Which "religious" organizations will Bush fund?

[TheLoneGunman]

In the coming weeks we will once again be able to see George Bush's true colors as a bigot and a moron.

His new proposal to fund religous groups as social organizations is moving forward:
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010625/04/bush

While he will no doubt point to the YMCA, Salvation Army, JCC, local church soup kitchen and others as examples of his plan, what about:

* The Church of Marijuana
* The Church of Satan
* an organization that promotes child/adult sex

If the Catholic Church can receive money to offer sacremental wine to people it helps, why can't the Church of Marijuana offer them all a joint (taxpayer funded)?
If a Protestant soup kitchen can be funded to offer self-help books to its diners, why can't the Church of Satan print up similar pamphlets?
And, if a Jewish school that helps troubled youth will get funds, why can't one run by Pedophiles also receive funds (especially since most of the staff will volunteer making it a non-profit)

As soon as you start excluding groups, where do you draw the line? Do American Indian Shamans get excluded because they are not Judeo-Christian? Do Jewish groups because they don't promote Jesus? Do Catholic groups get excluded because they are controlled by the Vatican?

Do not forget that the Ku Klux Klan is dominated by religious symbols and closely ties it into their practices. Can't you see a grant application that likens burning a cross on the lawn of the newest black resident in a community to the Welcome Wagon visiting them? The Arayan Nations also has a big church backing (the Church of Jesus Christ Christian). Imagine if the Skinhead Choir was paid to knock on your door.

This idea needs a LOT of work

[Markel]

I can't say that I am all in favor of this plan. However, many religious-based schools turn out better-scoring students at less than half the per-student expense of the public schools. In a similar way, many of these "faith-based" programs have demonstrated much higher levels of success than the government-based ones (and likely again with much less $$$). I think that the governement needs to learn how to work efficiently and spend wisely.

[fakesurfers]

What youre going to see is a lot of mainstream Christ-worshippers getting the money, with a token Muslim, Jew and other thrown in for a little balance. What I dont understand is how any 'Christian' church would even need government money. Arent they supposed to take 10% of their members' earnings? How about instead of spending government money supporting their strange Judeo-Christian beliefs, we allow them to withhold the money from 'believers'' paychecks? Then the churches would make plenty of money selling off excess land and renting out empty buildings when 85% of their parishioners suddenly disappeared.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Markel
I can't say that I am all in favor of this plan. However, many religious-based schools turn out better-scoring students at less than half the per-student expense of the public schools. In a similar way, many of these "faith-based" programs have demonstrated much higher levels of success than the government-based ones (and likely again with much less $$$). I think that the governement needs to learn how to work efficiently and spend wisely.

Ah ha. But can those results be directly correllated to the presence of "faith" in those organizations?

For instance, don't non-denominational private schools often turn out equally high-achieving graduates and students. Furthermore, don't both faith-based and non-denominational private institutions have the option to accept or reject applicants based on any sort of metric (let's say it's academic performance...well, I'd say if I can make kids take an entrance exam, I'm going to be able to select some pretty smart kids!).

I'm not trying to attack faith based organizations, just the perception that they're in some way inherently better. As TLG states above, once you get into the business of excluding groups from public funding based on belief, you get led down the primrose path.

[Markel]

Originally posted by pennypinch
I'm not trying to attack faith based organizations, just the perception that they're in some way inherently better. As TLG states above, once you get into the business of excluding groups from public funding based on belief, you get led down the primrose path.

What I'm trying to point out is that so many government-funded programs end up being tremendously wasteful and/or inefficient as compared with equivalent programs in the private sector. Bush apparently has noticed this ("Hey, they're doing a better job that we are using less dollars!") and has decided that it will be easier to steer funding toward such groups than to try to change the bureaucracy. As I said, I'm not saying that I think this is the best idea. I'd much rather just dump the bureaucracy.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Markel

Originally posted by pennypinch
I'm not trying to attack faith based organizations, just the perception that they're in some way inherently better. As TLG states above, once you get into the business of excluding groups from public funding based on belief, you get led down the primrose path.

What I'm trying to point out is that so many government-funded programs end up being tremendously wasteful and/or inefficient as compared with equivalent programs in the private sector. Bush apparently has noticed this ("Hey, they're doing a better job that we are using less dollars!") and has decided that it will be easier to steer funding toward such groups than to try to change the bureaucracy. As I said, I'm not saying that I think this is the best idea. I'd much rather just dump the bureaucracy.

