BUSH'S RELIGIOUS INITIATIVES

Setanta- I am VERY concerned that the taxpayer will be paying for the dissemination of religion information and precepts.

Understand, this is NOT the first time that taxpayer money has been used to fund programs offered through religious auspices. In fact, my career had involved such a situation. When the government (in the late 1970s) wanted to develop certain programs that had heretofore been conducted by the State, they approached organizations (including religious based ones) who already had a presence in the community.

What was found, was that the non-profits did a better job, and a much cheaper cost, than the State civil service equivalents.

What disturbed me, was that there WERE judgements and decisions that we had to be made based on the religious precepts of the organization who were handing out our paychecks. Over the years, there were many times that I had to grapple with my conscience.

The conclusion that I came to was, "buy the premise, buy the package". I knew that I was doing a lot of very good work. I promised myself, that if I found that the decisions that I had to make became aversive to me morally, I would walk. We did find some creative workarounds to counter the directives of the sponsoring organization.

I am extremely disturbed by Bush's rush to hand out money to religious based groups wholesale though. I think that he has an agenda, and as a non-believer, I think that it violates MY rights, and the rights of many other people. Additionally, I really don't care for the government spending MY tax money in this way.

I agree with Phoenix on this one. It appears he just wants to hand over millions to those who support him being in office, like payoffs. What was that failed military test that cost us eighty million dollars? Eighty million dollars! It blew by so fast on the national news, I almost didn't hear it.

If I were in need of any of those funds or services I would be very resentful if I had to approach a religious group for access.

Since the government is indulging in tithing, I wonder if preaching is next on their agenda? It's certainly been entertained in the past and leaders indeed feel obligated to pontificate but how far should they go in advocating their own religion? They would be creating yet another bureaucracy in the central government when rehab and other such services should be performed by the states with help of national government money. On this subject, I tend toward a conservative viewpoint of state's rights but I prefer to call it state's responsibility. That responsibility includes not paying for throwing victimless drug and alcohol offenders into jail but ordering them to try rehab and/or a 12 step program. I say "try," because anyone knows it is an attempt to get straight and sober and often takes more than one time to succeed. If jail is the only option, I believe we'd see a lot more successes with some leniency for one or two failures. Where the gigantic bureaucracy comes in is those who have to judge who gets the money and the oversight -- isn't that going to be just as costly as offering rehab programs within the states or maybe even more so? Hey, if the government wants to indulge in promoting religion, why not have clerics indulge in governing? Hmmm...I believe that's called a theocracy. By any chance, could that be a hidden agenda of any of our leaders, legislators and judges?

I realize the statement doesn't include helping the poor and homeless, something religions should be doing anyway instead of building grossly commercial "worshipping" structures, buying real estate and operating commercial enterprises -- St. Francis may be looking down at them every day and shaking his head.

On the surface it could be a good idea-----but there is money and in some cases BIG money involved. That demands accountability and who is going to provide the accountability? Does anyone know? I suspect it could be another blind sinkhole for our tax money. Who will have the jusisdiction for oversight ?

Hey, perception, something we apparently agree on. It is forced philanthropy, not that our government hasn't indulged in it before. Why not an extra tax credit for contributing to institutions not just including religious that help those in trouble? Then again, this would tend to channel a person's contributions away from, say, medical research. Of course, medical research on what causes addictions is extremely important. Homelessness is often associated with alcohol and drug abuse but not always. The accountability/oversight will be a gigantic task and if that process is short of funds, it can be taken advantage of or there will be errors in the process. Can't predicate it on the notion that religious organizations are an efficient bureaucracy any more than government, or, for that matter, any more than a huge corporation. Golly, if only all services and products would work like 3 Day Blind!

<dog-earing>

You already get one. It's called "charitable contributions" and is deductable on your annual income tax return.

You're reading too quickly, fishin', and why would you think I didn't know there isn't a charitable contribution deduction on our tax forms? I meant something like a double or perhaps 50% greater deduction, of course.

I didn't say you were unaware of the the deduction. Some reading this forum however, don't fill out US tax forms so they may not be aware that donations can be deducted.

I don't think a deduction greater than the amount donated would settle well for most people though. The only one's that could take significant advantage of it would be those at the highest end of the income scale. A dollar for dollar offset seems to be a simple and fair solution from a tax perspective.

Sorry if I misread your intent although I can't believe there's anyone that isn't aware these contributions are deductible.

Corporations have programs now that are not in themselves religious to provide rehab for employees including time off while guranteeing their job when they return. Tax incentives to business and foundations to handle the job with even more depth without the condition of a religious solution, not to say that these programs wouldn't encourage a 12 step program which is next door to a religious program (their substitution of a higher power has caught on in modern society), would seem to be the right course to me.

Compassionate corporations, that is -- which are probably in short supply.

Religion and Government mix about as well as oil and water.
One need only look around the world and see the damage done when that occurs.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.
In other words stay out of my backyard and I will stay out of yours.

It was tried with the Holy Roman Empire which led to the Dark Ages for as Voltaire pointed out, it was "neither Holy, Roman or an Empire."

Of course, charitable contributions are only deductable if you itemize, which only makes sense if your itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction. Now, if you want to see an increase in donations, lower the standard deduction by some amount, and allow deductions on the 1040A or 1040 EZ in the same amount.

That's a good idea, roger.

The verdict here seems rather unanimous. However, no one appears to have addressed what may be the central issue here. That is whether the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of a particular religion also requires the government to be hands off to all religion or, through the scale of its new social activities, displace religions from activities that have long been theirs.

There is a real question here because, in the view of many, the government is, in effect ,creating its own secular religion through its expanding indoctrination of the public in matters of behavior and political correctitude. That has far-reaching implications that no one here has addressed.

Secondly there is the matter of the relative effectiveness of bureaucratically administered government social programs and those run independently by religious groups. In general, in activities ranging from schools to the care of indigent people, the latter have a far better record of achievement.