NationStates Jolt Archive

Can someone please explain the logic of this type of funding being pushed by the Bush administration? Because everyway i play it out, it just doesnt make sense.

Can someone please explain the logic of this type of funding being pushed by the Bush administration? Because everyway i play it out, it just doesnt make sense.


Why not..that's how charities used to be done...Before FDR's New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's crap took hold...the Government isn't supposed to be in the business of handouts..that's not how it was designed..and it's not how it should be.

many churches run charities.
they have homeless shelters, drug rehabs, afterschool programs, work training. all sorts of things big and small

in the past they tended to be kept out of the federal funding mainstream because of the religious aspects of their programs.

pres bush feels that because they do good work cheaply, its stupid to not have them be eligible for federal funds just because they make people say a prayer or 2

im not sure what the rules used to be or what they are now so i dont know just how much i hate the idea of giving money to churches. i am deeply suspicious of it.

I don't know, but I don't think charity is charity if the president gives you money to do it.

If I were a leader, I'd pull all religious funding and tax churches, but that's because I'm suspicious of religion so I can't give an unbiased judgement of US religious policy.

Because i feel that whoever decides where the money will go, chances are they are christian. So i feel like they will be biased, and contribute to mostly christian groups. Its probable too that the sheer numbers ar there, but i just think that in many cases a christian organization will be picked over other groups. I mean can you honestly see any popular politician contributing to a Muslim run organization? (you know its probably tied to terrorism in some way!!!!) Silly definitions, i just feel like it excludes.

I don't know, but I don't think charity is charity if the president gives you money to do it.

If I were a leader, I'd pull all religious funding and tax churches, but that's because I'm suspicious of religion so I can't give an unbiased judgement of US religious policy.

yes i agree wiht taxing, they should pay like everyone else damn it!

Why not..that's how charities used to be done...Before FDR's New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's crap took hold...the Government isn't supposed to be in the business of handouts..that's not how it was designed..and it's not how it should be.

That doesn't explain a "faith based" initiative, though. If the government isn't in the business of giving handouts (which I agree it shouldn't be), then why are we setting up a restricted class of handouts that are only available to certain charities? It seems like it's taking a bad idea and making it even worse.

I work for one of the largest and oldest not-for-profits in the country and we strive very hard to not take government money because then we are, in effect, beholden to government influence. Our support comes from our donors and volunteers, so it can be done. However, it concerns me when the government starts setting up protected funds in this manner. Why this assumption that a faith based charity can be more successful than a secular one and is somehow more worthy of government funding which probably shouldn't be handed out in the first place?

*lines up faith-based initiatives against the wall*

ready...

aim...

fire...

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

That doesn't explain a "faith based" initiative, though. If the government isn't in the business of giving handouts (which I agree it shouldn't be), then why are we setting up a restricted class of handouts that are only available to certain charities? It seems like it's taking a bad idea and making it even worse.

Especially when said charities are often trying to indoctrinate those that come to them and do not use hiring practices consistent with government regulations.

Why this assumption that a faith based charity can be more successful than a secular one and is somehow more worthy of government funding which probably shouldn't be handed out in the first place?

Easy - God told Bush to do it.

*lines up faith-based initiatives against the wall*

ready...

aim...

fire...

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:


Don't put them down til you've needed them....there are many success stories of religous-based charities and organizations..the Salvation Army for one...Alchoholics Anonymous is another

The problem with it is:

The way the current Faith Based Initiatives (FBI) funding is being distributed greatly favors Evangelical Christian (ECs) groups over all denominations. Frontline has done an excellent analysis on this. Great for the ECs, but it occurs to me that there are at least one or two Americans that aren't Evangelical Christians...

It greatly blurs the important line between Church and State. Some may argue that there shouldn't be/isn'/never was such a separation. It's usually made by those with something to gain by such blurring.
IMHO - that's a shortisghted, and frankly immoral approach

The establishment of a "social safety net" is moral, sensible, and in our best interests. A hungry man is an angry man. Welfare is a comparatively small expense from US budget standpoint. It seems despicable to me that people (especially those professing to be Christians) use it as a wedge issue for political gain.

What precisely defines the role of government when it comes to such things? IMHO government shouldn't be "in the business" of anything.

