President Bush has announced today that he wishes to fund faith-based programs with federal grants. He said that "miracle of salvation" is the key to solving many of societies problems: "My attitude is, the government should not fear faith-based programs -- we ought to welcome faith-based programs and we ought to fund faith-based programs."

Are you in favor of funding faith-based programs with federal grants, or do you find this policy infringing on the separation of church and state?

All right, I dug up the story for myself to see if it was true.

An appeal for faith. and this also.

I can see the philanthropic reasons behind the grants, but I don't see why the grants have to be specifically for religious charities. Yes, I feel it erodes the separation of church and state when the government endorses one organisation over another because it happens to be a religion.

This brings me to mind of a time when churches were given land for free in an effort to encourage morality. This is really no different and is just as misguided. Bush wants to promote religion through charity.

Bush is running around pandering to every possible group recently. The black Americans with Martin Luther King, the geeks with NASA, and now the religious right with this proposal.

This is one of those issues where I get this uncomfortable feeling in my stomach. Yes, on the face of this, it sounds like something positive. But I know human nature and I know that things are routinely twisted to promote less altruistic agendas.

So to this one I would say thanks, but no thanks.

I am an extreme church and state separationist, so this gets my hackles up quite a bit. Some questions for this plan:

1. Will federal money go to any faith-based organization that offers charitable services? If I set one up that feeds the hungry and that preaches Wiccan theology, will I have the same chance of getting a grant as a charity set up by the local Lutheran church?

2. Will all federal money be carefully monitored to insure that all of it goes to pay for purely secular charitable activities? Will it be possible to make absolutely sure that the government's money is used to buy only food, and not Bibles?

3. Will the faith-based organizations be required to follow all federal regulations? If Bob Jones University applies for a grant, will they be required to end the segregation of the races in their organization in order to qualify?

If all of these questions can be honestly answered "yes," then I will not protest against this plan. I can't imagine that this will be the case, so I have to oppose this plan strongly.

This basically seems to me to be opening official government supported religious recruitment centers.


This is not trying to estabilish religion in our government? This is disgusting!
This is a very clear violation of church and state. 3.7 billion dollars for this! where does he keep pulling all this money from? So now my tax money goes to support churches. They have enough money make them spend their own.
Does this mean the Scientologists get to open some? How about Wiccans? General Pagans. Unitarian Universalists, Buddhists,how about really compassionate Agnostics?

Seems like this goes back to the debate about the religious right owning the Republicans

Sick, totally sick and disgusting that this is even being considered.

As it is not the responsibility of our government to decide which religion is the right one, etc., I would think the government would have to be inclusive of all religions willing to meet the established criteria. If the criteria were slanted in order to exclude these other religions, there is no way I see that this could or should be instituted.

Wouldn't it just be better to just institute some programs to create jobs, establish health insurance, and help already established secular agencies to do what they were intended to do?

This has been and continues to be a controversial topic, but one of Bush's campaign promises that he ran on in 2000.

For what it is worth, here is my understanding of the partial quote of Bush's proposal:



Under the old and still current laws passed by Congress...government funds go to organizations such as those listed above in the quote-provided the recognized organizations (if faith-based) do not promote their faith or offer help on a conditional basis to those seeking help.

The difference between the current policy and Bush's policy announced today is that the government funding would extend to organizations such as listed above plus all recognized faith-based organizations that can now freely promote their faith (but not on a conditional basis) to those who come for help provided the individual is agreeable. It is for all recognized faiths excluding wacko, self-appointed religious groups. Bush feels that his new policy will encourage more faith-based organizations to come forward and get involved in helping more people that are in a hopeless situation and desperate for help.

Congress has yet in three years to approve and pass Bush's new policy for funding faith-based organizations. To get his new policy implemented, he is legally permitted to bypass Congress and issue a directive to the Department of Justice to take action to finalize regulations that implement his policy of ending discrimination against faith-based charities in the Federal grants process."

