Starspun

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/801754.asp?0si=-0cl=c3" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/801754.asp?0si=-0cl=c3</a>


I can't believe they have an administration office for this crap.

Toto

The Office of Faith-Based Initiatives was one of the first things that Bush did when he took office. It was supposed to draft plans and push for legislation to funnel public money into church-based social services. Luckily for the Constitution, it had a rocky start and has fallen out of the limelight.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/801754.asp?0si=-0cl=c3" target="_blank">Office of Faith Based Initialtives Gets Busy</a>

Armchair First Amendment person?

Grumpy

Whatever happened to "God will provide"? Aren't religious charities supposed to rely on the grace of kind-hearted benefactors, not the largesse of government grants?

Of course, I could be accused of holding religious charities to an impossible standard, simply because I don't want them to get tax dollars.

szcax

I actually somewhat agree with this particular paragraph. I do fear faith in our society, but I think that religious charities deserve money as long as they aren't pushing their religion while performing their charity. Because of this, the money going to these organizations should be closely tracked so that they're payed only enough to perform their charity duties and no more. Although I am sad to pay tax money that will support a church (in a roundabout way), I wouldn't want some homeless chap to be denied food just because I refuse to support a food-for-the-homeless program simply because it was set up by some religious organization. As long as their meal isn't a testamint and a bible bar .

lcb

oh the outrage of it all! those faith based charitable groups that have been feeding the hungry, healing the sick and running orphanges for decades on a wing and a prayer might now get some *gasp* financial help from our country! oh toto, how can this be? organize that Godless march and stop this outrage!

ebolamonger

The problem is, though, that when you start doling out money to religious groups, as you said, you have to monitor the money closely. You also have to monitor the organization closely. This is detrimental to the religion. You end up with all kinds of exasperating problems about deciding where to draw the line with using the facilities to promote religion or promoting religion without tax dollars. It means that the activities of the charitable group have to be monitored very closely, perhaps pamphlets have to be censored.

Now, I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination, but the thought of the government prying into anyone's religious or nonreligious opinions is creepy. I've talked to people who say that the aforementioned prying could be a possible solution to people being forced to sit in a church in order to get a meal, but I don't buy that. The organizations should remain private and secular private groups should "compete" in a friendly way with the religous ones. I think that is a better solution to the problem of forcing religion on someone along with a helpful handout because it encourages more overall charity--it doesn't just let people sit back and say "well, my tax dollars are at work with Reverend Bigmouth's Salvation Circus".

I also think any sort of money that would go from government--&gt;religious charity would force the government to create a ranking system of charities. I have the feeling that if the administration were trying to be "charitable" and pick a smaller, up-and-coming charity, then they wouldn't be able to look at statistics dealing with how many people were helped--they'd have to look at the charity's agenda. and let's face it: regardless of how well-written the proposal is, the Satanist Society of Bangor ain't gonna win out over the Good-Hearted Christian Soul-Savers from Podunk.

What's almost funny is the fact that if the government were to bypass the existing charities and create its own secular charity and just cut out the middle man the result would be......welfare.

*nikki

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: ebolamonger ]</p>

god-free-pen

------------------------------------------------

If these saintly "faith-based groups" like mainstream churches paid the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
in property taxes they should be paying, counties and cities would be able to afford first class care of the poor and needy!

Why in the hell should a bunch of holy pedophiles,
greedy, crooked, millionaire TV evangelists, be exempted from property taxes?

Alonzo Fyfe

The problem, as I see it, comes from the definition of "works", as in "this program works, therefore it should get federal funding?"

Success in the avenue of drug treatment, crime prevention, and the like is far from objective. Evaluators look at a person's life and judge whether they are on the right path.

It would be a simple matter to introduce a bias and give those who "find God" a higher ranking in terms of success than those who do not.

Thus making religious charities more "successful" because of the work they do in "converting" those who come to them for assistance.

Even though evaluators may seek to make their evaluations objective, as a matter of fact it is not possible to remove prejudice from these types of evauations -- and any attempt to try would simply generate a huge stack of paperwork and lawsuits.

All of this then yields a situation where the government is financing the recruitment of church members.

Daggah

lcb, are you really that clueless? What if there were a satanist charity group - would you want them receiving any of YOUR tax dollars? No, of course you wouldn't. Likewise, we atheists do not want to give out our tax dollars to help spread the lies of your false religion.

If this doesn't make sense to you, it's because something in YOUR head isn't wired right.

gravitybow

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin