Reply
Mon 3 Jan, 2005 06:44 am
Quote:The government gave more than $1 billion in 2003 to organizations it considers "faith-based," with some going to programs where prayer and spiritual guidance are central and some to organizations that do not consider themselves religious at all.
Many of these groups have entirely secular missions and some organizations were surprised to find their names on a list of faith-based groups provided to The Associated Press by the White House.
"Someone has obviously designated us a faith-based organization, but we don't recognize ourselves as that," said Stacey Denaux, executive director of Crisis Ministries, a homeless shelter and soup kitchen in Charleston, S.C.
Other grant recipients are religious, offering social service programs that the government may have deemed too religious to receive money before President Bush took office.
Visitors to TMM Family Services in Tucson, Ariz., which received $25,000 for housing counseling, are greeted by a picture of Jesus and quotes from the Bible.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050103/D87CAFL00.html
Well, the citizens of the US can finally know where their tax money is going, as far as "faith based initiatives" are concerned. The following link will give you the information, state by state, about how much money is going where.
What do you think about this? Do you think that our tax monies are being spent appropriately?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/faithbased/index.html?
Re: U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003
Phoenix32890 wrote:Well, the citizens of the US can finally know where their tax money is going, as far as "faith based initiatives" are concerned.
This is even more astonishing for me: why didn't someone know this before, I mean, at times, when the budget was discussed?
I have an attitude, I voted never.
"An AP analysis of the $1.17 billion and nearly 150 interviews in 30 states with grant recipients found:
_Many are well-established, large social service providers that have received federal money for decades. More than 80 percent of recipients at HHS had received federal money before. At HUD, the figure was 93 percent.
_Two programs account for half of the $1.17 billion total: A HUD program known as Section 202 that builds housing for low-income poor people, and Head Start, a large preschool program for poor children. Both of them are dominated by longtime grant recipients that able to handle large amounts of money - not the small church groups sometimes evoked by the White House.
_Many organizations insist they do not belong on a list of "faith-based organizations," even though they may have religious roots.
Some have no connection at all to religion, such as You Gotta Believe!, a Brooklyn, N.Y.-based group that finds permanent homes for teenagers in foster care. The name is not intended to invoke a belief in God, but the belief that there is a home somewhere for every child."
I'm not sure if the writer is exagerating the point based upon the excerpt above.
Does the US constitution carry any weight with this administration? Yes, if Bush can use it to his advantage. Where he cannot it might just have been written on tissue paper with disappearing ink. The separation of Church and state is a defining principle in the constitution that this administration is making every effort to diminish and if possible to do away with. Religion and government mix as well as oil and water. The poison of religion should never be allowed to seep into the governing of this nation.
au1929 wrote:Does the US constitution carry any weight with this administration? Yes, if Bush can use it to his advantage. Where he cannot it might just have been written on tissue paper with disappearing ink. The separation of Church and state is a defining principle in the constitution that this administration is making every effort to diminish and if possible to do away with. Religion and government mix as well as oil and water. The poison of religion should never be allowed to seep into the governing of this nation.
"_Two programs account for half of the $1.17 billion total: A HUD program known as Section 202 that builds housing for low-income poor people, and Head Start, a large preschool program for poor children. Both of them are dominated by longtime grant recipients that able to handle large amounts of money - not the small church groups sometimes evoked by the White House. "
So you want to eliminate HUD?
I'm with dys.
Never. Ever.
Never ever.
I voted "Yes, with a caveat." Secular operations of religious groups should not be discriminated against. That being the case (in my opinion), why call it "Faith Based" in the first place.
I want a complete schism between church and state. The fantasy that money given to faith based charities will not in part be used to fund religious activities is fallacy.
I voted no-never with a cravat (well, actually it's a bolo tie with a pretty stone).
roger wrote:I voted "Yes, with a caveat." Secular operations of religious groups should not be discriminated against. That being the case (in my opinion), why call it "Faith Based" in the first place.
I totally agree. I chose Never, but based on the 'why call it Faith Based' rationale.
5 to 3 to 0, I think we have a mandate let's change the supreme court to our advantage (and toss ethics out of the house and senate while we have the political capital, as if the house or senate ever had ethics.)
What is the issue with faith-based charities?
Do you believe they only help people of the same faith? That they only help those that go to church? That they force people to pray?
I believe this is much ado over nothing.
Okay, so are you saying that if there are 2 drug programs, 1 faith-based and 1 not, even if the faith-based program was successful and the other wasn't, you would fund the unsuccessful program rather than the successful one?
Funding programs that work, regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation is not establishing a religion - it's spending money where it will do the most good. The establishment clause says the government cannot force everyone to join a specific religion; it does not require the government to discriminate against religious-based organizations with grant money.
I have never seen, or heard, of any religious organization that did not discriminate. It's built in.
dys- The ONLY reason that I was hired by the agency that I worked in, was it because it was in a division that was partially supported by public monies. They were forced not to discriminate, by federal law. The rest of the agency, where the programs were funded solely from their own funds, was manned completely by people who were of the faith of the agency.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace