U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003

Yeah, his track record is so abominable that if he ever did try to do the right thing I probably would not trust him.

You I am sure though will continue to carry his water no matter what he does.

Are we clear on the ad hominem?

Well I did give you an 'out' with the 'seems' instead of the seemingly absolutes in which you frame your opinion of the president. But if you can show where you have approved any initiative, policy, or action of the president in much of anything, his professed faith notwithstanding, then I will agree I also dealt in an ad hominem.

Otherwise I will believe that the President does not meet your standards in much of any way.

Re: faith based $$$


Yes , I do believe they were started because of religious beliefs. Our church raised 10k specifically for a xray machine in a Nigerian hospital. Their doctor sevres both as surgeon and evangelist. We help support him. He does not require that the sick be converted. He simply demonstrates Christ's love. Many people are drawn to his kindness and choose to learn more. Again they are not required to go to church. But many do choose to.





First, I take no responsibility for the behavior of any people in a state that still elects Ted Kennedy. (just kidding)

Let's include the thirteen that may have died in prison also. That totals 37 people who died as a result of this witch hunt. There is no doubt that the persecutors were motivated in part by religion. Other things may have been factors as well, but lets focus on religion. I believe that when people are poorly educated the cure is better education. This is true of ones religious education as well. I really was not that familiar with the trials before exploring your link. But two of the men who helped bring an end to the trials were Increase Mather and his son Cotton. Increase Mather was the President of Harvard and a minister. If the local townspeople had been as knowledgeable as he was, the trials may have never happened. So while you look at the trials and see religion as the cause, I look at religion and see it as the cure. What the people needed was more religious knowledge not less.




[/QUOTE]


Do I believe in witches? You mean besides my in-laws? There are people who claim to be witches. I have never seen anything to make me believe they have any sort of "powers". I'm sure they believe in themselves though.


I don't know which passages you are referring to. There are Old Testament commands that required stoning or other punishments for a whole variety of sins. However we (christians) do not live under the old testament law. We are not saved by adherence to the law we are saved by grace. A good example is Jn 8:1-11 Here, Christ saves the woman caught in adultery and tells her to "go and sin no more". Although we are not under the old law, those old testament commands remain in the bible because they are part of the history of the Jews. Taking them out would be like rewriting their history.
Our understanding of the scriptures is very different than it was in 1692. More people are literate. The English translations are readily available. Radio, TV, and the internet make a more thorough study possible. A literal interpretation of the bible today is not the same as a literal interpretation in 1692.

Re: faith based $$$


In a historic view: yes.

And exactly because of this, they were run later by the state, country, community.

Since this seems to have degenerated into a thread on religion. I will add my two cents. IMO religion is the most divisive poison ever devised by the devious mind of men. It is responsible for more wars, burnings, massacres, genocide's, expulsions and, etc., than any other single factor through the ages.
Dafdothree wrote


Wrong, the old testament is as much a part of Christian history as it is Jewish.

One of the rare moments, I totally agree with au. Indeed: since the Old Testaments provides the basic structure of ideas in which Christianity (and Judaism) exist, someone, who denies this, doesn't have much foundamental knowledge about Christianity.

faith based $$$



Gee guys, thanks for teaching me about my religion. Don't worry I'm not insulted. I am well aware that Judaism is the foundation of Christianity. But I don't view the bible as just a book of stories. I consider it historical. So when I said those commands were part of the history of Jews, I guess I should have said Jewish people. I meant it in a historical sense not a religious one. I don't know if a person who converted from Islam, or Buddhism would consider Mosaic law part of his/her history if they are not descendants of Isaac. Especially if their ancestors had never lived under Mosaic law. Either way my point is that we are not under the Mosaic laws.
The old and new testaments need to be taken in their proper context to each other. Many of the old testament laws and practices were done away with by the new testament. This is pretty fundamental. Otherwise we would still need to make sacrifices. I think the more you learn about christianity the more you will tolerate it. The more I learn, the better I'll practice it.

According to Islamic belief, the Arabs are descendants of Abraham but descend from Ishmael rather than Isaac from whom the "12 tribes of Israel" descended. Whether one believes the Biblical history to be fact or allegory, all in fact are of semitic origin and very distantly racially related nevertheless.

And yes, it was the religious, in the name of religion, who built and staffed most of the nations first hospitals and universities and that includes Harvard and Yale. Here in the Albuquerque area the Presbyterians got here first to build schools and hospitals though the Roman Catholic influence is also very apparent.

The fact is, the huge majority of not-for-profit charitable organizations in this country were founded and are organized and run by people of faith. The most recent polling data I have seen is that 90+% of Americans believe in some form of diety or higher power. The simple fact is, people of faith are most likely to be the ones who will 'get their hands dirty' in charitable service to other people. That I believe the president fully realizes and understands and why it is 'truth in advertising' to distribute grants to people, even the religious, who are helping people. The government always has. It is just being honest about it now and allowing faith based groups to be honest in asking for and accepting the funds they use to help the less fortunate.

I think most honorable people are able to set aside their personal ideology and recognize that somebody besides their 'own kind' are actually doing good things.

