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

Just out of curiosity, what is there to prevent the city council from rescinding or changing the policy?

0 Replies

well sure there is, as soon as Utah is no longer a theocracy.

0 Replies

There could be a gray area here. If I would be told to leave if I witnessed for my particular brand of Christianity or my church or pitched for my club or school or whatever in that place, I think that would cross the line. For a community to set and enforce its standards for decency and propriety--sort of a 'no shirt - no shoes - no service kind of thing--that I completely support whether or not I would want that same standard in my own community.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm no legal beagle either Dado, but I just know faith based organizations have been receiving government funds for decades via United Way, grants, and other sources and there was no problem at all until recently, I suppose because George Bush saw it as a way to increase benefits to people without the government having to incur so much overhead cost to provide it is part of the problem and maybe because it has been advertised as policy is a concern to some. I try to be a strict constitutionalist though and I have thought about this from every angle, and the way it is being done is helping people and is violating no law.

How do you know the way it is being done?

Quote:

NARRATOR: Despite constitutional concerns, Bush's executive agencies have already gone ahead and started funding faith-based groups. The White House acknowledges $1.1 billion spent so far, but admits it could be millions more. And determining just how much has been spent and where this money has gone is difficult.

The only program that specifically records funding to faith-based groups is called the Compassion Capital Fund run by the Department of Health and Human Services. This fund has given out $65 million dollars to what they call 'faith-friendly' organizations.

So far, only Christian groups and a handful of interfaith organizations have received direct federal funding. Jewish, Muslim and other religious charities have not, but a few of them have been supported by those who did receive the federal money.

Quote:

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: I asked Congress to join me and pass what I called the faith-based initiative, which would help change the culture of Washington and the behavior of bureaucracies. They've stalled. So I just signed an executive order.

Quote:

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: Government oftentimes will say, "Yeah, you can participate, but you've got to change your board of directors to meet our qualifications." You know, "You got to conform to our rules." The problem is, faith-based programs only conform to one set of rules, and it's bigger than government rules.

Quote:

Rev. Dr. C. WELTON GADDY, President, The Interfaith Alliance: Religious institutions, wanting federal funds, jeopardize the integrity of their freedom as and identity as religious institutions because with those federal tax dollars come federal regulations. President Bush made a speech, and in the course of his speech, he held up the Bible and said, "This is the guidebook, not federal regulations."

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: The handbook of this particular child care is a universal handbook. It's been around for a long time. It doesn't need to be invented. It's a-- let me see your handbook there. This handbook is a good book. It's a good go-by.

Source: PBS Frontline

0 Replies

Well instead of going the personally-motivated rhetoric route, why not look at the actual grants, guidelines, and policies?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well instead of going the personally-motivated rhetoric route, why not look at the actual grants, guidelines, and policies?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

So you agree then that the President's remarks were out of bounds?

In a brief perusal of the rules, they appear reasonable.

0 Replies

As far as President Bush's remarks, I would have to know the context in which it was made, and it was not put into context in the piece you copied. If he was saying that the principle is larger than government regulations, I would not fault him. If he was saying he approved violating the law, I would. Without any proof to the contrary, I have watched and listened to this man long enough to believe the former was his intent.

0 Replies

The context of his remarks was preplanned sound bites to the religious right. The link I provided can lead you to video clips, but you have already seen them, so why play unknowing?

0 Replies

The video clips are excerpted and do not show the full context, or did you refer to a clip I missed?

The point is, the president is willing to use efficient, effective faith-based organizations to distribute welfare dollars to people who need them and thereby save the government a bundle in administrative costs. He sees that the principle of helping is more important than prejudice about whatever religion the organization happens to be peddling. The principle is reflected in the Bible, not any government regulation. He isn't saying that government regulations are to be ignored but that they don't apply in this case. I don't find any fault with that.

(Edited)

0 Replies

How much more context do you need? The President was at a media event at a childcare center, hyping his Faith-Based initiative.

Taking a Bible he said this.

Quote:

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: The handbook of this particular child care is a universal handbook. It's been around for a long time. It doesn't need to be invented. It's a-- let me see your handbook there. This handbook is a good book. It's a good go-by.

The Bible may contain some good principles, but it also contains some pathetic ones.

If he had been holding a Book of Mormon, Koran or Hadith, would you still have had the same warm fuzzies for his words?

0 Replies

In a theocracy the bible is the rule book. However, regardless what the monkey in the white house says we are still and hopefully will remain a secular nation.
Bush professes to be against the concept of theocratical governments. Yet he would turn the US into a Christian theocracy given half a chance. I guess it is not the theocracy that he is against just the religion.

0 Replies

Um, I can't think of any theocracys in the world that use the Bible as a rule book. Israel might be the closest but it would be a misnomer to call Israel a theocracy. Most theocracies I'm aware of use various interpretations of the Quran.

As Bush has made no move to turn the USA into a theocracy, I think Au's opinion about that is a litte off. Make that a mile off......

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Um, I can't think of any theocracys in the world that use the Bible as a rule book.

The Holy See.

0 Replies

Foxy
Given half a chance Ayatollah Bush would along with his compatriots {Born again Christians} have us living to their religious beliefs. When I hear the president of the US saying that the bible is the law of the land I get anything but a fuzzy feeling.

0 Replies

There are those who might want the US to be a theocracy, however, or, at the very least, a country that only respects their own religious views.

The fact that the Sec'y of Education can speak out against a kids TV program because the family presented doesn't reflect her own religious world view is an example of this.

And that's why many of us are against federal funding for the some of the same groups trying to control our national culture.

0 Replies

Then why don't you guys elect a president of your liking who will cut out all faith based groups and do it exactly like you want it done? Good luck in getting the help to the people who need it though because it is those terrible, icky people with a particular religious world view who are doing most of the work in that area. And you better dig deeper into your pockets too because it's going to cost you a lot more money to get the same results.

Or maybe you could set aside your prejudices in favor of actually helping people who need help.

0 Replies

The president should be just that the president of the US not as this guys is wont to be, a pastor. Frankly I am tired of having his religion thrown in my face.

0 Replies

I guess you don't mind the religion of Jesse Jackson being thrown around.

Why is it Conservatives who talk religion make people nervous but libs with religion don't?

0 Replies

I am not a fan of Jesse Jackson, and have not paid much attention to him, and I do not recall him being much of a Bible thumper even though he did use the title Reverend.

I would prefer all politicians regardless of party to leave their superstitions out of governance.

It could be that the reason that conservatives get get criticized more is that many conservatives tend to be affiliated with the more fundamental activist superstitions.

0 Replies

And maybe it's those who presume to denigrate a person's faith who spooked a majority of Americans to put one of those 'superstitious' characters back into the White House and increased their numbers in the House, Senate, and state legislatures. If being religious is a handicap, this country would never have elected its first slate of elected offiicials who were far more openly religious than anyone in Washington now.

It is no mystery that the very first Amendment to the Constitution directly protects the rights of Americans to be reliigious in any way they choose that does not violate the rights of others.

I think those same founding fathers would have heartily approved President Bush's faith based initiatives to help people. For the life of me I can't understand the kind of prejudice that would deny people very real material help because it is dispensed by somebody who openly professes a belief in God.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know