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

Check out: www.indepolitics.com

Anything yet or having trouble finding an unblemished program?

This was one of Bush's first policies to push just after he took office.

Basically my interpretation of it is that Bush articulated these points:

• *While there are programs set up to assist the poor in America, the most ably and most motivated organizations set up to do the job is already doing so, that is... religious based organizations.
  
  *These Faith-Based organizations have been denied Federal Funding to do their work in assisting the poor because of a percieved "Separation of Church and State" clause in the Constitution, thus denying the needy a means to be helped.
  
  *The Bush Administration wanted to remove this barrier to helping the needy, as long as certain requirements were met by the organization meeting the poor, such as

• Quote:

  "...so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and overcoming poverty. This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality."

Link to the Executive Order

It has been implemented, and challenged in the Supreme Court from its onset. Each challenge, so far, has been met and overturned by the SC who is upholding the Executive Order. They've ruled that as long as the service (i.e. feeding and clothing, etc..) are held in a separate area of their facility, and the recipients are not required to attend services, they can recieve Federal Funds from the government to support the needy.

Basically, the poor and homeless are getting vital food, clothing, and services they so badly need while organizations such as the ACLU seek to deny them those needs under the guise of "protecting their rights."

Here's a recent article about Popular Misconceptions regarding Faith Based Organizations and the challenges they face in providing for the poor.

Link to the Article

Okay jsh... your turn. Why do you consider this to be a failed policy of the Bush Administration?

Bash away.

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

Check out: www.indepolitics.com

Actually, we knew no such thing. But now we've had four years to measure results and reach a conclusion. Unfortunately, in the midst of all of the instructions included in the various executive orders, it turns out that the Bush administration forgot to require evaluation of organizations that receive government grants. According to a study released by the Pew-funded Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy in August 2004, "while more elaborate scientific studies are underway, the White House has relied on largely anecdotal evidence to support the view that faith-based approaches produce better long-term results." The accountability president has chosen not to direct any money toward figuring out whether faith-based approaches really work.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...2sullivan.html


The Bush administration's faith-based initiative is reaching only a tiny percentage of the nation's black churches, most of which have limited capacity to run social programs, hampering the initiative's promise of empowering those congregations to help the needy, according to a study to be released today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091801121.html



But earlier this year, a federal district court ruled that the religious character of Mentorkids USA, a Christian mentoring program for at-risk youth, was incompatible with government support. The judge decided that the program was unlawfully using its grant to "advance religion." The
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2509


A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has affirmed what many critics of President Bush's faith based initiative have long asserted: too many religious groups that have received government grants have been mixing religious activities with their social work; and the government has not yet established a concrete process to monitor grant recipients to see if they are being effective.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=140



Might want to look harder for a success story this one is fraught with lack of accountability, lack of oversite, constitutional issues and prosltyzing with taxpayer dollars.....all in all a massive failure.

Although in honesty with real oversite to stop graft and the force feeding religious doctrine it could have (possibly) been a worthwhile program. S it stands however it is little more then state sponsored religion and that is against the constitution and the wishes of our founding fathers.

I give it a failing grade.....

Yeah, I have no problem with the concept of FBI -- religious groups should be treated the same (no better, no worse) than nonreligious groups when it comes to receiving federal grants.

But the execution has been less-than-competent. Which is pretty much par for the course with this administration.

Maybe we should have separate grades for the idea and the implementation.

__________________
Man up.

Yeah, one issue with faith-based initiatives... similar to No Child Left Behind... is its underfunding.

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

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

Check out: www.indepolitics.com

I must say, I'm surprised to see the "Faith Based Initiative" policy area being the first one you would cite. It's a program that has been plagued by failure from the beginning. Consider that the first director of the program, Daniel Diluilo, quit as a result of the "Mayberry Machiavellis" in the White House intruding in the program.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AB0994DA404482

Things didn't get better after Diluilo quit. David Kuo quit last year and wrote a book about his experience.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_1.html

Keep in mind that there aren't folks who "prejudged" the Bush administration. They worked for the Bush administration. But like many of those who have left, they agree the policy area in which they worked was a failure.

Of course, expanding the scope of what constitutes "faith based initiatives" uncovers even more problems, principally the Bush administration's requirements that family planning assistance not be provided to organizations that advocate birth control. Then, of course, there are the various "faith based initiatives" designed to undermine scientific inquiry in the Department of the Interior, NOAA, NASA, etc.

But to stick to the narrow definition of "faith based initiatives, the program is plagued by failure of accountability, demonstration of results, etc. as noted above. Add to that the fact that the primary people responsible for it quit in disgust.

I don't think there's anything much more to add.

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

You make me laugh. Really, do you honestly believe that since the Washington Monthly... (who says they're not biased, yet their Mission statement reads)

... in an article published back in 2004 (in case you haven't checked, it's 2007) trumps the Supreme Court?

And then you follow up with this laugh riot... ... which completely misses the fact that even if there were no Bush-led FBInitiative, these "organizations" don't meet Federal standards to qualify for Federal Funds in the first place.

Then, there's this... Which is the lesser court again? Is it federal district court or the Supreme Court? Would you like a map of the judicial system to follow?

So let me get this straight. What you're trying to say is, if there were no criticism by the GAO, then you'd consider it a success... is that about it?

Apparently the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. Don't take it personally, libby.

I'll tell the President that you don't like it. He'll be crushed.

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

Check out: www.indepolitics.com

Let me get this straight. You choose a policy area as an example of a "success." You quote its objectives, but you cite no evidence whatsoever of its success unless you consider that it wasn't immediately found to be unconstitutional to be a "success." The program you cite is plagued by failures, many of which are cited by those responsible for the program, itself.

And when challenged, you retreat again to the claim that there is no such thing as an "unblemished" program. Frankly, I thought you'd abandoned that tack. Apparently not. So let's get specific. Good intentions, especially those provided in press releases are not sufficient to demonstrate success. Surviving a challenge to its legality is not evidence of "success."

Are you sure you should be out there trying to defend the Bush administration?

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918