Bush pushes faith-based initiative in Louisiana, Georgia

[Rower_CPU]

link (http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/politics/story/1120919p-7797101c.html)

"My attitude is, the government should not fear faith-based programs - we ought to welcome faith-based programs and we ought to fund faith-based programs," he said from the pulpit of the packed Union Bethel A.M.E Church in a run-down, crime-plagued neighborhood near this city's downtown. "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It's important for our government to understand that."

...

Bush has sought legislation to give religious groups access to federal funds as long as their services are available to anyone, but without requiring them to make fundamental changes

Thoughts?

[zimv20]

cshtuartceh

[g5man]

Well I can tell you what I think.

First from a politcal view point, Bush's man Carl is one bright fellow. This issue of faith based programs is becoming a big hit in the black community. Secondly add school vouchers and Bush will get at least 15% of the black vote. I do have data on this but it is on my other machine.

From a practicle point it makes sense. The gov. spends over 30K a year just managing the welfare program for one family. A church can do the job for a fraction of the cost.

I know the issue of seperation of church and state comes up. But the US gov. already gives hundred of millions to catholic hospitals and other religious institutions for research so I don't see the problem.

[Desertrat]

"as long as their services are available to anyone" is the attractive phrase. Obviously, churches already do a great amount of good works. Their advantage over any government agency is the more intimate knowledge of both the needs and the characters of those they help.

That said, the adminstration of the funds needs some sort of strict oversight. "There's churches, and then there's churches", and not all of them are controlled by totally honest people.

I admit that I'm less concerned about "separation" than I am about "Congress shall make no law..."

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
cshtuartceh

?????

I shall be pondering the mysteries of cshtuartceh for my whole morning thanks to you, zim! :eek: ;)

[mactastic]

My thoughts? I'd like to see Dubya put his money where his mouth is and actively seek out and fund a few well-run pagan charities. If he did that I would have few qualms with his faith based stuff as long as, like 'Rat said, you don't let some of the shadier preachers get rich off it.

[Desertrat]

"Pagan charities"? Such as? :)

My concern about inefficiencies--pardon my cynicism--is that the monies might well go to the larger, highly-organized church "systems", and not to such as a "Mt. Zion Baptist" or a "New Hope Primitive Baptist Church": Those, who to my mind, are highly likely to help the truly needy. Damfino...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Dunno... but I'm sure you could find some if you looked hard enough. Most keep a low profile for fear of the torch-wielders. It would go a long way towards convincing me he believes in religious tolerance.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
?????

I shall be pondering the mysteries of cshtuartceh for my whole morning thanks to you, zim! :eek: ;)

oops, i slept in!

'cshtuartceh' is the mess you get when you don't separate 'church' and 'state'

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
oops, i slept in!

'cshtuartceh' is the mess you get when you don't separate 'church' and 'state'

Thanks for the clarification. Another of life's mysteries revealed.

[bousozoku]

I'm just wondering if they would make use of Buddhism and religions other than Christianity and possibly, Judaism.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by bousozoku
I'm just wondering if they would make use of Buddhism and religions other than Christianity and possibly, Judaism.

You mean there are others?;)

Heck, even if he didn't go so far as the pagan religions, even some Islamic charities would be a start.

[Desertrat]

As long as the religious group provided charitable assistance to whomever showed up, I fail to see what difference the "Brand Name" makes.

One assumes that under this structure, an Islamic group would cheerfully assist a homeless Jew--and vice versa...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Fat chance. There are already documented cases where there was discrimination against employees and recipients of aid.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
As long as the religious group provided charitable assistance to whomever showed up, I fail to see what difference the "Brand Name" makes.

One assumes that under this structure, an Islamic group would cheerfully assist a homeless Jew--and vice versa...

And who exactly is going to keep tabs on this?

[Desertrat]

IJ, in answer to your "And who exactly is going to keep tabs on this?", I'd guess it would be just like keeping tabs on anybody who cheats you. It's up to you to complain to whomever is in administrative charge.

You're looking for perfection? :) A total absence of venality, anywhere? :D

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, in answer to your "And who exactly is going to keep tabs on this?", I'd guess it would be just like keeping tabs on anybody who cheats you. It's up to you to complain to whomever is in administrative charge.

You're looking for perfection? :) A total absence of venality, anywhere?

Well yes, I suppose I haven't stopped looking for perfection, even if I never expect to find it. And I certainly don't approve of the idea of opening up new avenues for venality.