I think the only people who are in favour of the beuracracy are...well, the beuracracy!

I support a slimming of the government, but the way he's going about it is both discriminatory and without a bright line as to who gets it and who doesn't. And who is going to be able to be the arbiter of who's inherently worthy of the funding and who is not? Given an equal ability to implement idential programs, why should a church group get funding that, say, a gay group cannot?

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Markel

Originally posted by pennypinch
I'm not trying to attack faith based organizations, just the perception that they're in some way inherently better. As TLG states above, once you get into the business of excluding groups from public funding based on belief, you get led down the primrose path.

What I'm trying to point out is that so many government-funded programs end up being tremendously wasteful and/or inefficient as compared with equivalent programs in the private sector. Bush apparently has noticed this ("Hey, they're doing a better job that we are using less dollars!")

Again, how can you tell that faith based groups in any way better when they can pick and choose who they want to include? I don't doubt that the private sector can do better; I just question why he's singling out one section of the private sector.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Markel

What I'm trying to point out is that so many government-funded programs end up being tremendously wasteful and/or inefficient as compared with equivalent programs in the private sector. Bush apparently has noticed this ("Hey, they're doing a better job that we are using less dollars!") and has decided that it will be easier to steer funding toward such groups than to try to change the bureaucracy. As I said, I'm not saying that I think this is the best idea. I'd much rather just dump the bureaucracy.

trust me - as soon as a "private sector" organization gets its grubby hands on govt money, it will waste that money just as efficiently as any govt program.

i think it's great that religious organizations want to do good things. but here are some problems:

CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE: the catholic church is one big goddamned corporation that just happens to not have to pay taxes. when they take over health care, bad things happen. in many rural areas in the country, a catholic-owned hospital is the ONLY option for health care within 50 miles (or more!) when the church takes over a hospital, it very quietly stops offering not only abortion services, but also birth control - no pills, no tubal ligations, no vasectomies. too bad for you. now, in some areas, there are govt funded "women's health clinics" that will pick up the slack for the women, thank god, but men who want vasectomies are sol, period.

okay, now let's say we are going to give money to religious-run shelters for abused women. i can see where a bunch of bible beaters would subtly discourage certain women from taking advantage of their services - like unwed moms, or pregnant teens. i can see where they might put some religion-fired pressure on bruised up women to get back in there and make their marriages WORK, dammit, cause that's what god would want.

now, let's say that a religious-run homeless shelter just happens to have prayer meetings three times a day. no one is required to attend. fine. and yet, those who do attend are probably going to get more warm fuzzies from the people who run the place. those who do not attend are going to feel alienated. its the same deal with prayer in school. i have nothing against people praying in front of my heathen kid, any time, any place. however, i DO have a problem with prayer that is emphatically endorsed by what is supposed to be a non-religious entity, such that my kid has to take pains to exclude himself from such activities and is forced to either pray, pretend to pray, or make a spectacle of himself. (ie, a kid who wants to pray before eating lunch in the cafeteria has every right to do so, and i would fight for that right. but when a TEACHER says, okay, class, moment of silence, everyone bow your heads and close your eyes and pray to jesus or allah, or just go sit in the corner while everybody else prays, that becomes a bit of a problem.) it's the same thing.

yes, they can say that they would follow all laws and never, ever discriminate against anyone for any reason. bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. they would probably stop short of flat-out denying services to people of whom they disapproved, but i have a hard time believing that they would not discriminate with some degree of subtlety.

welfare hath spoken, hallelujah.

[mojo]

"In the coming weeks we will once again be able to see George Bush's true colors as a bigot and a moron."

oh, we see true colors all right. dunno if they have to do with gw bush, tho

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by mojorisin
"In the coming weeks we will once again be able to see George Bush's true colors as a bigot and a moron."

oh, we see true colors all right. dunno if they have to do with gw bush, tho

just because tlg is paranoid doesn't meant they're not out to get him...

[\/\/|ZarD]

It is a big problem when dealing with Faith Based giving. The constitution of the US is very strong in stating that there is a definate seperation of Church and State. This is not a Bush problem, or a Republican Idea. The point is Don't EVER GIVE government money to a Religious institution.

[sbp]

Aren't private non-religous groups getting government money now? And aren't there a few private non-religous groups being excluded from getting taxpayer money now?

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by \/\/|ZarD
It is a big problem when dealing with Faith Based giving. The constitution of the US is very strong in stating that there is a definate seperation of Church and State. This is not a Bush problem, or a Republican Idea. The point is Don't EVER GIVE government money to a Religious institution.

Actually, there is nothing EXPLICITLY stating the seperation of church and state. The doctrine was largely culled from letters between...oh, Christ, I can't remember who. Two founding fathers...

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by sbp
Aren't private non-religous groups getting government money now? And aren't there a few private non-religous groups being excluded from getting taxpayer money now?

Of course there are. But funding a particular system of beliefs is an implicit endorsement of that belief. I think we're all sensitive to the quagmire that becomes!

Whether there's you believe in a god or not, I think everyone can agree that on the basis of fairness, the country should not have a federally-sanction church. The country is so widely divided in its beliefs that giving money to these organizations to, let's face it, promote their system of belief would be, while not technically unconstitutional, highly unconscianable...holy crap, I've totally lost my ability to spell today.

'Course, you could argue, what if the country gives money to all different types of groups. Two problems: where does it end? Do the Branch Davidians get some? How about "radical" Muslim sects, especially those who advocate the anti-semitic jihads? Are their beliefs not just as valid as the belief in a god that more than half the world believes does not exists?

And then you run into the question of funding some more than others. What happens when two equally sized organizations, one Christian, one Muslim, receive different levels of funding? How is that explained away?

[pennypinch]

As you caln tell from the above two posts, I worked more than 20 hours this weekend, so the spelling and memory portions of the brain are properly dulled. The Fast and the Furious sure as hell did not help.

[TheLoneGunman]

I asked some very specific questions in my first post. Unfortunately most have not been addressed and instead people were talking about the generalities of the issue.

1. What if a "church" that support adult/child sex began running a summer camp that competed with the Boy/Girl scout camps? Should they get funding? In fact, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the Boy Scouts because they discriminated against gays. Man/Boy Love Camp wouldn't do this. (they love boys of all types). Therefore, they would have to be funded.

2. Can the Church of Satan be paid to spread the good word and uplift (or do they downlift) the souls of the less fortunate? Perhaps they could run a job training facility and teach their own brand of morals to the participants

3. Can the Church of Marijuana spread its message (and brownies) just as the Catholic Church does with the sacraments?

4. Would a Jew or a Buddhist in an Evangelical Christian shelter feel more uncomfortable than if they were in a Red Cross shelter? If so, why change the status quo?

[topane]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
1. What if a "church" that support adult/child sex began running a summer camp that competed with the Boy/Girl scout camps? Should they get funding? In fact, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the Boy Scouts because they discriminated against gays. Man/Boy Love Camp wouldn't do this. (they love boys of all types). Therefore, they would have to be funded.

Do you know of any organizations like this?

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
I asked some very specific questions in my first post. Unfortunately most have not been addressed and instead people were talking about the generalities of the issue.

1. What if a "church" that support adult/child sex began running a summer camp that competed with the Boy/Girl scout camps? Should they get funding? In fact, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the Boy Scouts because they discriminated against gays. Man/Boy Love Camp wouldn't do this. (they love boys of all types). Therefore, they would have to be funded.

2. Can the Church of Satan be paid to spread the good word and uplift (or do they downlift) the souls of the less fortunate? Perhaps they could run a job training facility and teach their own brand of morals to the participants

3. Can the Church of Marijuana spread its message (and brownies) just as the Catholic Church does with the sacraments?

4. Would a Jew or a Buddhist in an Evangelical Christian shelter feel more uncomfortable than if they were in a Red Cross shelter? If so, why change the status quo?

nobody dealt with these because they are silly. nobody would send their kids to the above camp, making it about the mootest point ever. also, last i checked, nambla is not a church.

the church of satan would not be spreading any good, uplifting words, and even if they tried to just for shits and grins, of course they would get no funding because people are scared of satanists.

is there really such a thing as the church of marijuana? if so, right or wrong, of course they would get no $$ cause marijuana is illegal.

4 is a good point. we dealt with it.

[sbp]

Is it fair that some non-religous groups receive government funding and others do not {or get a different level of funding}? Is it right to exclude religous groups from government funding while non-religous groups get government funding? Seems the only fair thing to do would be no government funding of private groups.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by sbp
Is it fair that some non-religous groups receive government funding and others do not {or get a different level of funding}? Is it right to exclude religous groups from government funding while non-religous groups get government funding? Seems the only fair thing to do would be no government funding of private groups.

i agree, but they will get around this issue easily. for the most pary, only major religions will have the resources to pull together "help the less fortunate" efforts. also, even if some small wiccan organization did manage to put together a soup kitchen, the granting agency could just say, well, hmm, we have a limited number of grants, and we're going to give them to the churches that have the biggest programs and thus can do the most good with them... like the christians. and maybe a little for the jews, since they aren't that scary and they tend to vote.