Your post, as is often the case, starts with a few facts, adds stats that I suspect you're making up ("I have seen that 90+% of Americans believe in some form of diety (sic) or higher power") and then pure opinion: "The simple fact is, people of faith are most likely to be the ones who will 'get their hands dirty' in charitable service..."

Yes, as I give considerable sums to charity and have worked in charitable not-for-profit organizations, that is my opinion. You are certainly free to express your own opinion, if that is what you think, that athiests are as likely to organize and make their vocation with a not-for-profit charitable organization as is a person of faith. That just simply isn't my experience, but hey, I'll look at any data you have.

I only mention my charitable giving because I will not give money to any organization that misrepresents itself, will not make is accounting public, or doesn't meet my standards for administrative vs product ratios.

Atheist /= non-religious.

Atheism is as much of a religion as any other.

If you want truly non-religious, look to the agnostics amongst you.

Cycloptichorn

OK, here's my opinion. I give sums to charity, too, and spent years as a literacy tutor for adults. With no church involvement.

So, how about we agree to leave off generalizing about things we know nothing about?

What organization were you associated with D?

The Goodwill Literacy Center here in Seattle. They raise funds through clothing donations and teach skills to adults who need training to work.

They probably get funds from United Way, too, but I can't speak to that.

Charities

Yes. From the Seattle Goodwill web site:

Seattle Goodwill is affiliated with Goodwill Industries International, headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. Although we are a Goodwill Industries International member, each member Goodwill is independent and autonomous. Goodwill Industries International provides us with support and information to help us provide the best services and programs possible. There are 208 independent Goodwill member organizations throughout North America and around the world. Each of these organizations has similar programs and mission statements, but operates autonomously of other Goodwill organizations. The other three member Goodwill organizations in Washington State are Tacoma Goodwill Industries, headquartered in Tacoma, Goodwill Industries of the Inland Northwest, headquartered in Spokane, and Goodwill Industries of the Columbia, headquartered in Kennewick.

Goodwill International was founded early in the Twentieth Century by a Methodist Minister and its early history was mostly faith-based. I will agree that now they do operate as a mostly secular organization, though Goodwill in Albuquerque is headed by committed Christians, and I would lay odds that is the case pretty much everywhere. It is an exceeding efficiently run organization in most places and does good work and espouses good conservative values emphasizing the importance of pride in working for something.

Anyhow good for you D. I have done a bit of that too for another organization and it is very rewarding.

separation of church and state

Most Goodwill organizations do not bill themselves as religious organizations these days because some of their activities put them in a legal gray area to qualify as a 'church' but do not disqualify them from being not-for-profit charitable organizations. So its simpler not to be classified as a religious organization. Nevertheless, it is mostly the religious who operate the Goodwill chapters.

It just goes back to my original opinion that it is far more likely that people of faith will be those willing to 'get their hands dirty' serving the less fortunate in such organizations. That does not presume that all the employees or even all the volunteers will be people of faith; however, I think the non-religious or anti-religious will be in a very small minority in most of these organizations.

This is a slightly different slant on the thesis of this thread, but it does go back to comments that have been made in the posts on the thread.

What if the government got out of the business of charity altogether?

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

NOT YOURS TO GIVE

Charity to man's fellow man is praiseworthy, and Americans are the most generous people on Earth. According to a quote by American philanthropist Daniel Rose in "An Exceptional Nation," an article in Philanthropy magazine (November/December 2004), "American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Americans contribute six or seven times more than some of our European neighbors.

What about President Bush's $350 million commitment for earthquake and tsunami relief -- is that just as praiseworthy? Let's look at it. Charity is reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need. Reaching into someone else's pocket to assist one's fellow man hardly qualifies as charity. When done privately, we deem it theft, and the individual risks jail time.

What would some of our ancestors say about government "charity"? James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, in a January 1794 speech in the House of Representatives, "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

A few years later, Virginia Rep. William Giles condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."
Unlike President Bush, a few of our former presidents understood that charity is not a government function. Franklin Pierce, our 14th president, vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

In 1887, President Grover Cleveland, our 22nd and 24th president, said, when he vetoed a bill to assist drought-inflicted counties in Texas, "I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Tennessee Rep. Col. Davy Crockett, in speech before the House of Representatives, said, in protest against a $10,000 appropriation for a widow of a distinguished naval officer, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress, we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

I'd like to ask President Bush and members of the 109th Congress whether they've discovered the constitutional authority for charitable expenditures undiscovered by James Madison, William Giles, Presidents Franklin Pierce and Grover Cleveland, and Davy Crockett. Major U.S. companies, such as American Express, Pfizer, Exxon Mobil and General Motors donated millions of dollars to tsunami relief efforts. Like those of the Bush administration and Congress, their actions aren't praiseworthy at all. The CEOs who authorized these "charitable" donations were reaching not into their own pockets but into the pockets of their shareholders.

I get the feeling that the train of constitutional principles has left the station and the recent tsunami episode is simply another symptom of American obliviousness to constitutional government. Today's politicians can't be held fully responsible for our abandonment of constitutional government. While they can be blamed for not being statesmen, the lion's share of the blame rests with 280 million Americans. Elected officials simply mirror public misunderstanding or contempt for constitutional principles. Tragically, adherence to the constitutional values of men like James Madison and Davy Crockett would spell political suicide in today's America.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/give.html