

[Capn]

soapdish, go back to whatever hole you slithered out of. This thread has been reasonable for the most part.

 

[shifrbv]

I think soapdish's comments were one of the few reasonable ones that I've seen in this post. He's got the hypocrisy of the conservative right right on the nose. Unprecedented cutting of welfare funds and now they want to suck up that money themselves.

Doboji has been stressing the point that I think alot of people who don't support this are worried about. If this money is to truly go to charity programs in an undiscriminating matter, than virtually anyone could apply for the funds. While I don't mind the christain side so much, there are others than I fervently disagree with.

Case in point, some might have seen an earlier thread that I posted about Reverend Moon hosting President Bush's &quot;Inaugural Prayer Luncheon&quot; this past January. In fact, Reverend Moon received an achievement award at that luncheon from the White House. Reverend Moon and his wife have also spoken on Capitol Hill on a number of occasions over the past several years. They operate all sorts of &quot;faith-based&quot; programs from charity to abstinence programs in schools, universities, and communities across the US. Could someone like Reverend Moon and his Unification Church, a man who has been investigated around the world for various crimes, receive federal money for some of his &quot;faith-based&quot; charity work? A man who believes he is the born-again messiah and is out to &quot;subjugate the American government and people&quot; to himself? If so, I would absolutely have to disagree with this legislation unless I could be sure that the government wasn't giving this money to religous wackos like Reverend Moon and his church.

For those of you who didn't get a chance to see this information about Reverend Moon's sponsorship of GWB's &quot;Inaugural Prayer Luncheon&quot; this past January, here is a link from the American's United For Separation Of Church and State page (the story is half-way down the page):

Religious Right Joins Rev. Moon At Pro-Bush Inaugural Luncheon

Moon and his wife, Hak Ja Han, in an article published in Unification News in September of 1992, declared themselves &quot;the True Parents of all humanity&quot; and asserted, &quot;[W]e are the Savior, the Lord of the Second Advent, the Messiah....[W]e must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world.&quot;

I don't want any of my money going to someone who believes in an &quot;automatic theocracy to rule the world&quot;.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< I say, if these groups do a better job of using our tax money to help those in need than how it was used before, than more power too em. >>

If? How do we know that they will? With the money coming from the government there will be a need for more accountability than there is now.They might turn out to be less sufficient as they would need more administration to deal with the funds and to make sure that they are distributed lawfully and correctly. On top of that this will create more goverment beauracracy just to monitor these groups. I sure in hell am not going to take them at their word.

I have a better idea. Instead of doling out the bucks to the Jim Bakers, Oral Roberts and the Amy McPhersons, lets make the agnecies we have in place more efficient. After all they have the resources and the know how. Are we going to cut back their funds or just increase the money going out to include these groups in the &quot;Big Pay Day&quot;?

To those who say that we don't have freedom from religion, what exactly is that supposed to mean? That Religioun can be forced upon us? That we have to support religious organizations? And if so why should that be? Because you happen be believe in Religion? You say that the founding fathers based the constitution on Christian Ideals. Well Thomas Paine, one of the main Authors of the Bill of Rights, was not a Thiest and in no way supported the inclusion of Religion in Government.Why are you so adamant about religion being a part of every day America? Don't those who wish to avoid it have as much rights as you do?

 

[Lucky]

&quot;You are simply a Christian hater and thats fine, but dont deny the rights of Muslim or Jewish charities their right to money to help the needly no matter how descriminating you are.&quot;


First off, its not their FUSKING MONEY TO START WITH! :| THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT. GOT IT? :| :| :|

Stop your non-sensical crap.

If you want to get YOUR christians groups more money, then how about you do some door to door compaining in the rich neighborhoods, or mail out flyers...do the work yourself and dont rely on the government to give your handouts to further your religious propoganda!!!! :| :| :| dont take part of MY TAX DOLLARS and put it towards religoius institutions a large percentage of american people dont support.

the ignorance ans stupidity some people have these days amazes me. :|

 

[Lucky]

&quot;Don't those who wish to avoid it have as much rights as you do?

AMEN BROTHA'.

 

[Lucky]

besdides, how would the gov't even possible be able to fairly decide which institutions get the money? I mean, could I start a &quot;faith based program&quot; and apply for a grant? If I get turned down, can I sue for discrimination? Will religions others than mainstream christianity be given grants? How will we ensure that preferential treatment will not be given?

IT WONT WORK.

 

[soapdish]

Hey, Capn, I have every right to tell you like it is...

You don't like my tone? Tough, I don't like yours either.


Or are upset that I just hit the nail on the head? And you don't like it...


And I'd slither back under my rock if it weren't already occupied by the freakin &quot;compassionate conservatives&quot; of this board.


Does it strike anyone as peculiar that the so-called conservatives who generally oppose social programs are all for this purported social program? (actually, it is nothing more than giving money to the religious backers of Bush-Lite... Payoff)

A bit of hypocrisy, eh?


One thing I like about the Catholic church is that it helps people, and has been helping people for a long time, without the need to whine and beg from the state. Just not their style.

Notice that Bush generally ostracizes (sp?) the Catholic community? Being a recovering Catholic, it's pretty plain to see.