[froggystyle]

first off... I am more frightened of the christian church than I am the church of satan... I do not agree with the church of statans views...they are very selfish and self oriented, However at least they dont force their views on others thats what frightens me. When a group of such narrow goals has gained so much clout that they can make moral desisions for all of us...(wal mart, blockbuster)and have so much control fo the govt..(christian coalition has a huge lobby) thats when i get frightened

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
Is it fair that some non-religous groups receive government funding and others do not {or get a different level of funding}? Is it right to exclude religous groups from government funding while non-religous groups get government funding? Seems the only fair thing to do would be no government funding of private groups.

The only legitimate use of public money for private groups is when the government needs to contract out to private institutions to build public works more efficiently. This process should be one of competitive bidding and needs to be ABSOLUTELY OPEN AND VISIBLE to the public. The reason there is so much wasteful spending and government pork is because most of this contracting goes on behind closed doors.

It is right to exclude religious groups because they simply bring to much baggage and ulterior motives to the table. A private non-religious company exists solely to profit. A simple work for money exchange makes sense. A religious group exists primarily to push an ideology on everyone. The government is not supposed to be in the ideology business. The religious groups in question can talk all they want about separating their faith and ideology from their charitable causes. I'm afraid their history of actions in the past does not support their promises.

[sbp]

There are private non-religious non-profit groups.

Unfortunately a good deal of the money being handed out is not for public works.

Since this money is being collected just to redistribute why not just cut out the middle bureaucracy? In this case the government. It would be more efficient to do so. Not to mention people choose what groups they support. Thereby removing any and all concerns about who should get funding and what is supported.

[Edited by sbp on 06-26-2001 at 11:28 AM]

[Grimm]

Oh, I'm sure all the religious organizations will get some money. Don't you get it? The government uses money like a drug! Just like thy do with the highway funds. They start giving out the money, then when you are used to it they start adding little conditions. In the highway fund's case it was emitions and safety features, but there were some other little arm benders in there too (I won't go into them). What will they start to ask the churches to do for them? Don't support any protests against the government or loose funding? Declare yourselves anti-choice or lose funding? You know if you take this stance on this issue, it might affect your chances for federal funding next year...
Love of money is the root of all evil. Why are we letting our government tempt our churches with it?

[sbp]

Some religious organizations have expressed concerns that accepting government funding would allow government to intrude upon them. That is why these religious organizations have they will not seek government funding.

[froggystyle]

Thats an interesting stance..see I thought that the religious groups lobby the govt to give them funds...and that it was the religious groups that had to much clout over govt

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by froggystyle
Thats an interesting stance..see I thought that the religious groups lobby the govt to give them funds...and that it was the religious groups that had to much clout over govt

Yeah, it sort of works both ways. Power is fluid, not static.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
There are private non-religious non-profit groups.

Unfortunately a good deal of the money being handed out is not for public works.

Can't argue with you there. That's why I stress the need for public accessibility and review of all govt. contracts.

Since this money is being collected just to redistribute why not just cut out the middle bureaucracy? In this case the government. It would be more efficient to do so. Not to mention people choose what groups they support. Thereby removing any and all concerns about who should get funding and what is supported.

I agree again on this, as far as non-profit charities are concerned. My only counter-argument is that I feel welfare shouldn't be abandoned until we can effectively police the corporations who continually lie, cheat, steal, and break the law and get away with it. Until the the economic playing field is truely fair, we can't fairly eliminate all social spending.

[plutarcho]

Regarding religious schools:

Most Catholic schools have to accept Catholic students regardless of their income, scores, behavior, etc. There are some exceptions. Order schools like Jesuits, Marist, Dominican etc are run by a religious order and can accept whomever they want. Most Catholic schools are run by the Diocese and have to accept all Catholics. So no, Catholic schools do not get to pick and choose the best students, but they still perform better than public schools at a fraction of the costs. Note that most parents who send their kids to parochial schools have to pay some form of tuition (though it is usually pro-rated by income) and all still pay taxes to support your kids in public schools.