IMO, rather than this being a last minute pitch for pandering to the voters, it is an avenue he is using to fulfill another one of his campaign promises before election time. Three years and no up or down vote from Congress is long enough.

So if I'm a charity but I don't belive in a God my cause is worth less? It's a patronising and judgemental approach from Bush and I don't like it one bit.
I'll be very interested to see how even handed he is with the money. I wonder how many Islamic charities will get a slice...?

Are you in favor of funding faith-based programs with federal grants, or do you find this policy infringing on the separation of church and state?


I am totally AGAINSTS this! Having the word God being referenced in our documents and in our pledge is one thing, to me it's a nod to our forefathers and our nations history. BUT this is UNACCEPTABLE. NO religious association should get government funding, because fundamentally their dogma's, values and belief systems inherently discriminate if you do not adhere to their set standards. Even Protestants.

In the simplest of terms if the Federal Gov ,has to fund it then it is not "Faith Based" .

One should also consider that the Church (meaning all or any) could easily on thier own ititiative adopt poor families and help them out of poverty, they could provide free day care for welfare moms, for the most part they do none of this and there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.

I am not saying Churches do not help the poor, they do but they come no where near filling the need of healtcare, rent , and other areas of need. For the most part my observation is the Church today, Shuns the poor in complete contrast to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Exactly! I live in a city with a very stark contrast between the Southern Baptists and the down town, hippie, pierced, tattooed and homeless community. The BIG churches and their million dollar gyms for their private schools, elaborate renovations and expansions on their extavrogant buildings, yet their NEVER downtown giving to the needy and being a TRUE testament to Christ by helping those in their own town. They send their kids on missionary trips to other countries, which is just a vacation for these kids. But God forbid they go and give food and associate with the scum downtown! As long as these corporate churches have those types of standards and continue to act lofty and holier than thou, they don't deserve a red cent of government funding!

I thiunk my biggest problems is that by endorsing faith-based charities, the money will only go to causes that these faiths 'approve of'. Thus a whole series of needy charities will be ignored or underfunded because they do not conform to the moral tenents of the faith.

With faith based charities help women find abortions? Will they help homosexuals suffering from AIDS? Those are two of the more obvious ones of course, but there are many others. Charities should adhere to the laws of the state, not be subject to the laws of a particular faith.

Recognized faiths? What the heck? So a religion is only valid if it's recognized by a specific person? Who is some one else to tell me if my religion is a valid religion or not?! If I wanted to start a religion today, what would make it an iota less valid than any one already in existance? They had to begin some time, did they not?
These "wacko, self-appointed" religions should have every bit as much right to funding as "recognized" religions.

See, this is the whole problem with this and why there is a separation of church and state! Who is the government to say what is a recognized, valid religion or faith!? Bush is trying to push Protestant, Judeo Christianity onto the nation and you just can't do that! I'm a born again Christian, and I even understand that what he is trying to do is WRONG!

Right because one violation of church and state means A WHOLE PARTY is controlled by RR extremists, absolutely .

I do not like this one bit either, it IS a clear violation of the Church and State separation laws and should be promptly done away with...will it happen...no.

CP

If wacko, self-appointed religious groups were to be included....would you like your tax dollars going to a leader like Jim Jones or Moon just for starters?

The phrase used was all recognized faiths meaning true religions excluding wacko organizations such as Jim Jones or Moon, etc.

NO. NO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION SHOULD GET TAX DOLLARS.

Edited to add: It is NOT the governments place to say if a particular religious group is wacko or not. As long as they are not violating the rights of others, the government should keep their noses out of it COMPLETELY.

More than one violation.

In Georgia, the Republican-dominated Senate -- at the request of our Republican governor -- voted to remove from the constitution any ban on government funding aiding any religion. Supposedly because that way these organizations can be funded with government dollars for their charitable work, but that funding happens anyway, so the argument was a red herring.

