Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rower_CPU, Jan 15, 2004.
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.
"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..."
I shall be pondering the mysteries of cshtuartceh for my whole morning thanks to you, zim!
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.
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
Fat chance. There are already documented cases where there was discrimination against employees and recipients of aid.
And who exactly is going to keep tabs on this?
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.
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.
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...
This part is what gets me... I guess he wrote this speech on his own
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.
ha! i bet you're right.
some of the most selfish and judgemental people i know are self-described faithful (and they're not all christian, either)
The point is, accountability can be demanded of a government agency. Will churches open themselves up to this sort of scrutiny?
"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.
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
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."