George 'the chimp' Bush promotes affirmative action

[fakesurfers]

for religion (especially Jesus-worshippers)


George Bush :monkey: as set up an office of 'faith-based assistance' to help religious organizations compete for federal funding. He says: for too long these groups have been persecuted when it comes to applying for federal funding because of their spiritual activities. So this office will actively seek to remedy past injustices by helping these groups, rather than just stopping discrimination against them. He wants to take affirmative to help them.

WTF? This is exactly what he opposes when applied to other groups, including racial and socioeconomic minorities. It sounds like the 'special treatment' he opposed when a hate crimes law came up in Texas. What a hypocrite! :monkey:

If someone could enlighten me, I would appeciate it, as I assume there should be some deists that read this thread.

[Jeffbx]

I'm waiting to see what will happen when a non-Christian orginization asks for money.....

[fakesurfers]

better yet... a fringe religious group asks... you know like a Zoroastrian, or a Moonie cultist group or a Mormon group.. What about the Scientologists? I can't wait to see the contortions they go through to try to deny these groups.

[attgig]

Where's the line between church and state? getting greyer and greyer.
--about nonChristian organizations getting money:
non-chirstian organizations have been getting $. Why would it stop (it'll prolly decrease, but if they're doing a good job, it won't stop)? Christian organizations don't get $. They'll start getting some.
I don't care who really gets the $$ as long as there's no corruption. Too many times, i see leaders of faith getting busted for stealing $. Of course i'm sure there have been other leaders that have done the same (not saying there's a lot of them, but i'm sure there's been at least one), but i guess i have problems b/c the faith-based leaders are supposed (society?) to represent something good.


The real interesting thing that I see with this whole issue is that people are forgetting what this is all about....it's about the needy. It's about helping the less fortunate, right?
What I hear about people complaining is that religious groups can discrimate in the workplace (of a volunteer organization) and that's not fair. How many non-Christians would work at a church's clinic for homeless? non-Christians would naturally go to a non-faith based clinic and volunteer themselves there. I don't see it as nonChristians having no place to volunteer because every organization that has a clinic or something is Christian.

The people that we should be focusing on is the needy, and with all this hoopla, the focus is getting blurry.

[zenbooty]

Hey Att Gig,
I think what they mean when they say "non-Christian organizations" is religious organizations that are not Christian. Yes, non-religious organizations are already getting money, but will religious organizations that are not Christian get any?

The issue here is more than just helping the needy. Its about freedom of religion. The reason church and state are separate is to prevent the government from favoring one religion over others, as well as prevent corruption of the government as the church gains access to power through political ties, as was common throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church. So, what people are arguing is, do we really believe that our Republican controlled executive is going to treat all religious organizations equally, or is it that when he says "faith-based charities" he really means "Christian-based charities?" Could you see them giving money to the Rastafarians to run a welfare commune? How about the Moonies for a summer retreat program for inner city teens? Scientologist anger management programs (Hey, I got a million of 'em)? I have a hard time believing that.

How will the government make sure that church-run organizations don't use any of that money for furthering their religious causes instead of just helping people? Often times, faith-based treatment includes a religious aspect, a "finding God" experience which acts like a crutch for a while to help them fight the good fight. Will public-funded treatment require those receiving treatment to follow these religious exercises? What if the recipient doesn't believe in that religion? Will he have other options with equal resources?

I guess the basic problem is, in order to give money to religious charities, someone has to decide what constitutes a "valid" religious organization, and what does not. In a land where every individual is supposedly free, no one, nor any group, nor any majority should be allowed to determine which beliefs and faiths are ok and which are not.

[Jeffbx]

Zen, you nailed it.

When any republican talks about 'religion', what they really mean is 'rich white christian organizations with lots of lobbying power'.

Att gig - you have a very good perspective on what relion/charity SHOULD be about, but when you involve politics, it's all about money. When Bush says he's setting up an office of 'faith-based assistance', he's only trying to win over a group of people who happen to have a lot of money - i.e., christians.

Never mind the fringe religions, the killer here is going to be the other mainstream religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islamics and Judaism. You can bet that these groups aren't lobbying for republican causes, and you can also bet that there won't be a single representitive from any of these groups on Bush's panel.

Now, granted, these groups are certainly in the minority here in the US, but it all comes down to what's happening - Bush is giving special preferences to the christian lobby - not religious groups as a whole.

[attgig]

about republican's - heck almost all politicians - talk about religion = 'rich white christian organizations with lots of lobbying power' BUT

there's no way that bush would be able to get this through congress and the public unless there's representation from "all" religious groups: on the advisory committee & supporting it from the start.

Those in attendance Monday included representatives of Christian, Muslim and Jewish organizations.
from http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/....01/index.html

Now, beyond the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim charities - i would suspect that hindu's, buddhists, and other 'less populated' religions in America would also have some kind of charities.
I don't know how much of a representation/funding they would be able to get, but as for the 'big three', i would have to say that there would be a pretty even spread of money (just because politics would require it).

now about them "you know like a Zoroastrian, or a Moonie cultist group or a Mormon group.. What about the Scientologists? " (fakesurfer), i don't know how they would be handled. i'd figure that they would get somewhat shafted cause the government would find some way to get their requirements to diss them.

[attgig]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Bush goes to a black church...maybe not a 'rich white christian organizations with lots of lobbying power' type politician...
but you guyz wouldn't buy that...