It's not a business. It's a burden we must all shoulder to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posperity..."

If you oppose handouts for the poor, do you also oppose them for Corporations, and the wealthy? Did you agree with the recent tax cuts? Should corporations using offshore tax shelters be given lucrative gov't contracts, and enjoy taxpayer-paid military protection abroad?

jlk

Don't put them down til you've needed them....there are many success stories of religous-based charities and organizations..the Salvation Army for one...Alchoholics Anonymous is another

OK I will wait until I need them to put them down. :cool:

Simple economics. George W Bush gets a whole mass of funding and support from the religious right. Like investors anywhere, they expect a return on their investment: so George is giving it to them. Just like he has to Halliburton and all his other loyal supporters. Why else would they shell out tens of millions of $$$ to secure a job which only offered their boy $200,000 p.a.? (although it should be pointed out that in 2001 George got a 100% pay rise and now earns $400,000 p.a., with all those holidays on top. A sweet little deal, but he'll still have to be President for a long, long life to make back what was laid out.)

In short: quid pro quo.

Don't put them down til you've needed them....there are many success stories of religous-based charities and organizations..the Salvation Army for one...Alchoholics Anonymous is another

yes but things like the salvation army discriminate (against homosexuals for one), someone had mentioned hiring practices, and faith bases organizations like to NOT hire people who don't conform to their beliefs.

The problem with it is:

The way the current Faith Based Initiatives (FBI) funding is being distributed greatly favors Evangelical Christian (ECs) groups over all denominations. Frontline has done an excellent analysis on this. Great for the ECs, but it occurs to me that there are at least one or two Americans that aren't Evangelical Christians...

It greatly blurs the important line between Church and State. Some may argue that there shouldn't be/isn'/never was such a separation. It's usually made by those with something to gain by such blurring.
IMHO - that's a shortisghted, and frankly immoral approach

The establishment of a "social safety net" is moral, sensible, and in our best interests. A hungry man is an angry man. Welfare is a comparatively small expense from US budget standpoint. It seems despicable to me that people (especially those professing to be Christians) use it as a wedge issue for political gain.

What precisely defines the role of government when it comes to such things? IMHO government shouldn't be "in the business" of anything.

It's not a business. It's a burden we must all shoulder to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posperity..."

If you oppose handouts for the poor, do you also oppose them for Corporations, and the wealthy? Did you agree with the recent tax cuts? Should corporations using offshore tax shelters be given lucrative gov't contracts, and enjoy taxpayer-paid military protection abroad?

jlk

Key word there..."promote" the general welfare....to encourage....doesn't and never has meant.."to pay for the individual welfare".....especially if your ass can work just like anyone else.

yes but things like the salvation army discriminate (against homosexuals for one), someone had mentioned hiring practices, and faith bases organizations like to NOT hire people who don't conform to their beliefs.

But were are not discussing the employement prospects of these organizations, but the efforts they are putting out. Does it matter if the Salvation Army doesn't hire homosexuals if they help feed the homeless, help the victims of fire or flood?

Because i feel that whoever decides where the money will go, chances are they are christian. So i feel like they will be biased, and contribute to mostly christian groups. Its probable too that the sheer numbers ar there, but i just think that in many cases a christian organization will be picked over other groups. I mean can you honestly see any popular politician contributing to a Muslim run organization? (you know its probably tied to terrorism in some way!!!!) Silly definitions, i just feel like it excludes.

in theory

IN THEORY

these funds are given out on the basis of guidelines that any charity has to follow. no elected official hands them out, its all bureaucrats.

i dont THINK (who can be sure when its a republican administration) that there are funds specifically earmarked for religious charities.

thus, in theory, an islamic charity has as much chance as a christian charity to receive government funds if they do identical work.

if *I* were in a denomination looking for federal money i would have to wonder what control the government is gonna ask of me for its money. the seperation of church and state is as important for the church as it is for the state.

But were are not discussing the employement prospects of these organizations, but the efforts they are putting out. Does it matter if the Salvation Army doesn't hire homosexuals if they help feed the homeless, help the victims of fire or flood?

we are talking about employment if its government funding, i.e. my money. I dont see why homosexuals should be discriminated against and then my money going to such groups. It sends out a message if the gov. accepts and helps perpetuate such organizations. they should get money through non-public funds.

many churches run charities.
they have homeless shelters, drug rehabs, afterschool programs, work training. all sorts of things big and small

in the past they tended to be kept out of the federal funding mainstream because of the religious aspects of their programs.