In Florida, Bush pushed through the funding for an evangelical prison.

It's happening elsewhere as well. All at the behest of Republicans.

Rather than gain information from news articles or individuals (like me ), which may or may not interpret correctly Bush's new policy directives, click on the link below which will take you to the White House web site for an article from the "horse's mouth."




You can read the the article in its entirety at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040115-1.html


To think that groups like Jim Jones or Moon were not or are not in violation of individual rights is absurd! They had and have their followers sign over or give up all earthly possessions including monies; they have them working on street corners selling products until they are ready to drop and then hand over ALL money from sales!

Believe me...if the government handed out grants (millions of dollars) to every "tom, dick or harry" organization without proper credentials or verifying their credibility....the tax payers would round up more than a million man march to the White House!

I understand what he says it's going to do, BUT it opens the door to discrimination and religious influence on the government. The seperation of church and state is there for a reason: IT'S A SAFE GUARD.

I don’t question the intent, and from what I’ve witnessed I do believe that religious-based charities are a far better delivery tool for social services than our own government.

I think the thing that scares me are the huge churches and the power they can end up with. Abs can testify to the size of a local church (South East Christian) here in our town dubbed ‘Six Flags over Jesus’ by the locals.

They have allowed speakers in church who are running for office. Imagine an incumbent standing on the pulpit Sunday morning telling the congregation that they’ll promise more grant money.

This is a clear violation of separation of church and state, poorly conceptualized and underscores my belief that our current administrations domestic policy (or lack thereof) is solely based on getting re-elected.

Let me make myself clear. There are alot of Faith based charities that do alot of good, like Feed the Children. But I agree with Fife and Drum, what Bush is proposing would open a pandora's box for abuse by faith based political special interest groups.

The new policy's intent IMO is to help get more grant money into the hands of hundreds of good, sound organizations representing ALL FAITHS that can really help people in so many ways that until now are not applying for grants because of the former restrictions. Are there going to be abuses? Yes! But there were before and they will be taken care of between the government and the watch dog groups.

I am not the least bit hesitant (with all the possible pros and cons) to support this new policy if it means more avenues will be open to helping needy people get adequate shelter; counseling for addictions, domestic abuse, etc.; and programs helping our children in need.

Some of the comments on this topic remind me when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was running for president. Boy, there was an outpouring of indignation and protests that if Kennedy became president that somehow he would open the doors of money and favoritism to the Pope and on down the Catholic ladder! The protesters almost made it sound like the Pope was going to move into the White House and be given a cabinet position! FEAR of the unknown...first Catholic President...and history can tell it better than me...it didn't happen!

Now we have a president who just happens to be of the Christian faith and boy he is going to promote policies and programs that will benefit ONLY those of the Christian faith and exclude all other dominations. Bull! Like Kennedy and the Catholics, even if Bush wanted to, he couldn't get away with it!

As far as prisons, the doors have been open to representatives of all faiths to inmates for a long time. Prisoners should have the right to take advantage of faith-based representatives of their choosing whether it be coming from the outside or inside of the prison walls. If prisoners choose not to...so be it.

IMO, it is good to have "watch dogs" to protect the rights of ALL individuals, but sometimes the agenda of the "fear and delusions" groups temporarily takes over. Those groups also require "watch dogs."

I'm against the plan. While I have no doubt that the organizations who stand to benefit could help with counseling and shelter and other things needed by the disenfranchised, I don't think it's feasible to distribute this money and ensure that every penny is used as intended.

As was brought up earlier by Victoria, will we be able to make sure the money will only be used for secular charitable activities? Can we make sure the money is used only for food or shelter rather than more bibles? More importantly for me, can we make sure that these organizations will offer aid without any religious coercion of those seeking help?

I don't think we can. And in order to make an honest attempt at doing so we would have to spend millions of dollars more. The room for religious organizations to abuse government funds simply seems too great to me. As positive as government support of religious aid programs may appear to be, I feel we have to protect against religious organizations taking federal "acts of good faith" (financial aid) as opportunities to simply promote their faith and ideas.

Perhaps I am being naive, but I don't see why government organizations already in place can't be afforded larger budgets using the money intended for faith based programs. Nor do I see why existing government programs can't adopt any programs which might be deemed more effective by experts. The only difference I see is that of religious involvement and the claims by some that it was perhaps Jesus who made the difference, rather than the shelter or food provided by a charitable organization.

There appears to me no reason why existing government agencies can't use the funding intended for faith based programs to continue and improve aid programs in the United States. The only difference I see faith based programs offering is their inclusion of religion in their aid, and the government does not need in anyway to federally finance the promotion of religion in our country.

To assume that faith based help programs would be more effective, fair, honest, or ethical than existing programs is to deny reality.
I am against any program that "helps the poor and needy" that does not FIRST stress education from pre-school through high school and which includes 2 years of publicly funded education that is designed to remove all excuses for unemployability. The 2 years could be the last 2 years of High School, or first 2 years after High School, and would consist of job training that is paid up front by the government, but could be refunded over time by the individuals themselves and/or their employers who benefit from the program by getting a trained employee. I would include the first 2 years of college on the governments dime. Call it a tax if you like, but it is a tax that would most likely have a positive return.
Yes, there will still be some who need our help, but not very many compared to now.
I have close relatives who would be better off now if someone had forced them to get an education, instead of making it easy to quit school and become a drain on society. The only persons who should be allowed to settle for a minimal existence are those who are incapable of anything else.
Perhaps bringing back the draft, for women as well, and immediately drafting all over 17 who are not in school would be an incentive to work a little harder.
Of course, this will never happen. Our government is afraid of having educated masses. Their jobs would be at risk once enough of us learn what is really going on.

I would be very surprised if the Unification Church weren't included in this. They are huge supporters of the Republican Party - and George H.W. Bush has connections to Moon going back decades. At the launch of Sun Myung Moon's Tiempos del Mundo in Buenos Aires, for example, Bush Senior saluted the founder of the Washington Times (and was awarded $100,000 for his efforts) and is reported to have accepted millions of dollars in funding from the Moonies.

This is exactly the sort of "true religion" which can expect to benefit from the faith-based initiative. It is dangerous, unconstitutional (not that that would concern this administration), and wrong.


Oh - for what it's worth, the Florida prison being mentioned here is not about faith-based representatives of the inmates' choosing - nor is it "open to representatives of all faiths". Lawtey Correctional is a Christian institution - paid for by tax-payers of all faiths. At its opening, Jeb Bush told its inmates, "I can't think of a better place to reflect on the awesome love of our Lord Jesus than to be here at Lawtey Correctional. God bless you." As a Florida resident, I'm paying for this. Shameful.

It isn't the government's place to decide what is a "legitimate" religion, that is a very personal decision for people to make.

Y'know, there are some of us who the various "established" religions revel in discriminating against. I really don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to support groups that actively hate folks like me, any more than I would expect Christians to want their tax dollars to support Satan's School for Wayward Girls.
If you want to give to religious charities, give your own money, not mine.

It depends-if a religious group relies on sound psychological findings and uses psychology truly try and help people, then fine-they should get the money. If they try and treat gambling, addiction, or anything with just the exhortation of praying and getting rid of "sin" then no--any weirdo can come up with a program, give it a snazzy name, and claim that they are more effective at solving society's problems.

This is a concern for me also. I have seen Christian food and shelter programs for the homeless. Before they get any food they are forced to sit through sermons and prayers sessions.

I see this faith based initiative as a clear promotion of religion by this admin. and I believe Christian organizations will be given priority. I am against the proposal since I believe always in a strong separation of church and state and this one clearly crosses that line.

I agree completely, Grendel.

This administration (and conservatives in general) are quick to say that if taxes are cut, putting more money in peoples pockets, those people will be more willing to give to private charities to aid the homeless and poor, and we won't have a need for expanding welfare, medicaid, etc.

Well, we just had our third round of tax cuts, and I don't see a huge increase in charitable donations.

This idea is bad on so many levels, separation of Church and State being the most egregious. For me, it only establishes a foothold for religion into the door of the federal government. Once that foot is in the door, there seems no stopping any other program from being expanded far beyond it's original intent, however well-meaning, and I can't see this as any different.

The only possible alternative I could see to this, would be if a particular church accepts taxpayer money, that they give up their tax-exempt status. If my tax money is going to programs that help the poor already, then the church can contribute as well, in exchange for the additional tax dollars they will get from me.

What qualifies as a "huge increase"?

The American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC) Trust for Philanthropy, publishers of "Giving USA," released their estimations of total charitable contributions in the U.S. for the year 2002. Total giving is estimated at nearly $241 billion for the year 2002, an increase of one percent over revised 2001 figures. The Trust has estimated that 11.2% of this figure, or $26.9 billion, was given by independent and community foundations. (Corporate foundation support is included in the overall figure for corporate giving.) This is well below the largest contributors to charity (individuals), who gave an estimated 76.3%, or $183.73 billion.

How much did Americans give to charity in 2002?

Here's a better breakdown:

Giving by individuals in 2002 is estimated to have increased 0.7 percent, to $183.73 billion from a revised estimate for 2001 of $182.47 billion. Adjusted for inflation, this is a decrease of 0.9 percent. Giving by individuals represents 76.3 percent of all giving estimated for 2002.

Giving through bequests in 2002 is estimated to have increased 2 percent to $18.1 billion from a revised estimate of $17.74 billion. Adjusted for inflation, this is growth of 0.4 percent. Gifts through bequests represent 7.5 percent of the 2002 total estimated giving.

Giving by foundations in 2002 is reported by the Foundation Center to show an estimated decrease of 1.2 percent, at $26.9 billion for grantmaking by independent, community, and operating foundations. Adjusted for inflation, this is a decline of 2.7 percent. Grantmaking by foundations represents 11.2 percent of all estimated giving in 2002.

Giving by corporations in 2002 is estimated to have grown by 10.5 percent to $12.19 billion, from a revised estimate of $11.03 billion for 2001. Adjusted for inflation, this is growth of 8.8 percent. The high rate of growth in corporate giving is attributed to continued fulfillment of pledges made in 2001; growth of in-kind giving by corporations; the Foundation Center’s finding of an increase in corporate foundation grantmaking; and perhaps better reporting from corporations of deductible contributions in recent years. Giving by corporations is 5.1 percent of all estimated giving in 2002.

CHARITY HOLDS ITS OWN IN TOUGH TIMES

One other bit of information:

The estimate for charitable giving in 2002 is 2.3 percent of gross domestic product. This is only somewhat lower than the 2.4 percent of GDP found for 2001, comparable to 2.3 percent in 2000, and somewhat higher than the 2.2 percent of GDP reported in contributions for 1999. Giving above 2.0 percent of GDP was standard in the 1960s, but dropped below that level from 1971 through 1999. The historical record of Giving USA goes back to 1955, when the publication was created by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC).

It seems that even in what has been deemed tough times, Americans continued to give to charities. The increase may not have been huge, but seemed to be in line with recent years.

Regardless of who gives BD- up until the shrub decides to do this- IT IS ALL VOLUNTARY- now I will be having to give my money to the most evil poeple in the world IMO. I would rather send a donation to Saddam than Jarry Falwell!

How much of this money is going to sneak in the back door to pay for pedophiles in the Catholic church? They going to claim it comes from "a different budget?"

I find the full volume of what has been said to be both ignorant of the Faith-Based Initiative, as well as over the top in liberal fears of the compromise of the "separation of church and state". First, let's be clear about what the Constitution says regarding such a "separation". Nowhere do those words appear in that document. The Constitution says in so many words the congress shall pass no law establishing a state run church. Thus we do not have a "Church of the United States" or anything approaching a theocracy in this initiative. Some of you have actually read the founding document haven't you?

President Bush has offered an expansion of what was originally a Clinton initiative to allow faith-based groups access to federal funds, under very specific guidelines about giving individuals in need secular services. From five centers this means HHS, HUD, DOJ, DED and the WHO the administration is serious about seeing to the needs of the poor and destitute.

As late as 1996, the Supreme Ct. upheld the precedent for govt. funding of faith-based organizations. For all the crying and gnashing of teeth over finding religious oriented charities who are discriminated against solely because of their faith, I hear no outcry when HUD literally rebuild houses of worship as they do for Baptist churches that have been burnt down. I'd like to think that it's because the people possess that compassion they so ruefully accuse Bush of being in deficit.

Actually a copy hangs on my wall.


That's completely different. I may find religion amusing but you and yours have your right to it. Churches burned down because of domestic terrorism should be rebuilt. To ever allow people to use fear tactics against something they dislike is completely immoral and should be fought vigorously.

It doesn't change the fact that the religious "leaders" here in America keep trying to force their veiws on others. It is heartening to see so many fight for freedom from religion. I don't try to inflict my beleifs on you. Except for debating issues my beleifs are personal and I'll keep them to myself. Keep your religion to yourself. The continuous attempts to estabilish religion as the ruling force in America with the silly claims of "its a Judeo Christian founded country" and starting generic " but every religion gets to participate" programs are merely guerilla tactics to try and estabilish a foot in the door that can be used later to force it open.
The separation of church and state is one DMZ that shall not be overrun.

As for the claim of so called over the top fears of liberals, let me just say as a non liberal but very independant American that I hear the words of the religious leaders of this country quite well.
Especially entertaining was the attempt to get god to put a hit on the Supreme Court Justices who didn't try to make gays illegal in this country again by praying for their deaths. And this is a "Respected" member of the religious community
I realize some of these do not really represent all christians
But they are never really brought to task for their outrageous words. Do they have a right to say them? Obviously! However they do not have a right to be taken seriously and should be denounced by the leaders of the Christians community. They, however, never are.

This funding of faith based recruitment centers, for that is exactly how they will be used, with taxpayer money is a clear violation and needs to be stopped. There are already a great many organizations in place for this type of aid and just maybe if Republicans would stop slashing their funding they could operate as intended.

The government does (and should continue) to fund faith based initiatives... however, there are some important rules... No goal of the program should be to promote their particular faith. The program should be successfully addressing all sides of the problem. THe program should be all inclusive - ie no discrimination or arbitrary limitations on who they will help (though obviously, there do have to be certain rules and requirements for the participants just as in secular programs). The program, basically, has to meet all of the requirements and follow all the same rules as a secular program. Plus, I would think, the government has the added responsibility of supporting any government based programs (ie not ones started in the private sector) before putting any money into the private or faith based initiatives.

My personal faith (which happens to fall under the general heading of Christian) is very important to me. I like to live my faith by volunteering for various organizations (free clinics, homeless shelters, etc). I have also worked with a local shelter for battered women and children that also happens to be run by the Methodist church. This shelter is an incredible place - a truly safe haven for these women. It is staffed by licensed social workers - all of whom have at least a masters in social work... there are at least two nurses on every shift and local doctors volunteer to be "on call" on their off days in case of emergency. Police officers, judges, lawmakers - all recognize this shelter as the best there is in my area. There is an onsite accredited school - it is not meant to be a permanent school for the children, but it is there for the children as they go through the transition period away from their homes. Truly, this place is incredible. There is a small chapel on the grounds, with a resident preacher (and her husband) that has services every sunday (closed to the rest of the world - just for employees and the residents - but no one is required to attend). However - the services offered the women (legal, medical, etc) do not include any religious indoctrination. The employees do not have to be of any particular faith - there are jewish, islamic, and even atheist individuals working there (that I know of). The "faith" is quite separated from the "initiative" in this faith-based initiative... which is why they receive county, state and federal funds for their incredible (and much needed) work. Granted, many women who come to this place may seek out the chapel and the preacher - but it is by no means required or even encouraged!

When I talk about this shelter with some folks, they might see it as a perfect example of a "faith-based" initiative and think it champions their cause - but it does not!

Bush wants to take this country down a long dark road... back to the "good old days" when "morality reigned" as those who were less fortunate relied on the whims of the rest of the population and battered women were encouraged to return to their husbands because he didn't mean to do it and no one is perfect. Bush loves to tout faith based programs, because it is a big step in eliminating the entire social services portion of the federal government (all the more moeny to push into military spending and coal companies). The methodist shelter I cited above does incredible work, and really is the only one of its kind in the area - but this is largely b/c there are NOT ENOUGH funds available for a purely secular shelter to function. A few years ago, a group of social workers tried to get a second shelter up and running - this one purely secular - but they could not get enough money to offer all the services required by women in this situation. Eventually, the Methodist church took the second shelter under its umbrella, and started providing it with more private funds (from the church). The new shelter is run like a satellite of the larger one, so there is actually no church on its grounds... but without the money from the church, it would not exist at all.

The problem here is there SHOULD BE enough money from the feds, state and local govt in order to support such shelters without private money! The idea of specifically siphoning money into faith-based initiatives over secular ones, when there is clearly not enough money for the current secular programs is ridiculous. This is another trick.
Lets say I open two restaraunts (both with the same foods and menu) - one feeds anybody that comes in the door at a cheap rate and another feeds only those people who will sign an agreement to like my food and dress in formal wear. Then, after several months I visit the two restaraunts - one seems bright and shiny with beautiful people who are all happy with the service and the other seems a little less swanky, with people in all types of clothes, and some people grumble or complain about the food. I then decide that the first restaraunt must be a better place to eat and start giving it more money (b/c I have decided to dole out money based on performance and not need). As time passes, the formal restaraunt makes more and more profits, thanks to the impressive ad campaigns and its greater appeal to people willing to pay a lot of money for a nice night out. The other restaraunt falls farther and farther behind, letting more staff go to make due with its smaller profits and declining amount of money from me - service, cleanliness, food quality get worse and worse... until one day the health inspectors show up and say clean up or close down. Clearly, I would not want to support this failing restaraunt and just close it down and put all the money into my formal restaraunt. Meanwhile, the patrons of the shut down restaraunt have to find another place to go... some may save up to attend the formal restaraunt, but they might be a little more willing to complain since they can see it was the exact same food and menu at the old place...

I know this metaphor is long, and seems a little ridiculous - but its the same idea that Bush favors... Many of these faith based initiatives (unlike the Methodist shelter) that do not currently get federal funding due to selective criteria for their employees and those they help - participants must follow and practice the tenets of the faith. Additionally, some of these initiatives do not treat/help every person who applies that does meet this criteria - they are not obligated by law to do so, so if someone appears beyond help or not cost-effective so to speak - the faith based charity does not have to help them. So, automatically, the population being helped by faith based initiatives is fundamentally different from the secular initiatives. So any comparisons b/n the two, showing that faith based initiatives are more effective, etc, are invalid and biased. But instead of recognizing this, Bush aims to perpetuate the bias by further promoting a privatization of social programs - envisioning a world where the religious institutions take care of all of those in need.

Of course, I hear the candy coated vision, and think that sounds great... whats wrong with that? Give the money to the "successful" faith based initiatives and shut down the "unsuccesful" secular ones. But then again, this is largely the system society had in place from the beginning of time until the mid 1900s. And any one who argues the general population was better off relying on the kindness of strangers and the whim of the church for help has obviously never picked up a history textbook. This of course, is still ignoring the glaring violation of separation of church and state. When the government funds any program that has a clear religious agenda (no matter what the religion) they are promoting one particular religious view point over another - specifically, they are promoting the state of having a religious conviction over not having one. And IMO, promoting any religious viewpoint IS establishing a state religion.

This is basically why I hate Bush - he is now going to get the credit for promoting his faith based initiatives while any dems or others who vote against it get painted as the bad guys. Meanwhile, the so called "liberal" press seems to miss the point that the preferentially supporting faith based initiatives is number one violating the bill of rights and number two robbing those programs that actually help a larger number of people simply b/c they don't discriminatorily pick and choose who they want to help in the first place!

Edited to add:
as for the "increase" in charitable giving, I would like to point out this quote from the sites actual report


so, actually, there was no increase, but a decrease (albeit slight). But one half of one percent amounts to approximately 1.2 billion dollars less in 2002 than in 2001.
Click here for the full report

I believe that this program that President Bush has called for seems acceptable: it helps programs that help people. Most likely, if the plan goes through, there would be some money going to a church or other religious organization, and not feeding the hungry, or sheltering the poor or whatnot, but seriously, if a little cash does go to a church, and they dont use it for these things, what's the worst that could happen? Is an evil church going to buy a bus to drive around in and convert people against their will? These places of religious sort are most often very good in nature, and help ordinary people simply by existing. If your hard-earned tax money goes to some church that doesn't give it to the poor, you are still helping a church, which in turn helps all people with their lives.
Although I am not particularly religious, I wouldn't object to faith-based charities recieving grants, EXCEPT in the way Bush puts it. The "miracle of salvation"? Is this necesary? Of course not all religions believe in salvation, so this really is cutting down many organizations. If this were just, "we are giving to faith-based charitable causes, because their work is much like any other charity, in helping the less fortunate." But when it goes to "miracle of salvation" its too far.
And lastly, if this money is going to the charities which help the people, why not circumvent all of this faith-based hassle, and simply apply this policy. By cutting down on programs like Head Start, and Welfare-to-Work, he's only burdening the charities more. By boosting those, he'd indirectly boost the faith-based charities, by giving them less to deal with, and therefore, more to do with the ones who are in need.

well, the money could not reach the intended people - ie those in need. This would also be fraud... people who do something like this - take a little money set aside for one purpose and spend it on another - face criminal charges and jail time. How comforting it would be to tell someone that, while we could not give them a warm bed or even a warm coat during the subzero winter nights, the money that was intended for that purpose did go to a well intentioned church who bought a van to shuffle teenagers to and from bible camp.



That is quite arguable. Granted, I can see some arguments about general well-being of a community being tied to the fate of a church - but this is quite controversial as it can seriously alienate certain individuals in the community and is why the Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions in favor of widening the separation of church and state. Indeed, simply giving money to a church (with no restrictions in use, or no intention of examining the money's use) would violate the three part test established in the decision of Lemon v Kurtzman



Clearly, giving money to a church for them to use at their discretion would violate #2 (advancing the religion by funding them) and #3 (excessive entanglement b/n govt and religion - as in tax money from the public pot going to a given religious institution for indifferent purpose).

All of the above reasons are why there are clear rules and limits in giving money to faith based initiatives. As has been pointed out, the govt does give money to "faith based" initiatives currently - they cant have a faith requirement and the money for the publicly sponsored, govt paid part of the program has to be clearly separated from anything going towards any sort of religious education, etc. Any "faith based" initiative that violates this, would be defrauding the government and, by extension the american people and would need to be stopped. What Bush proposes is to make the line a little less clear... so it could be just that much easier to defraud the public without getting into hot water - kind of like saying I don't have my hand in the cookie jar and it not really being a lie b/c its technically a cookie bowl. Additionally, IMO what push proposes fails the three part test that has been a guide for nearly 30 years now.





I do agree with you here.