Bush Touts Faith-Based Initiative

By Kata Kertesz
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 1, 2004; 12:07 PM

Note from PF Admin: to view this link requires registration with washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun1.html

Is Faith Based Initiative just a way to cut funding? As far as I can tell, FBCI is only a way to allow religious organizations to get grant money. But it seems that 1) Offering grants to religious organizations might be in violation of separation of church and state; 2) Seems like it might be a way to cut funding to other Federally funded safety nets for the poor.

In any case, it looks like it is just another failed program.

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

... By combining Church and State democracy would be virtually finished in this country. I hate religion with a passion.

Your intolerance and ignorance blinds you to what religion has offered society.

Mark, I was unable to read the link. But my ? is: Why can't faith based organizations receive grant money if it is based upon the deed rather than the grantees name or agenda? Environmentalism has strayed into the realm of religion, yet these groups routinely claim non-profit and receive gluts of grant money.

No the government shouldn't, but mine still does. *sigh* And it's not going to change.

Religion has caused the deaths of Billions of people through the history of man (Crusades, most of wars, though greed also falls into play), caused people to live in poverty with out ANY hope (Hinduism), Exploited the minds of most of the populations, allowing clergymen to virtually control Europe for at least a thousand years (Also, the men aboard the planes that struck the twin towers might have had second thoughts if they were not promised paradise and 27 virgins in the after life)
The list goes on, but i'm sure I said this to the wrong crowd, cuz anyone religious already has thier mind made up.

Not 27.... 72.


Get your ideology right.


As for me, I'd hold out for 75.


Call me greedy.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

You know that in the Muslim heaven they promise 72 virgins for you? Well, there really are 72 virgins there, what they don't tell you is that they're all boys.

Nasty surprise.

I am very much for separation of church and state, but I do not have a problem with religious organizations receiving federal money for non-religious acts. The catholic Church is allowed to facilitate adoptions,but only on condition that they allow people of all religions and those who are not religious to adopt. These kinds of programs could be good.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

If the religious organizations are helping the poor and that help is not conditioned on anything, then I don't have a problem with the government giving money to them. In some communities, most of the help available to the poor is from religious organizations.

If, on the other hand, help is conditioned on conversion or some other member building ruse, than I would say no.

I agree, nicely put.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower