Prez Bush quote of the day....
- Thread starter nippyjun
- Start date
guyver01
Lifer
- Sep 25, 2000
- 22,151
- 5
- 61
Well.. what do you expect from a man who plans a "Faith Based Charity Service"
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.ap/index.html
<< Bush on Monday was establishing a White House office that would distribute billions of dollars to religious groups and charities over the next 10 years. The president wants to let such groups compete for taxpayer money to provide after-school programs, prison ministries and drug treatment, among other things. >>
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.ap/index.html
<< Bush on Monday was establishing a White House office that would distribute billions of dollars to religious groups and charities over the next 10 years. The president wants to let such groups compete for taxpayer money to provide after-school programs, prison ministries and drug treatment, among other things. >>
ha ha, bush kills me, i thought presidents were supposed to be intelligent, why doesn't he think before he speaks, ...or scarier yet, maybe he does!
<< Bush on Monday was establishing a White House office that would distribute billions of dollars to religious groups and charities over the next 10 years. >>
I wonder how long it will take for that to go to court. Not long I'm sure.
ahahahh nice, he has such a way with words,
should be a comedy central editor instead of chief executive officer of the nation.
Giving govt money to religious organizations is BS.
I dont pay taxes for someone else to pray to something I do not believe in.
:|
should be a comedy central editor instead of chief executive officer of the nation.
Giving govt money to religious organizations is BS.
I dont pay taxes for someone else to pray to something I do not believe in.
:|
If it wasn't so easy, he'd be a political humorist wet dream...
6 months and it wont be funny it will be sad.
6 months and it wont be funny it will be sad.
Yet you don't bitch when they take 43% of your salary and give it to some Dork who WON'T work for a living... nothing short of amazing.. all he's saying is they can have the money just like any other orginization b4 welfare there was churches and people like me who have never had even a remote chance at getting welfare when i was poor have at least been fed by people who really did care...
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,387
- 8,154
- 126
popeye44, here's the thing though - what churches get the $$?
You can't give $$ to one church and then not another. Also, what if a person is non-denominational and doesn't belong to a "typical" church? They are just as needy as somebody who goes to one of the "select" churches, but since they aren't part of that church, they don't see any of that money.
That's complete and utter horse sh!t. You can't play favorites with religious institutions, and you sure as hell can't play favorites with religious institutions when taxpayer's funds are involved.
You can't give $$ to one church and then not another. Also, what if a person is non-denominational and doesn't belong to a "typical" church? They are just as needy as somebody who goes to one of the "select" churches, but since they aren't part of that church, they don't see any of that money.
That's complete and utter horse sh!t. You can't play favorites with religious institutions, and you sure as hell can't play favorites with religious institutions when taxpayer's funds are involved.
I don't want any of my money going to any church unless I specifically put it in the donation baskets that are passed around. What happened to the separation of church and state?
The first thing that ran through my head, when it was obvious that G.W. would be president...
"At least Saturday Night Live will be funnier."
"At least Saturday Night Live will be funnier."
I'm not sure that they mean churches so much as religious organizations. It seems that many religious organizations run charity based services to feed the hungry, provide warm shelters, etc.. I think its not a bad idea myself, considering the kind of crap that the government spends money on now, perhaps they really could help fund non-government organizations to help ease poverty, starvation, and despair in the states. I know a lot of you hate the man, but I still feel that he could do some good for the nation. Bill Clinton wasnt a gem either, just look at his pardons that were issued before he left the White House, he violated all the pardoning committee rules and was arrogant enough to pardon the 2 biggest tax evaders in the history of the USA and his half brother! I dont know how churches are in other parts of the country but here in New England, many churches are quite poor but still do everything they can to help the needy...well most of the protestant/pentecostal churches I know anyways, I cant speak for other denominations...I've spoken enough, and have probably assured that I will be flamed in some way as is usually the case.
Ah yes, those Church run charities where rich people do petty stuff for other people while they skim the cream off the donations. Just the fact that Churches don't pay taxes erks me. Most of them "aim" for 10% of everyone's "gross" income. With that they would only need 10 people and garner an average income tax free. Not to mention that all their purchases are tax free as well. Now we want to give them money for services they are already well funded for? More cream in the rich people's pockets is all I have to say... Just volunteer in a soup kitchen for a while, and you may see what I'm talking about.
First of all who is "they"? I guess you think that running a church is free, of course it is! God provides the utilities and pays the bills! I know my pastor makes like 300k large a year, oh yeah, he's livin' it up big time, with a couple hundred in our church, he makes tons of money, he built a small mansion in the shape of a cross next to our church, AND we employ valet parking! Im looking to become a minister myself, cause thats where the big bucks are!
I guess you left-wing morons missed the fact that there religious leaders of many different sorts at the signing. You'd think W had signed a law forcing you reprobates to go to church.
Jeesh.
It's all the same to me really--you can bow your knee now or you can bow your knee later. You WILL bow your knee. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess...
Flame on!
Jeesh.
It's all the same to me really--you can bow your knee now or you can bow your knee later. You WILL bow your knee. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess...
Flame on!
Unfortunately, funding from the government, no matter how noble the purpose, always has strings attached......sometimes only revealed much further down the road after the money trail is entrenched. As has been said before, what the government funds, it always regulates. Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are being financed by the public, some of their freedom will be placed in jeopardy by the almost certain regulation to follow.
The government regulates activities that it subsidizes, since it is obliged to make certain that taxpayer funds are properly spent. Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are being financed by the public, some of their freedom will be placed in jeopardy by the almost certain regulation to follow.
Another potential problem area is employee hiring practices......right now, if any organization receives federal money, it is prohibited from discriminating in its hiring in any fashion. These orders, part of an effort to expand "charitable choice" funding which originated with the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, would reverse that stance, at least for churches. When religious groups receive tax dollars through charitable choice, they are free to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring. Allowing religious groups to take tax aid and still discriminate will be a central part of the plan implemented by Bush's new government agency. A religious group will be able to receive public tax dollars to pay for a job, but still be free to hang up a sign that says "Jews And Catholics Need Not Apply."
Just imagine: your money pays for a job that you can't have because of your religious beliefs. That's not compassionate conservatism; that's outrageous.
Under Bush's plan, it would be perfectly legal. Taxpayer money should never be used to subsidize any type of discrimination.
Antother facet........which churches will be able to tap the federal teat. According to Bush, he insisted that services provided by ministries be "non-sectarian" and said, "We will keep a commitment to pluralism [and] not discriminate for or against Methodist or Mormons or Muslims or good people with no faith at all." (Indianapolis, 1999.)
Yet he then excludes one in particular with a comment last March 2, about the Nation of Islam, "I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message," Bush said. "Louis Farrakhan preaches hate."
True, the Islam example is probably an extreme one, but once the snowball starts rolling downhill it's pretty hard to stop. And another question arises...who will be deciding who qualifies as a proper faith and who isn't one? That facet of the program could be claimed to be the state establishing, or at least favoring, one religion over another.
Another side item........whether wallowing at the public trough will diminish religious organizations' abilities to draw funding from their chruch members.
Given human nature, inevitably these contributions from church members will diminish if religious institutions start receiving public dollars to provide services. In the long run, charitable choice may make religious institutions dependent on the government for money and lessen church vitality. This will in turn become just another way for the government to insidiously enter another part of our daily lives.
This does not address the creation of new federal departments and offices with all their bureaucracy....and I thought we were going to get less government intrusion, not begin expanding government and its tentacles.
The government regulates activities that it subsidizes, since it is obliged to make certain that taxpayer funds are properly spent. Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are being financed by the public, some of their freedom will be placed in jeopardy by the almost certain regulation to follow.
Another potential problem area is employee hiring practices......right now, if any organization receives federal money, it is prohibited from discriminating in its hiring in any fashion. These orders, part of an effort to expand "charitable choice" funding which originated with the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, would reverse that stance, at least for churches. When religious groups receive tax dollars through charitable choice, they are free to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring. Allowing religious groups to take tax aid and still discriminate will be a central part of the plan implemented by Bush's new government agency. A religious group will be able to receive public tax dollars to pay for a job, but still be free to hang up a sign that says "Jews And Catholics Need Not Apply."
Just imagine: your money pays for a job that you can't have because of your religious beliefs. That's not compassionate conservatism; that's outrageous.
Under Bush's plan, it would be perfectly legal. Taxpayer money should never be used to subsidize any type of discrimination.
Antother facet........which churches will be able to tap the federal teat. According to Bush, he insisted that services provided by ministries be "non-sectarian" and said, "We will keep a commitment to pluralism [and] not discriminate for or against Methodist or Mormons or Muslims or good people with no faith at all." (Indianapolis, 1999.)
Yet he then excludes one in particular with a comment last March 2, about the Nation of Islam, "I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message," Bush said. "Louis Farrakhan preaches hate."
True, the Islam example is probably an extreme one, but once the snowball starts rolling downhill it's pretty hard to stop. And another question arises...who will be deciding who qualifies as a proper faith and who isn't one? That facet of the program could be claimed to be the state establishing, or at least favoring, one religion over another.
Another side item........whether wallowing at the public trough will diminish religious organizations' abilities to draw funding from their chruch members.
Given human nature, inevitably these contributions from church members will diminish if religious institutions start receiving public dollars to provide services. In the long run, charitable choice may make religious institutions dependent on the government for money and lessen church vitality. This will in turn become just another way for the government to insidiously enter another part of our daily lives.
This does not address the creation of new federal departments and offices with all their bureaucracy....and I thought we were going to get less government intrusion, not begin expanding government and its tentacles.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter