Bush wants Religous Groups to operate social programs

[Czar]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/596328.asp



<< The president?s message was that religious freedom should also mean freedom for religious groups to operate social programs with help from the government.

?Today I call on the Congress to pass laws promoting and encouraging faith-based and community groups in their important public work ? and to never discriminate against them,? he said. >>



So what do you think about this?

Personaly I think its a bit scary, its a good idea if the point of these social programs are to help people, but its very likeley that it will end up as another &quot;you must be saved&quot; crusade

 

[Elledan]

&quot; Some of the skepticism about Bush?s initiative stems from questions about whether tax dollars would help pay for programs that mix religion with social services ? for instance, a drug treatment program that helps people overcome addiction by finding Jesus&quot;

I long for socialism.

 

[rangeLife]

You have to understand that the President isn't his own man or someone who can make his own decisions. He is a man who is bought and sold, and Religious based groups have bought a large portion of Bush. I just see it as them trying to get their money's worth, which is unfortunate for those who don't believe in god or religions (myself included).

 

[Linflas]

Perhaps it is the realization that many of these groups were out providing support like this long before the government became involved. The Salvation Army puts 90% of the contributions it receives into the programs it runs for helping the destitute. Compare this with some charities that use upwards of 50% of contributions for &quot;overhead&quot; costs. It is sad that TV evangelists have given faith based organizations such a bad name but judging them all by the actions of these few is not valid. Why is it a bad thing to try this and see if it works? It is clear that many of the programs we have tried for the past 40 years have not worked.

 

[Tiger]

Good points Linflas.

Most of these groups are down shoulder to shoulder with the people who need help and know what needs to be done. If you want your tax dollars to get the most bang for the buck that's the way to do it, not some humongous government bureuaracracy that at best is 50% efficient. The Salvation Army is a perfect example. They don't force their Christian views on anyone. That's not to say they won't answer questions from people who initiate the conversation. You don't have to be Christian to receive help from the SA.

Another example is your local food pantry.
The pantry in Des Moines is run by an interfaith board representing all churches and faiths in the Des Moines area. Nobody is denied help because they aren't members of a particular faith and there is no &quot;pimping&quot; of any particular faith or religion. Compare that to the paperwork and bureuaracracy involved in getting the same help from the government.

A lot of people could be helped quicker and more efficiently if we'd just get over this irrational fear of &quot;Faith Based&quot;.

 

[Czar]

This quote that Elledan pasted just shows how this can end up, this does not seem to be freedom of religion. I´d love to see muslims and buddists be a part of this to.

This quote is from that news article.



<< Some of the skepticism about Bush?s initiative stems from questions about whether tax dollars would help pay for programs that mix religion with social services ? for instance, a drug treatment program that helps people overcome addiction by finding Jesus >>

 

[Tiger]

Czar,

There's no reason why Muslims and Buddhists couldn't participate as long as they don't deny services based on religious affiliation or lack thereof.

I see the quote in Elledan's post for what it is, an attempt by the media to discredit any new ideas or ways of doing things that they don't originate.

 

[Elledan]

<< Czar,

There's no reason why Muslims and Buddhists couldn't participate as long as they don't deny services based on religious affiliation or lack thereof. >>

The US is dominated by organizations which are (faintly) based on the Christian ideology. All other religions are a minority.

 

[Tiger]

So what??

If you mean by Christian ideology that we are our neighbors keeper and that we should be individually responsible for the health and welfare of our neighbors, I agree. I don't know of any mainstream religion that doesn't have that as one of it's main tennants.

 

[RanDum72]

See, thats the problem. The seperation of church and state is not an accident. Do you think religious groups would just provide social services without the hidden agenda of recruiting the people they help into their fold? I would love to believe that notion but reality is that nothing is for free.

 

[Tiger]

IMHO it's that kind of cynicism that keeps people dependent on bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government programs.

I can't deny the possibilty that some religious group may use this as an recruiment opportunity. If so cut off the funding. In the same vein you can't deny that most government programs are setup and run to produce a co-dependent relationship between the people needing help and those running the programs.

 

[WordSmith2000]

I wonder what would happen if the Church of Satan would apply for funding?

It is a faith-based organization, after all.

 

[RanDum72]

Yes, bloated government programs are a reality but religious groups abusing faith based programs is also possible. What if the senator in your area belongs to a certain church, is it possible that his church would end up with the most funding? You bet. There will be more loop-holes to take advantage of. Faith based-programs will become money-making programs. Its business under the guise of religion. Lawmakers would have to come up with a standard to base their classification of &quot;faith-based&quot; organizations and their services, and this alone is asking for trouble. Government programs are bloated, yes, but something can be done about it, its neutral, they have standards and you don't have to look for somebody if something goes wrong.

 

[Tominator]

Actually the seperation of church and state was an accident! There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about it, but like everything else in the Liberal agenda, they got it by the courts legislateing from the bench...and THERE IS a division of power in the Constitution that is supposed to stop this.

Many States have already offered taxpayer dollars to Churchs and the like for just such programs. Many Churchs have turned the money down stateing they worry about the Government telling them what to do.

Liberals are so afraid of God that they will sacrifice the downtrodden who they claim to represent. No surprise as in Liberal-land it is how you feel, not what you do that is important.

Go ahead and flame me, I won't be back for a few days.....

 

[Czar]

If there is not a sepiration of Church and State there is not freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is I think basic human rights.

 

[etech]

That's an old tired argument that has been tried before. Does the Church of Satan have a system set up to help the poor?

Ramdun, The separation of Church and State that you refer to is a Supreme Court decision, not a tenet that this country was founded on.

Tiger, has said it well, it's the people that are afraid of trying something different that are complaining the most. The programs in place have not worked that well and are inefficient and wasteful. Of course there is the danger of fraud and abuse in this system as well. But, it is better to try and see if it works before condeming it.

Look at it this way, if hearing a five minute lecture on religion would offend people that much then it is another incentive for them not to become dependent on government handouts.

Elledan, if you were from the States then I would say be wary of what you wish for. Since you are from the Netherlands it appears you already have it and it's consequences.

 

[Czar]

<< Since you are from the Netherlands it appears you already have it and it's consequences. >>


Have what?

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Since you are from the Netherlands it appears you already have it and it's consequences. >>


Have what? >>

He means Socialism. And he's partly right, our political system has some parts in it which belong to Socialism. It comes down to that the Government provides the weaker individuals and families in society with medical care, money etc. in case someone breaks a leg, can't work (for an extended period), or has no job, etc.

I prefer this system over any faith-based system.

 

[Czar]

Ah, I agree with you, I want that system much more than faith based one, or a free capitalist system. Though I do admit I wouldnt mind moving to the Us for 2-3 years just to work and save some money

 

[Raspewtin]

thank god of religious groups who operate social programs that the Senate is controlled by Democrats now.




<< There's no reason why Muslims and Buddhists couldn't participate as long as they don't deny services based on religious affiliation or lack thereof >>



haha. boy that's naive.

 

[GL]

At first I was skeptical but I think this is a good idea. Most people involved in these programs are volunteers (as opposed to government, salaried workers) so a greater proportion of the money goes straight to what it was allocated for in the first place - helping the poor.

 

[GL]

I know that the government funds religious social programs over here. My mom's hospital was started by the Salvation Army. My cousin works at a Catholic home for unwed mothers that gets them going in the right track in life. They all receive some compensation from the government. And none forcibly promote their religion.

 

[jjm]

This is a tricky issue, and a number of the religious groups who might benefit think it's a bad idea too.

The problem is that it is being pushed by the religious right, particularly elements of the Christian Coalition. This is a back-door effort to sanction government funding of certain &quot;preferred&quot; religions.

Forget about efforts to preach, just by providing these groups with funds to handle their social work, more of their other funds will be diverted to their religious activities.

Separation of church and state was no accident. It evolved from a fear that religion would have too much influence on government, just as it had for hundreds of years before 1776. Many who fled Europe fled because of religious persecution. One religion became dominant in their home countries and began to pass legislation making it harder for other religions to practice their faith.

If the government wants to promote good works by religious groups, provide more tax benefits to compel people to donate to the church of their choice.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Liberals are so afraid of God that they will sacrifice the downtrodden who they claim to represent. No surprise as in Liberal-land it is how you feel, not what you do that is important >>

Hep Me Jeebus, Hep me!

All this will do is make more Religious Charlatans rich and increase the sale of Cadillacs in the Bible Belt. This is just G.W.Buffoon's attempt to try and pay back the Religious Right for supporting him against Sen. McCain.I predict it will fail big time.

 

[Texmaster]

<< You have to understand that the President isn't his own man or someone who can make his own decisions. He is a man who is bought and sold, and Religious based groups have bought a large portion of Bush. I just see it as them trying to get their money's worth, which is unfortunate for those who don't believe in god or religions (myself included). >>



Got any evidence to back that up or are you just ranting?