These days conservative are not only against "quotas" and "affirmative action," they are even opposed to keeping statistics that would tell us whether institutional discrimination is occurring. What I am predicting here is that some churches will be accused of discriminatory practices, but that those self-same churches will resist disclosing any facts and figures on how their federally-funded services are being doled out. So either the federal authorities will be inserted into the middle of church business, or they will be forced to take the position that churches may spend federal dollars in a discriminatory fashion. A bad result, either way.

You don't need the Hubble telescope to see this major brouhaha coming right down the road.

[manitoublack]

That quote of Bush, clashes very closley with what was being dicussed in the Gay amd Lesbian Thread, about the Govenments standing on state based religon.

[Desertrat]

IJ, down here in south Georgia, I sometimes hear stories of perceived discrimination in AFDC and Food Stamps. Not a lot, but there are some sorts of problems, occasionally.

Seat of the pants, people are people, and while I tend to believe church folks might be less prone to discrimination in their charitable works, I surely won't say it can't happen.

Overall, though, most folks directly involved in charity are pretty much honorable. And, if that's NOT the case, our whole society is down the tubes, anyway...

'Rat

[Neserk]

"Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It's important for our government to understand that

This part is what gets me... I guess he wrote this speech on his own :D

My opininion? If half of the people in the US who claimed to be Christians did as the bible instructed them to there would be no need for medicare, medicade, there would be noone living in poverty, no one starving... Christianity is a socialist relgion.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Neserk
If half of the people in the US who claimed to be Christians did as the bible instructed them to there would be no need for medicare, medicade, there would be noone living in poverty, no one starving... Christianity is a socialist relgion.

ha! i bet you're right.

<donning flamesuit>
some of the most selfish and judgemental people i know are self-described faithful (and they're not all christian, either)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, down here in south Georgia, I sometimes hear stories of perceived discrimination in AFDC and Food Stamps. Not a lot, but there are some sorts of problems, occasionally.

Seat of the pants, people are people, and while I tend to believe church folks might be less prone to discrimination in their charitable works, I surely won't say it can't happen.

Overall, though, most folks directly involved in charity are pretty much honorable. And, if that's NOT the case, our whole society is down the tubes, anyway...

The point is, accountability can be demanded of a government agency. Will churches open themselves up to this sort of scrutiny?

[Desertrat]

"The point is, accountability can be demanded of a government agency."

My comment about this might be seen as "straw man", but given the history of government agencies, I see little or no accountability. I grant that I think more of the alphabets such as FBI, DEA, BATFE, etc., but with the example of the Patriot Act before me, I ask that you pardon my cynicism about this.

Lemme put it this way: Those people directly involved in the charitable works within churches are less likely to commit discriminatory actions than any other groups of which I know.

'Rat

[zimv20]

theory and practice may differ, but in theory...

- the gov't must ultimately be accountable to the people
- the church must ultimately be accountable to god*

that's why the two can't mix

* a convenience term

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Lemme put it this way: Those people directly involved in the charitable works within churches are less likely to commit discriminatory actions than any other groups of which I know.

I hardly think so, given that some religious sects have practiced racial, religious and ethnic discrimination as a matter of faith. In any event, my question goes to how (or whether) a church-based organization will be held accountable for dispensing federal dollars in a non-discriminatory fashion. Your answer seems to be that they don't need to be held accountable. No matter whether your and I agree or disagree on this point, it seems to me to be an obvious issue and one which is bound to arise. I'd like to hear a better response then "it doesn't matter."

[DavisBAnimal]

I think Bush has the right idea here (for once!!) - cause community based charitable and social programs are by far the most effective. I trust a local-run charity to do more good for society, dollar for dollar, than any bureaucratic organization any day of the week. If the government really wants to promote social progress, they should do so by funneling more money into small, local organizations that deal with people on a face to face level.

From what I gather this is some of what the faith-based initiatives are about - and I appreciate GWs emphasis on this very effective means of social progress. Now, someone tell me if I'm wrong, but the Faith Based Initiative is more than just money for churches - it's more money for more local, charitable organizations, with the end to the "no religion" clause involved with most federal grants. Is this correct?

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass the denomination of the people feeding soup to the homeless - if people are feeding soup to homeless people then I want them to have more money to buy more soup. I don't think this is mixing up church and state so long as no institution descriminate on the basis of religion, race, sex, sexual preference, or any of the other descrimination standards adopted by our country. Perhaps GW should rename it the "Community Based Initiatives" and downplay the emphasis on faith organizations (while still allowing their participation) just so us liberals don't get our secular panties in a "church and state!" tizzy.

Giving money to a church to help the populace in general is in no way a federal endorsement of that church's religion over any other, so long as all other religions are fair game for funding. And besides, if it's going to do good for the community - if it's going to provide more beds and more potatoes for the poor and the hungry and those not fortunate to qualify for "tax relief" - than I see no reason why any progressive minded individual would try to fight it.

Davis

[IJ Reilly]

Have you read the thread? You might start with my post, right above yours, if you're interested to know how "any progressive minded individual" could have reservations.

I've posed this question twice, and nobody's touched it.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Have you read the thread? You might start with my post, right above yours, if you're interested to know how "any progressive minded individual" could have reservations.

I've posed this question twice, and nobody's touched it.

I did read the thread, and I read your post. I think the reason no one is responding to your question of accountability is because no one here is familiar with the process of federal funding for community programs. Is it just a simple application? Do the programs need to supply recomendations? Do federal employess come visit their facilities and observe their work? I have no idea, and thus would not even begin to be able to tell you how in the world the US Government can make sure any group they're giving money to isn't descriminating - I think we're all pretty clueless to the process in general. Maybe you have some experience with this. If so, I'd love to hear it.

Now I don't see how there is any more of an issue of accountability with a faith-based charity as there is with a secular one. Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of KKK, Gay-Bashing, closed-minded asshole yahoos out there often cite religious conviction as the primary motivation behind their horrendous beliefs, but it's entirely unfair to equate those idiots with the whole of religious organizations in general. In giving money to a secular organization the government runs the same risk of endorsing descrimination as it does giving money to a local church. I guess I'm just assuming there would be a process already in place devoted to making sure that any organization which recieves federal funding is putting the money to good, appropriate, undiscriminatory use - whether they are faith-based or not.

Maybe I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying - are you saying that you oppose giving money to churches because they run a higher risk of being morally corrupt and of misappropriating funds? If you are, that's fine, I guess - I don't know for sure as I've never been affiliated with the financing committee of any charitable organization, church-based or not.

I just don't see how giving money to churches feeding the hungry is too risky an endeavor to pursue.

Davis

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Maybe I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying - are you saying that you oppose giving money to churches because they run a higher risk of being morally corrupt and of misappropriating funds? If you are, that's fine, I guess - I don't know for sure as I've never been affiliated with the financing committee of any charitable organization, church-based or not.

No, I'm not saying that. The question I'm asking is pretty simple, really. Organizations that take federal dollars are held accountable for how they are spent, and it must be in accordance with federal laws prohibiting discrimination. My question goes to whether (and how) a church can be held to federal nondiscrimination standards. This is my main concern with the "faith based initiative," though I've also got others.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, I'm not saying that. The question I'm asking is pretty simple, really. Organizations that take federal dollars are held accountable for how they are spent, and it must be in accordance with federal laws prohibiting discrimination. My question goes to whether (and how) a church can be held to federal nondiscrimination standards. This is my main concern with the "faith based initiative," though I've also got others.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

And to answer your questions - of course the church should and can be held to federal nondiscrimination standards - I don't think many people would argue this. I just don't see how the process would be any different for a church group than it would for a non-church group. What's the difference?

If the church-run soup kitchen doesn't feed soup to blacks, jews, cripples, muslims, women, gays, old people, young people, anything, then that church doesn't deserve the funds. If the people at Food Not Bombs refuse to give out meals to blacks, jews, cripples, muslims, women, gays, conservatives, war mongers, Dick Cheney, anything, then they don't deserve the funds (I actually don't know if FNB recieves federal funding - but they should).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Fath-Based intitiatives aren't earmarking funds for Catholic Churches to buy more incense - it's money for charitable organizations which provide aid to the general public, with a willingness to accept applications for church-run organizations. Is this right?

Even if it was just money to churches for them to do as they like, I don't have a problem with it - though I understand that many would. Most churches don't discriminate - anyone is welcome to attend a church service. I was born a jew, tend to be religiously independent, am a praticing, uncloseted homosexual, yet was welcomed with open arms at a church-run Martin King celebration just yesterday - last Fall I happily attended the consercration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson at the highly religious Episcopal ceremony in my home town. In my experience, churches will let you in on their ceremony and on their charity no matter what. And more power to them for that - they have my secular blessing.

Really, though - what is the difference? Why should there be any difference in concern or practice in ensuring the accountability of church-run charitable organizations versus secular ones? How is it harder to make sure people aren't being denied entrace to a soup kitchen on the basis of race, sex, religon, sexual orietnation, or what-the-have you, when that soup kitchen is happening in a church versus a YMCA, or a high school auditorium?

I am openly curious because I see no difference.

Davis

[mactastic]

I think one of the problems IJ is alluding to is who decides what an 'acceptable' religion is. I think we would all agree that something like Habitat for Humanity would be a perfect candidate for federal funds under this faith-based initiative. And I think we would all agree that the KKK would be a bad organization to give to. But that means the federal government has to step in and say "Ok, you Klan members aren't acceptable because of your religious beliefs, while you Habitat Christians are." So the government is suddenly in the business of telling us what religions are and aren't acceptable. Would a Native American religious charity be ok if they advocate taking peyote during their ministry? How about those Evangelicals who walk around with the signs that say "God hates Fags!"? Do they get money? Would the Nation of Islam qualify, even though they have advocated anti-Semetic positions?

That's a big can of worms to open in my opinion.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by mactastic
I think one of the problems IJ is alluding to is who decides what an 'acceptable' religion is. I think we would all agree that something like Habitat for Humanity would be a perfect candidate for federal funds under this faith-based initiative. And I think we would all agree that the KKK would be a bad organization to give to. But that means the federal government has to step in and say "Ok, you Klan members aren't acceptable because of your religious beliefs, while you Habitat Christians are." So the government is suddenly in the business of telling us what religions are and aren't acceptable. Would a Native American religious charity be ok if they advocate taking peyote during their ministry? How about those Evangelicals who walk around with the signs that say "God hates Fags!"? Do they get money? Would the Nation of Islam qualify, even though they have advocated anti-Semetic positions?

That's a big can of worms to open in my opinion.

That's an interesting argument, and I appreciate your articulation of that "can of worms" as you call it.

But I don't think the methods of accountability would necessarily need to make judgement on any particular group's set of beliefs or doctrines. The accountability of any charitable organization should made in accordance to their practice - in practice, where is this money going? Is it going towards programs designed to build houses for poor people without regard for their race, religion, sex, on and on (such as Habitat)? Or is it going towards financing large-scale organizations which deny membership in accordance to race and sexual orientation, and actively promote (key word active) racial discrimination (the KKK)?

These accounstability judgments need not be votes for belief but votes for action - judegment should, and can, be made not in accordance to what an organization believes but what it does. And if your organization actively promotes tolerance for all others (as many churches do) and provides charitable resources available to the entire public, then you deserve federal funds to continue bettering our society.

In choosing to fund a charity run by a religious organization in accordance to what they do rather than what they believe, the government is not endorsing that religion as any more "acceptable" than any other. It is simply recognizing the undiscriminatory, welcome contribution to society made by this organization to the public at large, and is choosing to help this charity along in this cause.

Davis

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, these are some of my other concerns, and are related to my main question. I don't know if these faith-based organizations will be required to adopt nondiscrimination policies (like all other federal contractors are), and to provide evidence of nondiscrimination on demand. If they are, the government is getting involved with the way churches run their affairs; if they aren't, these organizations will be free to discriminate. Either way you slice it, not good.

Also, while ostensibly the federal dollars are not to be used for religious programs, undoubtedly a lot of cost-shifting will be going on. That is, federal dollars can be used to shift funding from charitable works that are now privately funded to religious activities. IOW, we're really talking about indirect federal funding of religion.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
And if your organization actively promotes tolerance for all others (as many churches do) and provides charitable resources available to the entire public, then you deserve federal funds to continue bettering our society.

By that standard, Catholic Charities are out because the Catholic Church officially opposes homosexuality. That doesn't jibe with your requirement to promote tolerance for all others.

And I notice you only dealt with the two extreme cases, H4H and the KKK. Those are the easy ones. Most religious organizations will be much closer to the 'grey area' where it will depend on the judgement of the person doing the deciding as to who is naughty and who is nice. What about the peyote-taking tribe, or the church who says it's ok to tie your children down and beat them? What about the Church of Satan? If they give help equally and do no more than preach their word, do you see polititians in DC liking the fact that federal dollars are flowing to devil worshippers? I can see Tom Delay salivating at using that for a campaign issue.

I'm not saying I'm against giving money to groups that practice faith-based charity work. I just think it could lead to some things people aren't thinking of as they craft the legislation. Dem unintended consequences 'Rat keeps refering to.

[mactastic]

Your mention of supporting a group like Food Not Bombs is intriguing also. Could, or should this faith-based initiative also be expanded to include secular charities? And would those charities have to toe some kind of political line to recieve funding; ie. would an anti-war charity be eligible for money? Food Not Bombs takes a very political stand on war, would that disqualify them from federal money? 2nd Harvest Food Bank is another secular organization that could benefit greatly from federal help to expand their operations. Religions don't hold the monopoly on good deeds, so why is this initiative only covering them?

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by mactastic
Your mention of supporting a group like Food Not Bombs is intriguing also. Could, or should this faith-based initiative also be expanded to include secular charities? And would those charities have to toe some kind of political line to recieve funding; ie. would an anti-war charity be eligible for money? Food Not Bombs takes a very political stand on war, would that disqualify them from federal money? 2nd Harvest Food Bank is another secular organization that could benefit greatly from federal help to expand their operations. Religions don't hold the monopoly on good deeds, so why is this initiative only covering them?

This is key - this is really my point for the need of a program like this. Yes, this program should be expanded for secular charities, very much so - yes yes yes. And to be honest, although it appears as if Bush is playing this intiative up mainly to appease his Robbie Reed Christian-Right cronies, I'm pretty certain (from what I've gathered in the main-stream press) that the Faith-Based Inititiatives DO support secular charities. The whole idea is to curb poverty, hunger, on and on, by funneling money into small, local run charitable organizations, and, while doing so, don't deny religious organizations the ability to apply because they are religiously affiliated.

Now, taking religion out of the debate, I think this is a wonderful, active, progressive idea. The needs of the less fortunate are a hundred times better served by face to face organizations than the behemoth of bureaucracy of the federal government. I'm not a libertarian by any means - I just think this is common sense - not to mention being supported by work in the Complexity Sciences (check out David Byrne's "Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences" for a good read).

Your question is interesting about the politcal aspects to this - and I'm going to have to say that, if I was the one writing the legislation, then, yes, any group should be eligible for funding no matter their political affiliations as well. Thus, anti-war charities be as eligible as pro-war (an unfair term, but I'll use it for the contradiction) charities.

Now, to get at what IJ was saying, I do think these organizations should be required to adopt nondiscrimination policies and to provide evidence of nondiscrimination on demand - in order to get the money. And I don't really think this is the government getting involved with the way churches run their affairs - the churches are free to do as they like, they just have to meet certain standards if they want the money. If I wanted to start a secular free after school program called "Davis Hate Black People and You Should Too" and I didn't allow black children to benefit from it, then I shouldn't expect to get federal funding, and I shouldn't accuse the feds of interfering with my program for refusing my funds.

I guess this would be my standard were I to be writing this legislation - "no program shall be rewarded federal funds in so far as those funds are to be used to actively promote discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, or to provide charity which refuses to include individuals because of their personal character or beliefs". I think that type of wording would allow Habitat, Food Not Bombs, Harvest Food Bank, and maybe even a number of Catholic Churches - even though the official Church stance is against homosexuality, as a gay-dude, I have sought out and found a number of local Catholic Churches whose clergy does NOT stand out against homosexuality.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't like to make my opinions in accordance with any sort of ideology, but rather with reason, understanding, and a sense of what would do the most good for the country. And while I think seperation of church and state is one of, if not THE, halmark ideals upon which our government is based, I am willing to perhaps tread on iconoclastic ground if it means feeding more hungry people, and doing more good for society. I am not going to oppose this idea simply because it may fuzzily "violate church and state". That way of thinking is really nothing more than constitutional ideology - a great ideology to hold on to, but an ideology nonetheless. And although the constitution is where it's at, and ra ra American Liberties, I am going to examine any issue in accordance to how it affects the world in practice. And frankly, I feel as if the faith-based intitiatives would do a tremendous amount of good for our troubled country while not in the least sacrificing our right to governance free pratice of private religion.

Davis

[Neserk]

My second issue with faith-based charities is that a lot of Christian Charities are going to require people to "hear the gospel" as a contingency of getting whatever they need. How will that work with the whole "state not promoting a religion" issue?