Federal funding isn't necessary to run a successful charity. Many of these same groups and organizations were just as well funded if not better funded than organizations that sought government funds because they had an inherant giving base on which to rely, namely their church. Groups that doesn't have this built-in giving base are now losing what is occasionally a life-saving source of funding while religious groups are gaining a new one.


pres bush feels that because they do good work cheaply, its stupid to not have them be eligible for federal funds just because they make people say a prayer or 2

But many secular charities also do good work cheeply, so why is it now "more fair" to cut them out of the pie, simply because they don't base their work on a spiritual calling? This seems to tap dance dangerously close to separation of church and state and it concerns me that my tax dollars are to be used in this manner, to advocate for a church or a charity that I don't particularly support. While they've always been used this way to an extent, at least the field was open. Now, a specific bias is being introduced and that is worrying.


im not sure what the rules used to be or what they are now so i dont know just how much i hate the idea of giving money to churches. i am deeply suspicious of it.

Well, that's the thing, money shouldn't be given to churches, it's enough that they're tax exempt, it should be given to charities. Those charities, if they are going to recieve funding, should in turn make sure they accept all calls for help that come to them, not on the basis of a personal faith. My concern is that, by encouraging a 'faith-based' government subsidy system, those faith-based charities will either not offer services to those outside their faith or make their services conditional on conversion. Or that money going to church sponsored charities will find it's way into promotion of that church rather than into support of the cause. Both of these are unacceptable.

But were are not discussing the employement prospects of these organizations, but the efforts they are putting out. Does it matter if the Salvation Army doesn't hire homosexuals if they help feed the homeless, help the victims of fire or flood?

If the SA are going to take government money, made up from taxes paid by, amongst other people, homosexuals, then quite possibly yes.

we are talking about employment if its government funding, i.e. my money. I dont see why homosexuals should be discriminated against and then my money going to such groups. It sends out a message if the gov. accepts and helps perpetuate such organizations. they should get money through non-public funds.

Your priorities are misplaced...it is the effort that is important..not the organization....when you are trying to reclaim your life after a flood, and the Salvation Army is there with blankets, hot coffee and emergency funds to help get you into a hotel overnite....that recipient really doesn't care if the Salvation Army doesn't hire homosexuals.

Key word there..."promote" the general welfare....to encourage....doesn't and never has meant.."to pay for the individual welfare".....especially if your ass can work just like anyone else.

But Salishe, you are incorrectly categorizing the majority of welfare programs and assuming they are just paying for indigents. By far, most welfare dollars go to families who are indeed working, but who need help in areas like child care and housing or who's paychecks do not cover basic month to month living expenses. The "Welfare Queen" myth of Reagan is just that, a myth. No one "lives well" on welfare, but for the majority of those who need it, it provides an important lifeline until they can improve their situation.

Federal funding isn't necessary to run a successful charity. Many of these same groups and organizations were just as well funded if not better funded than organizations that sought government funds because they had an inherant giving base on which to rely, namely their church. Groups that doesn't have this built-in giving base are now losing what is occasionally a life-saving source of funding while religious groups are gaining a new one.



But many secular charities also do good work cheeply, so why is it now "more fair" to cut them out of the pie, simply because they don't base their work on a spiritual calling? This seems to tap dance dangerously close to separation of church and state and it concerns me that my tax dollars are to be used in this manner, to advocate for a church or a charity that I don't particularly support. While they've always been used this way to an extent, at least the field was open. Now, a specific bias is being introduced and that is worrying.



Well, that's the thing, money shouldn't be given to churches, it's enough that they're tax exempt, it should be given to charities. Those charities, if they are going to recieve funding, should in turn make sure they accept all calls for help that come to them, not on the basis of a personal faith. My concern is that, by encouraging a 'faith-based' government subsidy system, those faith-based charities will either not offer services to those outside their faith or make their services conditional on conversion. Or that money going to church sponsored charities will find it's way into promotion of that church rather than into support of the cause. Both of these are unacceptable.
i dont disagree with you, im just giving my understanding if giving money to churches

why deny a charity federal funding just because it is run by a church? it is my understanding that they have to be doing certain types of works covered by federal funding.

homeless shelters for example. if, say a small town like i live in, has ONE homeless shelter (we have none) run by the local catholic church, why shouldnt they be able to get the kind of federal support that would allow them to do a better job just because they are a church?

the church charities will compete with the secular charities on an even playing field.

i share your concern about denying aid to people of other faiths or coercing recipients into conversions or having it be a way to support the church (because now they can use their private charity money for religious purposes instead of charity work)

id much rather have it be under strict guidelines with federal mandates such as non discrimination in hiring practices.

To me, it's just a way to provide funds to the Christian Right (read Evangelical Christians) since it seems to biased away from traditional churches. In return they campaign for him.

But Salishe, you are incorrectly categorizing the majority of welfare programs and assuming they are just paying for indigents. By far, most welfare dollars go to families who are indeed working, but who need help in areas like child care and housing or who's paychecks do not cover basic month to month living expenses. The "Welfare Queen" myth of Reagan is just that, a myth. No one "lives well" on welfare, but for the majority of those who need it, it provides an important lifeline until they can improve their situation.

It's not a myth Berk...and you'd know that I'm sure from one look at Section 8 HUD housing...when you have not one generation living on welfare, but 2 or 3 and in some cases..4..A temporary lifeline yes....I agree..that was its intended position....but now it's little more then a check payable too. It should not be my problem or my money that helps someone else cover their expenses..they do that by getting a job..if one doesn't do it..you get 2..my mother had 3 jobs at one time..never took a dime of welfare or WIC, or Medicaid.

Your priorities are misplaced...it is the effort that is important..not the organization....when you are trying to reclaim your life after a flood, and the Salvation Army is there with blankets, hot coffee and emergency funds to help get you into a hotel overnite....that recipient really doesn't care if the Salvation Army doesn't hire homosexuals.

Is the US crying out for Sally Army flood relief, to the extent that federal funds can be channeled to discriminatory organisations who refuse to treat all US citizens as equals? Maybe this is Bush's attempt to prepare for global warming: he's going to found the Salvation Navy.

It's not a myth Berk...and you'd know that I'm sure from one look at Section 8 HUD housing...when you have not one generation living on welfare, but 2 or 3 and in some cases..4..A temporary lifeline yes....I agree..that was its intended position....but now it's little more then a check payable too. It should not be my problem or my money that helps someone else cover their expenses..they do that by getting a job..if one doesn't do it..you get 2..my mother had 3 jobs at one time..never took a dime of welfare or WIC, or Medicaid.

I'm not saying abuses don't occur, but they are not the majority of cases. I agree that your mother's solution was the best, but if there are no jobs to be had or if you can't get work or can't work because of a disability then you're just out of luck.

actually im suspicious anytime the republican party wants to spend money

when they party of smaller government gets out the federal checkbook i never like what they are going to spend it on. its never "smaller"

Is the US crying out for Sally Army flood relief, to the extent that federal funds can be channeled to discriminatory organisations who refuse to treat all US citizens as equals? Maybe this is Bush's attempt to prepare for global warming: he's going to found the Salvation Navy.

And yes..part of the US has cried for relief....Tornado Alley up from Texas thru Ohio..Hurricane systems that devastated Homestead Fl and a majority of south Florida...wildfires out west....

I can tell you from personal experience..when the Tennessee river rises due to seasonal rains and my Uncle's house was lifted off it's foundation to go swimming he didn't give one rat's ass whether or not any of the charities that helped out did or didnt hire homosexuals.

Why not..that's how charities used to be done...Before FDR's New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's crap took hold...the Government isn't supposed to be in the business of handouts..that's not how it was designed..and it's not how it should be.

Yes, because I'm sure these people aren't embarrassed enough to have to ask for help, but then to have to sit through a god lecture, I'm sure that's the way to go.. so much for separation of church & state.. any more American fundamental rights Bush would like to mess with?

i dont disagree with you, im just giving my understanding if giving money to churches

why deny a charity federal funding just because it is run by a church? it is my understanding that they have to be doing certain types of works covered by federal funding.

Fair enough, but why give preferrential treatment to a charity just because it's being run by a church? Particularly if that charity is descriminatory in it's hiring or in the clients it serves?


homeless shelters for example. if, say a small town like i live in, has ONE homeless shelter (we have none) run by the local catholic church, why shouldnt they be able to get the kind of federal support that would allow them to do a better job just because they are a church?

That's a good point. They shouldn't so long as it's understood that this money is specifically for the charitable organization, not for the religious institution and that the organization, by taking this money, agrees that it will not descriminate either in it's hiring or in who it provides it's services to based on faith issues. But why should organizations like the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association or the National Kidney Foundation should be cut out of that funding simply because they do not act in a "faith-based" capacity?


the church charities will compete with the secular charities on an even playing field.

They already do. The church charities have a built-in giving system and support network that secular charities lack.


i share your concern about denying aid to people of other faiths or coercing recipients into conversions or having it be a way to support the church (because now they can use their private charity money for religious purposes instead of charity work)

id much rather have it be under strict guidelines with federal mandates such as non discrimination in hiring practices.

Exactly. I'm not saying don't do it, although it seems to support a "charity tier" system in this country where faith-based charities are "the best" and secular not-for-profits are just out of luck. Just make sure that there are very strict guidelines and accounting for where the money goes, how it's spent and that there is a clear separation between the policies of the church and the policies of the charity, one being a religious organization and the other, a business.

And yes..part of the US has cried for relief....Tornado Alley up from Texas thru Ohio..Hurricane systems that devastated Homestead Fl and a majority of south Florida...wildfires out west....

I can tell you from personal experience..when the Tennessee river rises due to seasonal rains and my Uncle's house was lifted off it's foundation to go swimming he didn't give one rat's ass whether or not any of the charities that helped out did or didnt hire homosexuals.

But they didn't cry out just to the Salvation Army. They cried out to the federal government, to the Red Cross and to an expansive network of support groups and charitable organizations across the US. Why should the Salvation Army be given special consideration simply because of it's faith-based nature and the rest of those organizations that spring to help in catastrophes be left in the cold? Does the Salvation Army provide that much of the safety network that it deserves to not only get the biggest share of the pie but have it actively guarded for it?

why deny a charity federal funding just because it is run by a church?

separation of church and state thats why

and anyway, why not give federal moneys to faith based organizations if they stop discriminating. If they make things equal and adhere to the laws eveyrone else does. Its wrong to discriminate, and its wrong for tax money to go to places which discriminate and wrong for that governement to discriminate in choosing the places that money goes to. why cant the people donate themselves, private funding?

separation of church and state thats why
*GASP*
are you trying to bring the constitution into this?

you know politicians only care about the constitution when its in their own interest to bring it up

*GASP*
are you trying to bring the constitution into this?

you know politicians only care about the constitution when its in their own interest to bring it up

Heh, good point, unfortunately. Sort of like The Bible.

Pre-emptive response to anyone who brings up Seperation of Church and State and its lack of mention in the constitution:

1. Establishment Clause in Amendment 1
2. Supreme Court Rulings

Economically, the Faith Based Initiative program does, in fact, favor large Christian organizations, but that's because of the strict requirements ...

1] You have to apply with the IRS for a Federal Employers Identification Number (FEIN). Note: You do not have to do this to be a legal church, but you do if you want government money for your programs.

2] You have to be recognized by your state as a religious organization. This means filing the proper form with your state's Secretary of State's office (with fee) and have your Articles of Incorporation approved. Note: You do not have to do this to be a legal church, but you do if you want government money for your programs.

3] You have to file with Dunns and Bradstreet. [I]Note: You do not have to do this to be a legal church, but you do if you want government money for your programs. Note: You do not have to do this to be a legal church, but you do if you want government money for your programs.

4] You have to file form 1023 with the IRS and be approved for 501(c)3 Non-Profit Status. Note: You do not have to do this to be a legal church, but you do if you want government money for your programs.

5] Your program must be of benefit to the community and cannot turn people away because of their religion.

Now, many Christian organizations have no problem with steps 1-4 because they have the money for the filing fees plus the money to hire lawyers to do all the paperwork for them, while it is the non-Christian organizations that generally have no problem with step 5.

Interestingly enough, I have the complete opposite problem. I run a non-Christian church (well, two actually) and have completed steps 1-4, but I don't have any community programs. Funny, isn't it? I could get government money, but have no reason to.

Oh, you're wondering about the Note thing? Well, to be a legally recognized church in the United States here's everything you need to do - regardless of the state in which you live:

1] Say you are.

That's it.

But were are not discussing the employement prospects of these organizations, but the efforts they are putting out. Does it matter if the Salvation Army doesn't hire homosexuals if they help feed the homeless, help the victims of fire or flood?

Ok. Then why is that a wiccan group that has a track record of helping many elderly and poor get denied?

Hmmm Christians don't like Wiccans?

Sorry but the "faith" based initiative should be cancelled or be renamed to the Christian Faith intiative.

The lions share of the money goes to the Christian groups. A rather large recipiant of those groups is Pat Robertson.

Go figure.

Ok. Then why is that a wiccan group that has a track record of helping many elderly and poor get denied?


Simple:

1] The majority of Wiccans are "solitary practitioners". Hard to have an organization when you're a solitary.

2] There are no Wiccan groups that have met all of the requirements.

What's happening is that this initiative is a subtle way of proving that only the Christians can be of benefit to this country and guess what - the Wiccans et al are helping them prove it.

Getting an FEIN and a Dunns number is 100% free. Incorporation in the state as a non-profit organization varies from state to state (in Texas, the filing fee is $25) and one can file form 1023 for $150.

The problem is that many Wiccan groups are too busy arguing against Fluffy Bunnies instead of putting together their Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation and filling out this massive stack of papers needed to get this government funding.

Non-Christian groups have an opportunity at this point to prove themselves and, for some reason, they're not doing it. Well, some are ... several Jewish organizations and a couple of Hindu organizations have benefited from the initiative, but it isn't enough.

I absolutely, 100%, guarantee you that if you are a Wiccan organization and you do everything that is necessary to gain federal funding for your community programs and they turn you down because you're not Christian, then I will personally write you a check for $5,000 and help bring the wrath of the ACLU.

thanks for the info keruvalia
do you know what the rules used to be before this initiative was put in by bush?

so is it OK to pray as long as you dont toss out those of other faiths who arent paying attention?

do you know what the rules used to be before this initiative was put in by bush?

Before this initiative was put in, there was no way for religiously created community programs to receive federal money.

so is it OK to pray as long as you dont toss out those of other faiths who arent paying attention?

The people in the programs can pray and do as they wish so long as the administration/employees do not interfere and there cannot be any form of prosyletizing(sp?).

It's kinda like in school ... the student can pray, but the teacher cannot lead a prayer.

why give money to a religious establishment if it doesn't have to pay taxes like any other organization?

But were are not discussing the employement prospects of these organizations, but the efforts they are putting out. Does it matter if the Salvation Army doesn't hire homosexuals if they help feed the homeless, help the victims of fire or flood?

If they get the money from sources other than the government, nope - that's their perogative. However, if they get money from the government, then they cannot discriminate in their hiring practices or in who they help based on race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc.

I can tell you from personal experience..when the Tennessee river rises due to seasonal rains and my Uncle's house was lifted off it's foundation to go swimming he didn't give one rat's ass whether or not any of the charities that helped out did or didnt hire homosexuals.

You're missing the point. The recipient may not care who the help comes from, but the people paying the money do. As it is right now, I can give to a charity that does not discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else), but faith based initiatives may force me to give my charity money (through taxes) to a charity I do not wish to support. If I personally think that the good in that charity outweighs the bad of them discriminating, I may give to them *personally*.

As an example, I think the boy scouts are great for lots of little boys out there. However, since they refuse to hire homosexuals, they have to get their money from somewhere other than the government - Period.

why give money to a religious establishment if it doesn't have to pay taxes like any other organization?

Every 501(c)3 non-profit organization, whether a religious establishment or not, does not pay (or even file) taxes. So, there's that. If you don't allow a non-profit religious organization to receive federal money, but you do allow a secular organization (such as NEA) to get federal grants then it's religious discrimination and, thus, unconstitutional.